Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/United States

Mediation of this dispute has been completed. The case pages should not be edited.

To report a problem with the outcome of this case, contact the Mediation Committee.
If additional mediation proceedings are required, a new mediation request should be filed.
These case pages should not be edited, even to correct article content problems. Case pages are not indexed by search engines.

Resolved:

Closed as successful

This mediation case is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this case page.

Where Next

What is the next step? Will a mediator open discussion sections for us? Robert McClenon (talk) 15:35, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Beginning today there is a two week period during which the members of the Committee will consider volunteering to take the case as a mediator. If no member accepts the case during that time, I'll make an effort to contact individual members to solicit their participation. If that does not work — and no member is required to accept a case — then I'll close the case due to no mediator being willing to accept it. If a member does accept the mediation, I'll assign him or her to the case and he or she will use this page to start the mediation and the mediation will take place on this page. The exact sequence and form of the mediation will be up to the discretion of the individual mediator. There should be no discussion of the case on this page or the request page until a mediator is assigned. For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:35, 29 December 2014 (UTC) (chairperson)[reply]

Begin mediation

Participants: Thank you all for your patience. When I first saw this request, I was interested in mediating it, but had too much going on in real life to be able to spend the time it needs. However, I will have some time after this week and would like to assist in facilitating the conversation between the parties—which I understand as my role. Meanwhile, I will ask you each to do some work to prepare, and, hopefully, set this mediation up for success:

If you haven't already done so, please familiarize yourself with the Mediation Committee Policy;
Agree to abide by Good practices for all talk pages used for collaboration, particularly points #1 (deal with content, not the contributor) and #3 (be concise). Also note the graphic in the following section; reproduced here -->
Prepare to collaborate.

My first request is that you write a brief summary of the dispute (no more than 200 words). As an option, you may take an additional 200 words to speak about how your interests may align with those of other participants. In this latter (optional) piece, I'm suggesting that we begin thinking about what the common interests are in this dispute. I'm going to suggest that 200 words be the normal limit for posts in this mediation. I welcome discussion about that, but I think that Shakespeare nailed it when he said "... brevity is the soul of wit." Sunray (talk) 21:51, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@The Four Deuces, Alanscottwalker, Bkonrad, Khajidha, Wzrd1, The Gnome, and RightCowLeftCoast: Will you be joining this mediation? If so, please make your opening statement. If not, would you be able to let me know your status? Sunray (talk) 17:11, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Wzrd1, The Gnome, and RightCowLeftCoast: Would you be able to make your opening statement by 23:59 UTC, January 21? Let me know on my talk page if you will not be participating, or if you need more time for your opening statement. In any case, I want to proceed no later than January 22nd. Note that Khajidha has advised me that he will be withdrawing from the mediation. Sunray (talk) 20:48, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Questions about the process

[Copied from Sunray's talk page]
In your instructions, you mentioned "As an option, you may take an additional 200 words to speak about how your interests may align with those of other participants." Initially I placed an entry within one editor's "statement" section, but then removed it. Where does it belong? In a discussion section below Statements? In addition, I agree with Golbez in three respects, but have questions/reservations about his conclusions, which he could answer with sources/references. How do I make those known? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:46, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Some thoughts: 1) Participants should probably address questions to the mediator on the mediation talk page. 2) The intention of my suggestion about interests was to look for "how your interests my align with those of other participants." The idea here is to begin to look at shared interests. In conflict we tend to focus on differences not commonalities. To get resolution, it is often productive to look for common interests. 3) Yes we should have a discussion section, but let's hold off until participants have all had a chance to make their statements. As to references, it might be a good idea to have a sub-page for reliable sources. Would you be willing to set that up? Sunray (talk) 06:28, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, this is my first mediation, I am unsure how to proceed, I thought it would be more efficient to ask procedural questions here, but I guess the whole section could be transferred to the mediation page. I would like to contribute, but I am on the wrong side of the "digital divide" here I'm afraid, --- I could set up a sub-section for reliable sources on the mediation page? Thanks for your patience. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:54, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@TheVirginiaHistorian: Regarding your comment about how to proceed: I asked for an opening statement of 200 words and an optional additional 200 word statement about interests that you share with other participants. You have added about 1,000 words below. I would like things to be equitable and I would have difficulty reading 1,000 words from each participant (11 X 1,000 = 11K). Would you be willing to condense your statements below into 200 words? You may replace the existing statements with one of 200. I don't want to respond to participants' comments with "TLDR." Sunray (talk) 17:50, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To begin. Personally, I think it would be fine for you to stop reading after 200 words for each presentation (you can always go back and read more if it becomes needed). Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:36, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

With due respect, TheVirginiaHistorian did cover both sides quite well. I'm of the CIA WorldFactBook view.Wzrd1 (talk) 15:07, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree. I wasn't suggesting that TheVirginiaHistorian change the tenor of his comment, only that he make it shorter. Sunray (talk) 20:22, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a little confused as to what is the current step? We presented our initial short statements, but now several people are starting to have literally the same argument that's been had for years, just here instead of the talk page. --Golbez (talk) 18:50, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, one of the difficulties with having many participants is that the people who have already commented want to continue. What we might do is make an agreement that certain participants can speak on behalf of less active participants. In other words, participants could nominate spokespersons. Some arrangement along those lines would make things go faster. Would someone like to make a proposal? Sunray (talk) 20:22, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Sunray - User:Golbez has a good question. Mediator: What is the next step? Robert McClenon (talk) 19:09, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was waiting for all participants to make an opening statement. When that is done, I will pose some questions to participants. Perhaps I will give a deadline to participants to complete opening statements. Sunray (talk) 20:22, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, we try consensus and it turns to dogshit, we do what? Do we edit war? Do we find those who quit editing, and win by forfeit? Do we seek remediation, as our previous efforts have failed? That is where we are today. Want to know the worst part? I'm not really "hung" upon any viewpoint and would welcome "foreign" viewpoints, as well as peer viewpoints. Regardless, it's stupid o'clock here, on my current work schedule, so good night, may the intimate partner not bite so much upon arrival home.Wzrd1 (talk) 19:57, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are you asking what happens if we get consensus here (oh happy day!) but it doesn't hold in the wider Wikipedia world? One way to avoid that would be to initiate an RfC once we are done here and get general buy-in from the WP community. That would then become a relatively stable consensus, capable of being enforced by admins and other editors. Sunray (talk) 20:22, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On the Internet, no one knows that you are being sarcastic. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:54, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I just put it down to the possibility that ~~you~~ he might be tired :) Sunray (talk) 21:01, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Indent error. I meant to address it to Wzrd1, who was tired, and who might be tired of the controversy, but also appeared sarcastic. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:30, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, a bit of sarcastic humor. Something difficult to assess over the internet, as if you can't see my face, you can't turn to stone - err, I mean gauge my humor. Wait, it's both actually. ;) Wzrd1 (talk) 18:20, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Refactoring

The mediator requested that a statement be shortened. I see that, in the process, some of what I had written has ben refactored. While none of the meaning of what I wrote has been changed, some of its emphasis has been changed. I would like reassurance that, in the future, there be no refactoring of other editors' signed comments. (Collaborative editing of article text is a good idea, but signed comments are signed because they are those of one editor.) Where can we go from here? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:09, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Someone actually excised parts of your comment? Unacceptable. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:25, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It was a good-faith shortening of what I said due to another editor's interpretation of the mediator's request to shorten our statements. The "Agreement with" arrangement is confusing. I would like reassurance that, in the future, my signed statements will not be edited by other editors, and that only the mediator can edit, trim, hat, or box anything. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:57, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that we agree to not change the content of each others' comments. I may make requests of participants to consider modifying a statement. They may choose to disagree. I reserve the right to hide lengthy comments or sections if issues have been dealt with. We can also use sub pages for separate issues. I do hope that participants will attempt to follow the 200 word limit. In some cases that may not be possible (hence the need for sub pages or hidden sections). If I find comments too long, I may mark them TLDR, but would prefer not to be in a position to do that. Sunray (talk) 20:39, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statements by participants

Statement by User:Robert McClenon

The basic issue that I see is whether the scope of the United States is primarily defined as the fifty states and the District of Columbia, or primarily as the fifty states, the District of Columbia, and five territories, Puerto Rico, the US Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and the Northern Marianas. This scope issue affects what should appear as the primary values in the infobox, and the ranking of the United States in list, and possibly has other consequences. It is agreed (I think) that the other scope and value should be footnoted wherever it appears. I think that it makes much more sense to include those territories that are for most purposes considered part of the United States. However, I think that it is even more important to get a consensus as to scope that is stable and does not result in future edit-warring. (I would rather have agreement as to an answer that I personally think is "wrong" than argue over what is "right.) There are strong feelings on both sides. An RFC was recently closed with "no consensus". Since one scope has to be primary and one secondary, rather than splitting a difference, it may be a challenge for a mediator to get consensus. Good luck, User:Sunray. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:12, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My position is described at User:Robert McClenon/Scope of United States.

Statement by Golbez

As I see it, the fundamental question is: What is "the United States?" Is it the fifty states and district? Or does it include all the "incorporated" territory? What about the "unincorporated" territories? What about just the inhabited ones? What about American Samoa, which has a unique status?The problem is, no one seems to know. Various experts and government sources use varying definitions and explanations.

But, Wikipedia must still choose one. And we must be consistent. We cannot use one definition for the country in the article on the country, and another definition in the 'list of countries by area', another in 'demographics of the United States', etc. There are dozens of articles a change like this would impact, so the decision must be made with utmost care. And if/when we choose one, we must be careful what other versions we portray. As I pointed out above, there could be a half dozen methods of describing "The United States", so perhaps a single footnote isn't viable. Or maybe it is, depending on which one is the "prime" version.

My personal view is that it's the incorporated territory. I am fine with endorsing another view, if we can have appropriate sourcing. And the debate over this - what sources to use, how to use them, etc. - is what has brought us here today.

Godspeed, Sunray. --Golbez (talk) 04:11, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I must clarify: While I consider the United States to be the incorporated territory, I am absolutely not fighting to include Palmyra Atoll in the figures. It's a tiny curiosity at best. I just want to be sure I'm not misrepresented down below. --Golbez (talk) 19:38, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by TheVirginiaHistorian

U.S. related databases should be taken from current sources with the most comprehensive aggregating of U.S. citizens by the U.S. government. There is no uniform reporting system for U.S. databases, WP should not arbitrarily impose one. Some non-U.S.G. political scientists exclude DC and the 5 major territories, as does Encyclopedia Britannica [13]. But the discussion is related to sourced inclusion of DC and the five major territories reflecting available databases, including them in sovereignty and area [14]; "50 states, DC and Puerto Rico" for NAFTA and customs; "50 states and DC" for population and housing, then footnoting alternate aggregates from sources.

To date, online almanacs (2013) and an unsourced database footnote (2014) have been advanced to support excluding 4 million U.S. citizens from the article as "a part of the United States". We should use sources per wp:psts. Supporting documentation with scholars and government reports, U.S. executive orders, statutes, adjudication, administration include territories— but no modern sources exclude the five major territories, only editor references to "unincorporated" for an internal tax regime. The U.S. government considers the five major territories as within "the contiguous zone of the United States" [15], the WP country article should also. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:09, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I must clarify with sources, under 8 U.S.C. 1402 [16], there is only one national citizenship for Puerto Rico as long as it remains within the sovereignty of the U.S. --- see also [17]. --- Puerto Rico is a territory of the U.S. at the GAO report cited by TFD, noting the "permanent allegiance" of U.S. citizens born there p.9n. [18]. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:50, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

discussion

All persons born in territories subject to the U.S. owe allegiance to the U.S. under common law. One can indeed be a citizen of Puerto Rico but not a citizen of the U.S. Such a person has the right to live in Puerto Rico but not in the U.S. TFD (talk) 02:32, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The only case cited seems to be one where a person renounced US citizenship - there was no doubt in the decision that the person prior to renunciation did, indeed, hold US citizenship. One of the perils of editors citing a primary source is such a misapprehension of what the decision actually states. Cheers. Collect (talk) 05:32, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

TFD offers few sources. A U.S. citizen holds dual citizenship in the nation and in the state or territory of residence, that is the nature of its federal republic. Puerto Rico is a territory of the United States as sourced with a wonderfully complex history. When there are 18,000 cases as TFD describes without sources, the number will have reached one-half of one percent of the total Puerto Rican population. Are we really talking about one individual here? I would like to read the scholarly source.

TFD used to assert Puerto Rican independence along with 3-5% of Puerto Rican plebiscites, without sources. I would like to read TFD sources. One of "independence" sources cited was a Senate hearing testimony by an author who three years later wrote that Puerto Rico was politically "incorporated" into the United States by the 21st century. Last year TFD did find a weekly Cuban newspaper to proclaim Puerto Rican independence. Puerto Rico is a territory of the U.S., as reliably sourced by a reference TFD used on this page, the 1997 GAO report on Insular Areas, see [19], and p.9n. [20]. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:18, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I never asserted the independence of Puerto RIco. I always stated that Puerto Rico was a commonwealth of the United States. However Congress may grant independence to Puerto Rico or any unincorporated territory as they did to the Philippines, while they cannot grant independence to a state or any other part of the U.S. The U.S. has an obligation to recognize the right of self-determination of the people of Puerto Rico.

Citizenship of Puerto Rico differs from citizenship of a state first because all U.S. citizens are citizens "the state wherein they reside" (14th amendment), while residency in Puerto Rico does not bestow citizenship. Furthermore a person who is a citizen of Puerto Rico has a right to reside there, while a citizen of a state has no right to reside there except if they are also U.S. citizens. And no foreign country accepts state citizenship.

TFD (talk) 16:00, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

At last count - the number of "PR citizens who have renounced US citizenship" is minuscule. In fact, PR law is subservient to US law [21] "Judgments of the Supreme Court of Puerto Rico may be appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States" is fairly clear (just as with all state courts, decisions based solely on state law do not get appealed to SCOTUS, of course.) All of which reinforces the PR is part of the US. By the way, the issue of "Hawaiian citizenship" is still moot (in fact, perhaps we should footnote Hawaii?) - as is citizenship of Native Americans. And the famous case of Japanese-American "renunciation of citizenship" which was also interesting - but of trivial significance in the discussion at hand. See also [22] and note that Iroquois do not have a US-Canada border for citizenship. Add in [23]. We could subtract some indeterminate number of Native Americans etc. from the US population <g> but I rather think that would not serve readers. Or we could be simple, use UN agency recognition of what the US is, and be dome with trivia. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:13, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The U.S. fulfills its obligation to recognize the self-determination of the people of Puerto Rico. External self determination is realized with the five Puerto Rican plebiscites endorsing political “union” with the U.S. as does the Puerto Rican Constitution, with 3-5% voting for independence. WP editors are not locked into the Insular Cases era Leninist definition of "self-determination" meaning secession, that is not the modern use of the term, p.137 [24].

Internal self-determination within the United States nation-state is realized in Puerto Rico with mutually agreed to U.S. citizenship, elective three-branch self-governance and participation in the national councils by the territorial Member of Congress. As scholar Antonio Cassese could observe by 1979, "To a very great extent the principle of “external” and “internal” self-determination has already been realized … in the United States …" p. 148. [25] TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:37, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@TheVirginiaHistorian, Collect, The Four Deuces, and Golbez: Can a bonafide country actually be a territory? If P.R. is not a sovereign county it would seem its citizens are that of the United States. Can a citizen of P.R. come to the U.S. mainland and legally work, pay income taxes, etc? Seems only citizens of the U.S. can pay taxes, and if P.R. residents must pay income taxes if they work in the U.S. then P.R. would be a part of the U.S. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:50, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since Puerto Ricans are both American and Puerto Rican citizens, at least since 2007, this complicates the matter more than necessary, and is also specific to Puerto Rico, since American Samoa, Guam, etc. don't have such a provision. Especially since American Samoa is explicitly separate from the other inhabited territories wrt citizenship. --Golbez (talk) 22:15, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How is it more complicated? Citizens of each state are citizens of that state, also. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:23, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

PR considers it different from merely residing in a state. For example, it's only for those born in PR or born to a parent from PR. No state cares about your parentage, ever. PR issues certificates of citizenship; no state, to my knowledge, does that. --Golbez (talk) 04:07, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are there reliable sources regarding PR citizenship and citizenship of other states?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:21, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Puerto Rican citizenship is akin to Kentucky Colonels officially made by Resolution of the State Legislature of Kentucky, commemorated with an official certificate. Although there are earnest neo-Confederates, it is not considered a precursor to secession. When there are 18,000 cases as TFD describes without sources, the number will have reached one-half of one percent of the total Puerto Rican population. Under existing federal law (8 U.S.C. 1402), there is only one nationality or national citizenship for people born in Puerto Rico as long as it remains within the sovereignty of the U.S. The Mari Bras case was an “anomaly”, the oath to renounce privileges of U.S. citizenship is void on voting without a visa. The copy-cat case was rejected administratively by the State Department [26].

At the GAO report cited by TFD. note the "permanent allegiance" of U.S. citizens born there p.9n [27]. Puerto Rico is held to be a territory of the United States by federal court decisions and by current law. For additional sources, see [28]. The Puerto Rican Constitution refers to its "union" with the U.S., the Puerto Rican status referendum, 2012 was 5% for independence, a 61% majority for statehood. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 06:10, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Collect

The purpose of any encyclopedia article is to serve the reader. Where we have international sources (UN agencies, etc.) using the broader definition of the US on a regular basis, it would make precious little sense to tell readers that the US is only the 50 states and DC. And with the official US sources using the more inclusive definition, using a definition which is potentially misleading to readers is a bad idea. The only valid position is that we adhere to the primary purpose of Wikipedia. Collect (talk) 15:54, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Bkonrad

So long as it is clear what the geography and population data represent and that this doesn't introduce avoidable inconsistencies in other articles where similar data is present, I have no strong opinion about which is used. My only caveat is that the language should in no way imply a political status for the territories other than unincorporated. older ≠ wiser 00:46, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Alanscottwalker

The United States article covers United States territory (states/District/territories, inclusive) and United States citizen/nationals - therefore the infobox should be inclusive as possible of those things. I'm willing to go with the states, district and populated territory because the unpopulated territory has no population (let alone citizen/nationals) and almost no area (and the numbers for that tiny area are basically treated as diminimis). The incorporated/unincoporated issue is irrelevant, what's relevant is it is territory/citizens/nationals of the article subject. Well footnoted, of course. Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:08, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Having read the comment below, I wish to expand on the irrelevance issue before we get too far into talking past each other. The comment below uses the term "area" in a hopelessly confusing way: "area" is square units of measurement, that's it and that's all we mean when we use it in an info box (I also doubt the Insular Cases discussed square units of measurement (area), at all, and certainly not for 2015, as the cases were over a century ago.) As for citizenship, it is undisputed that the United States State Department and other departments of the federal governments (by law) claim the populations of these places as citizens/nationals of the United States of America. As for the Constitution, it is hopefully undisputed that the constitution fundamentally applies in these territories: by its text (the territorial clause); and because the courts have held that it fundamentally applies. Alanscottwalker (talk) 03:17, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Again commenting on the below, the claim that a constitutional amendment is needed to alienate states, is to my knowledge unsupported; it is my understanding that all that is needed is either a successful rebellion or consent (or both) but how that consent is given is not limited to a constitutional amendment. (Again this is all irrelevant, but if we are forced to discuss it at all, lets show where this claim is directly supported). The importation of these esoteric legal/political issues into plain statistical numbers, such as, pop. 343,000,000 and 767,000,000 sq. miles is unhelpful, bizarre (in my view), as well as irrelevant (note:numbers made up) Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:10, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by the Four Deuces

The area of the United States is considered by the U.S. government, Congress and the Supreme Court to include incorporated areas, i.e., the 50 states and D.C. That is based on the Insular Cases that detemined that areas become incorporated into the U.S. when Congress legislates. In addition the U.S. has overseas territories which have not been incorporated.

The U.S. constitution extends in full into incorporated areas but not unincorporated territories, although Congress may and has enacted legislation to ensure that residents of uniconporated territories have the same rights and privileges as residents of the U.S. Specifically, Congress has the right to dispose of unincorporated territories, while only a constitutional amendment may remove an incorporated territory from the U.S. Jury trials and birthright citizenship are not rights of residents of unincorporated territories - for example people born in American Samoa are not U.S. citizens unless one parent is, which is the case of the children of U.S. citizens born anywhere in the world.

Furthermore inhabited unicorporated territories, unlike states of the U.S., have an albeit limited international personality, and participate in international organizations such as UNESCO, and Puerto Rico has its own citizenship.

Internationally, three of the unincorporated territories are recognized as non-self-governing territories and two are recognized as commonwealths in association with the United States. The U.S. has agreed to respect the self-determination of all these territories.

Some writers argue that the U.S. is not a federal republic but an empire and includes these territories under subjugation. While I do not object to mentioning that minority view, it should not stated as fact.

For other countries, Wikipedia articles do not claim that unincorporated territories are part of them. For example, the article on the UK does not say that the British Virgin Islands are part of the UK, although like the U.S. Virgin Islands they are recognized as non-self-governing territories.

TFD (talk) 03:01, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Palmyra - this territory is too miniscule for sources to mention usually. A report by the General Accounting Office, pp. 10, 46, says the law is not settled, but they would probably be part of the U.S., unlike all the other overseas territories.[29] TFD (talk) 03:26, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by The Gnome

There is no single meaning in the geographical term "United States of America", because it is used in many different ways. Accordingly, there is no single figure for the "area covered by the U.S." Editors in this dispute are simply trying to impose the meaning that seems more prevalent to them. Moreover, the infobox, being short and concise by definition, imposes a procrustean attitude to the process. It is evident, at least to me, that all the relevant information should be included in the article, each area listed independently and the whole cumulatively. The infobox should include only one figure, explicitly stating which version's area is presented and a note should be inserted with an appropriate heads-up about the other versions. It matters little, in this context, which one would appear in the infobox.

The issue of context: The Commonwealth of Puerto Rico "has no representation in the Electoral College that ultimately chooses the U.S. president and vice president." However, citizens of insular areas, such as Puerto Rico, "pay ... Social Security and Medicare taxes." In addition to this, the Wikipedia entry on the unincorporated territories of the United States cites a number of cases showing that "the act of incorporation is on the people of the territory, not on the territory per se." Finally, the most "official document" of any nation's government as regards legal definitions is the law itself of that nation. 8 U.S Code § 1101(a)(38) provides the following: "The term “United States”, except as otherwise specifically herein provided, when used in a geographical sense, means the continental United States, Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, Guam, the Virgin Islands of the United States, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands." (Emphasis added.) Wake Island, for instance, is ostensibly in the CIA factbook but cannot be found in the aforementioned US Code.

It should be obvious that, at the very least, full clarification should be made for every figure quoted in the Wikipedia entry regarding a geographical area.

Discussion

This section is for discussion about content. Sunray (talk) 20:39, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Robert McClenon and Collect

No one needs to be “right” or “wrong”, we just need to agree to follow the sources in each instance. The general reader as well as the international reader is best served reporting the United States as a "sole person" in international affairs, as POTUS is Head of State for 50 states, DC and five major territories.

The U.S. is sovereign over 50 states, DC and the five major territories with U.S. citizens and nationals as permanent residents permanently loyal to the U.S., p. 1, 9 [30]. The U.S. Government defines them within "the contiguous zone of the United States" [31], "the US now consists of" the five major territories. p. 7, 77, 101 [32], and they are "parts of the United States" [33]. Scholars say they are "part of the United States" [34], and "At present, the US includes” them. p.231-232 [35]. These are a part of the U.S. by external self-determination (3-5% for independence in various referendums 1950-2012), and they exercise internal self-determination within political union with the U.S. without regard to creed, color or race, p.1-2 [36], by local governance of organic acts and constitutions, territorial Members of Congress and preservation of local customs. p. 148. [37]. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 17:31, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with TheVirginiaHistorian

The inclusion of the five major territories is a far better definition of the United States than including only the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and Palmyra Atoll. The concept of "incorporated territories" is highly technical and counter-intuitive, having to do only with certain aspects of taxation. The term "incorporated" in fact literally misleading because four of the five major "unincorporated" territories are "organized territories", which are "incorporated" in the usual sense that they are bodies corporate for governmental purposes in the same sense as Americans refer to an incorporated town (one with a charter providing for a mayor and a council or some similar town government), while Palmyra Atoll does not have an incorporated territorial government. The United States should be defined, for area purposes, for population purposes, and other purposes, as consisting of the fifty states, the District of Columbia, and the five major territories. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:26, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As a part of good faith mediation process, this is a thread to explain how editors agree with TheVirginianHistorian, otherwise it is disruption.

Golbez would not include judicially “incorporated” Palmyra Atoll, nor would TFD, they agree with TVH there, though again without sources. Although Palmayra Atoll is a part of the judicial "incorporation" doctrine, they seem to be relying on TVH sources [38] which include only the five major territories as a part of the United States, not the uninhabited places.

TFD tentatively appears to agree with TVH and The Gnome that the Immigration and Naturalization Act noting permanent allegiance of the five major territories U.S. citizens/nationals is a reliable source. It is referenced in TFDs statement source as authoritative in the 1997 GAO Report on the Insular Areas [39]. But then he seems to contradict his own source without sources in the “American Samoa” section. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 17:19, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your TVA source distinguishes between the United States of America and overseas territories. It does however provide stats for both. No reason why we cannot do the same. The immigration act excludes American Samoa as part of the U.S. for the purposes of the act. Notice too that "for purposes of this act" does not mean for purposes other than this act. Instead of using primary sources that do not even attempt to define the limits of the U.S. please use secondary sources that actually do so. TFD (talk) 03:07, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, we should provide stats for both, consolidated as the sources report them together. The Immigration and Naturalization Act (INA) includes American Samoa, it does NOT exclude nationals from being a part of the United States. Aliens are excluded from being a part of the United States, "3) The term “alien” means any person not a citizen or national of the United States". (22) The term “national of the United States” means ... (B) a person who, though not a citizen of the United States, owes permanent allegiance to the United States." That includes American Samoa. [40].

Scholars say the five major territories are "part of the United States" [41], and "At present, the US includes” them. p.231-232 [42]. How is it that you can find no scholarship to exclude the five major territories in the 21st century. At least we could then say in some sources they are included, in some sources they are excluded, and explain the different applications. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:10, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Extension of the U.S. constitution to external territories

It is not just certain areas of taxation, but whether the Constitution applies in full. For example, Congress could sell an unincorporated territory, they cannot sell a state. The parts of the Constitution that do apply also apply to Guantanamo Bay, which is part of Cuba. TFD (talk) 16:29, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Even given the judicial incorporated/unincorporated doctrine, territories previous to the doctrine never had all provisions of the Constitution relating to State privileges extended to territories until statehood, yet the territories of the U.S. were considered “a part of the United States". Sources show judicially “unincorporated” territories are “a part of the United States” in the 21st century.

Besides, in the case of once “unincorporated” Puerto Rico, A 1922 Supreme Court case ruling on a 1917 organic act for Puerto Rico was superseded in 1952; the Puerto Rican Constitution declares "our union with the United States" [43], and approved by Congress, p.10[44]. Additional constitutional provisions have been extended by both federal courts and Congress since then [45]. This has been evolving legislation p.28 [46]. As legal scholars Lawson and Sloane conclude, “Regardless of how Puerto Rico looked in 1901 when the Insular Cases were decided or in 1922, today, Puerto Rico seems to be the paradigm of an incorporated territory as modern jurisprudence understands that legal term of art.” p. 1175 [47].

With regard to the Guantanamo Bay straw man, Congress and the President have specifically disclaimed the sort of territorial jurisdiction they asserted in Puerto Rico at Boumediene v. United States, Guantanamo is leased from the sovereign nation of Cuba. Guantanamo is not reported as one of the Insular Territories which are a part of the United States, "the five major territories" is the subject under discussion. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 15:16, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Incorporated territories do not have the same powers as states because the Constitution does not provide them with those powers. But all individuals in the territories have the same constitutionally protected rights as people in the U.S. Speaking of strawmen, the U.S. government indeed argued they had no jurisdiction over Guantanamo Bay - and lost. People in Guantanamo Bay have the same constitutionally protected rights as people in any other U.S. overseas territory. I guess you could call it one of the latest insular cases. TFD (talk) 06:31, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Under the Territorial Clause, Congress expands the provisions of the Constitution to its territories, which are a part of the United States, until they are constitutionally evolved to incorporated in this regard, as is Puerto Rico, as sourced. You have no sources to support your interpretation nor to classify Guantanamo a part of the United States, the place is not included in U.S. census data reported by the same metrics as states. We are asked to participate with sourced discussion on the scope of the U.S., not unsourced contradiction.

Places which are sourced to be a part of the United States in non-state places have permanent residents, with permanent allegiance to the United States, and a delegate Member of Congress --- as does DC, Puerto Rico, U.S. Virgin Islands, Northern Mariana Islands, Guam and American Samoa, --- the places under sourced discussion. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:00, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Seems there is consensus the the Constitution fundamentally applies to US places, so Constitutional issues are eliminated with respect to statistics exclusion (even were the Constitution relevant to statistics). Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:43, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As explained by the General Accounting Office, U.S. Insular Areas: Application of the U.S. Constitution, p. 23, "[t]he Constitution does dot apply in its entirety to territories soley by virtue of the fact those territories have come under the possession and control of the United States."[48] Fundamental rights however do apply. It is considered that the Constitution does apply in its entirety to Palmyra (p.47). Boumediene v. Bush (2008) determined that fundamental rights also extended to Guantanamo Bay. So if your test is that the "Constitution fundamentally applies", then you need to include Guanatanamo Bay as well as the the unorganized unincorporated territories. TFD (talk) 15:39, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No. There is no constitutional test for statistics, so it is plainly irrelevant -- it's just that arguing to exclude statistics on the basis of the constitution when the constitution fundamentally applies to territories has no basis, except in OR. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:23, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My test for becoming a part of the United States is not merely the “Constitution fundamentally applies” — it is that fundamental constitutional provisions are expanded by both courts and Congress in the evolution of political incorporation based on mutual political union. And of course, reliable sources reporting the place as a part of the U.S.

This evolution includes citizenship, the franchise in self-governance, and delegate Members of Congress — which the Insular Cases were not prepared to award unilaterally on acquisition of an "alien people", and which have not been obtained by Guantanamo detainees to date, nor is Guantanamo in our data bases. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 17:46, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I get that but it's still beside the point. You both agree that the constitution applies in some way, and that congress has extended further various protections/requirements to/on the populated Islands - because Congress has that power under the territorial clause - you both won't agree on all the details of constitutional law but (but of course as editorial issues are not constitutional questions) you don't have to - we are discussing statistics, here. Alanscottwalker (talk)

Congress has not extended any further protections to people who happen to be in Palmyra but the full constitution of the U.S. extends there regardless. Because the United States government must obey the constitution in full everywhere in the U.S. regardless of Congress. The U.S. must also respect fundamental rights of all persons under its jurisdiction, including areas with no permanent population such as Guantanamo Bay. TFD (talk) 04:39, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your unsourced OR constitutional standard, the full provisions of the Constitution — is not required for all parts of the United States, — it is required for all states. The full provisions are not applicable in non-state DC with Article I federal courts under direct Congressional jurisdiction. But it is a part of the U.S. federal republic because U.S. citizens/nationals enfranchised in self-governance have a delegate Member of Congress as do the five major territories.

The Territorial Clause of the constitution has allowed Congress to extend provisions of the Constitution incrementally, such as citizenship and enfranchisement in the territories historically, even before the judicial incorporation doctrine. Congress now evolves political incorporation until statehood. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:01, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The U.S. Constitution applies in full to D.C. not because Congress has decided to extend rights that the Constitution mandates to areas in the U.S. but because D.C. is in the U.S. Do you have any sources that present your interpretation? TFD (talk) 17:14, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have no source for this extension-of-the-entire-constitution criteria for including as a part of the U.S., which of course does not apply to DC -- its license plates now read, "no taxation without representation". It is common knowledge that DC had no vote for president until the XXIII Constitutional Amendment in 1961 and no representation in Congress until 1972's delegate Member of Congress. All six non-state inhabited territories now have delegate Members of Congress to participate in the U.S. federal republic, DC and the five major insular territories.

The federal courts in DC are Article I courts created by Congressional authority which still holds a veto over legislation as in the case of other non-state territories. Extension of the Constitution in the territories is incremental and evolutionary as we have discussed from the historical record in Levinson and Sparrow (eds.) "The Louisiana Purchase and American Expansion, 1803-1898", which you read into before by online excerpts, without counter-source. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 19:13, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Golbez

The definition of the United States should be the same for area, for population, and for other metrics. While limiting either the area or the population of the United States to the fifty states, the District of Columbia, and Palmyra Atoll is wrong, using different definitions of scope for different metrics would be even more wrong. I may be persuaded to agree with the wrong definition of excluding the five territories if there is a good reason; but I definitely will not agree to any inconsistent definition. Robert McClenon (talk) 12:26 pm, 19 January 2015, last Monday (2 days ago) (UTC−5)

Are you [TVH] saying that the area should be given as including the territories, but the population should not? --Golbez (talk) 11:42 am, 19 January 2015, last Monday (2 days ago) (UTC−5)

No, the area should reflect the sourced total in area including the five major territories, and footnote the ’50/DC’ for continuity. To accommodate your preference, the population can be reported as ’50/DC’ with the five major territories footnoted.

We should use data bases reporting the Total area, population, etc., as editors source their figures to include the five major territories wherever they can. There seems to be a WP prohibition against synthesis beyond sourced reporting, but no prohibition from reporting the most current, comprehensive information available as reliably sourced on any subject.

As of August, 2010, the “State and other areas” Total for the United States is 3,805,927 Sq. Mi. as reported by the U.S. Census Bureau [49], which includes 50 states, DC and the five major territories as sourced, it does not include the nine uninhabited territories, it does not include "incorporated" Palmyra Atoll, it does not include the navy base at Guantanamo. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 20:33, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Robert McClenon, TheVirginiaHistorian (TVH), and Collect

As Wikipedians, while we may have our own opinion regarding many subjects we edit, and that may affect what we are interested in, verifiablility and neutrality should be our watch words. In this case, we have different reliable sources giving different definitions on the same subject. The question is how can we give more weight to the definition most often used, while not showing a geographical/political source bias (this the globalize template exist, and why it is important to look at sources an individual editor may not agree with politically). Internally, within the United States, the everyday American probably does not think of the District of Columbia or the five major territories of the United States (and its minor outlying islands/possessions), when they say the/these United States; externally, it maybe the case that when non-Americans speak of the United States, they do not differentiate the United States individual parts, and think of all the fifty states, one federal district, five major territories, and its minor outlying islands/posessions, as a single entity. All we can do is confirm which definition is used the most often globally, and use that as a primary definition. Where there are sources that do not use that primary definition in their measurements of say economy, population, land area, etc. we should footnote it. We should also give balance by providing a section which informs the readers of the different definitions used for the subject, while not giving less used definitions UNDUE weight.
Based on the very lengthy discussion/debate that has been occurring on the talk page of the article in question, I have been persuaded by the sources provided by TVH, that the reliable sources use the more inclusive definition internationally, than the exclusive definition often thought of by the majority of the American population in day to day conversation (this is also a population who has difficulty passing its own citizenship test(HuffPo (left leaning U.S. publication), U.S. News & World Report (right leaning U.S. publication)).--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:05, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

American Samoa

The Gnome quotes the immigration and nationality section of the U.S. law as saying that for purposes of that law except where otherwise stated, Puerto Rico, Guam, the U.S.V.I. and the Nortern Mariana Islands are part of the U.S. I notice that American Samoa is not included - does that mean it is not part of the U.S.? TFD (talk) 07:17, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This could signal good faith progress. Does that mean TFD stipulates Puerto Rico, Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands and the Northern Mariana Islands are a part of the U.S.? As that is 98.5% of the Insular Territory population agreed to, that will move along the mediation process, and we can focus on how American Samoa may or may not be a part of the U.S. for the last 1.5%, depending on the varying sources and their applicability to the aspect of the U.S. under consideration. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:44, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Of course not. But I want to know what criteria you are using to include unincorporated territories as part of the U.S. so that we can discuss the validity of those criteria. Are we talking about four territories, five territories, all the territories, or all the territories and Guantanamo Bay? What is the test? Is it that citizenship has been extended or that the Constitution extends in part to these territories? It is hard to have a discussion if your criteria change depending on which territories you choose to include. TFD (talk) 15:38, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, Guantanamo is a "leasehold" - thus not really at issue, and certainly less an issue than the UK owning a piece of Hawaii as "non-embassy lands" (Captain Cook Monument). (Embassies are extraterritorial by international agreement, but not as a land claim otherwise AFAICT). Collect (talk) 16:15, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hong Kong was also a leasehold. The U.S. constitution extends equally to Guantanamo Bay as to every other territory. What are your criteria for including a territory as part of the U.S.? TFD (talk) 16:34, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is a person born in the territory subject to the laws of the United States? Seems to be rule number one. Collect (talk) 16:54, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(from an earlier post on the article talk page - iterated here) If a person born in a place has citizenship as a direct result of where they are born, it is silly to say the place they are born in is not in the country for which citizenship accrued. Collect (talk) 17:06, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The criteria is SOURCED inclusion of modern non-state territories, see statements above. Places which are "a part of the United States" include U.S. citizens/nationals by birth, permanent populations of "native-born" Americans with permanent allegiance to the U.S., under self-governing three-branch republican government by organic acts/constitutions, electing delegate Members of Congress: DC, Puerto Rico, U.S. Virgin Islands, Northern Mariana Islands, Guam and American Samoa.

American Samoans are included as U.S. nationals in the immigration and nationality section of the U.S. law, distinguishing them from aliens of foreign nationalities. But then you knew that from previous discussion. Why wp:cherrypick again here? We are supposed to be determining in mediation whether to define the scope of the U.S. as a) 50 states and DC or b) 50 states, DC and the five major territories, as established in the scope of this mediation for the United States article. You are contradicting without sources, which the mediator has asked us not to do. ---

What does TFD propose, with what sources? I want to discuss this in the top three levels of discussion as the mediator has suggested. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 17:59, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For now, would you all be willing to hold on this discussion? I want to ensure that everyone has had the chance to make their own statement. In mediation, it is important to try to hear one another and consider various points of view. Sunray (talk) 20:24, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Outline of the mediation process

We have just about completed Stage 1 of four stages of a mediation: Initiating. I'm impressed with the way you folks are able to conduct yourselves. It bodes well. You have established a collaborative tone and you all seem ready and willing to proceed. Eight of you have made opening statements. I figure that we can go ahead, subject to the groundrules specified above (deal with content, not the contributor; be concise; collaborate). Would you be able to indicate your agreement with this?

Agreement

#

TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:41, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Robert McClenon (talk) 12:37, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You may take my initial agreement for any process you would like from here on out. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:29, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I will lay low, but continue to follow this discussion. If there is something useful I think that can be interjected into the discussion/debate, I will do so at that time.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:51, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
TFD (talk) 06:17, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Collect (talk) 14:49, 25 January 2015 (UTC) pro forma[reply]

Below are the other three stages. In the next stage, framing, I will try to help participants to identify the issues. I will have some questions (hopefully beginning on Jan 23). Ideally all participants will work on identifying the issues together. Sunray (talk)

1. Initiating

Stage completed. Sunray (talk) 20:37, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2. Framing

In this stage of the mediation I hope that we will:

Use non-blaming, collaborative language
Focus on issues not positions
Depersonalize: focus on content, not the contributor.

Note that participants are welcome to start identifying the issues at any time, beginning now. Sunray (talk)

Identification of issues

Based on the above discussion, let us now agree on the key issues to be dealt with in this mediation. Would participants be able to suggest modifications to the following question and list? The intent is to come up with an agreed on list of issues (no more than, say, five or six core issues, though there may be sub-issues). Sunray (talk) 20:31, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Question to be addressed: Whether the article should state that the U.S. comprises either: a) 50 states and D.C., or b) 50 states, D.C. and overseas territories, or c) 50 states, D.C. and some of its overseas territories.

1. Alternate language proposal. In the discussion of U.S. territory, we should use the U.S. term, “insular territories” instead of "overseas territories", as sourced at the GAO Report both sides have cited, the 1997 “U.S. Insular Areas: Application of the U.S. Constitution” [50]. English overseas territories have no Member of Parliament of any description, and are not considered a part of that union according to British Overseas Territories. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:58, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone disagree with this proposed change to the wording of the question? Sunray (talk) 16:58, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Issues

Determining the sources to be used describe the component parts of the United States of America in accordance with WP core content policies (WP:OR, WP:VER, WP:NPOV).
Determining what figure best helps Wikipedia readers?
Drafting a statement as to the component parts of the United States to be included in the article.
Developing a footnote to the foregoing statement that describes the issues and sources used.
Agreeing on a means of consulting with the wider community about the agreed on statement and footnote.

3. Exploring

This is often the breakthrough stage. If things are progressing, it is likely that we will:

Clarify assumptions and perceptions
Look for underlying interests
Use active listening (reading) skills
Deal with content, emotion and process

4. Closure

One definition of collaboration is: " the action of working with someone to produce or create something." It may be way to soon to begin working on solutions, but this section could stay at the bottom of the page for when we are ready to begin work on crafting a solution. If (when) we get to this stage of the mediation we will:

Brainstorm options that meet everyone's interests
Form specific agreements
Check that agreements feel right for participants, meet WP policy, and are ready to be tested in the wider WP community.

We will be ready for this stage when participants are able to work together to produce something that will take into account the views of other parties, that everyone can live with. Sunray (talk) 00:34, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Work on issues

I have moved the discussion to this new section; leaving the outline and issue identification intact above. Note that discussion of the wording of the issues can still be entertained above. However, as TVH and Collect were prepared to begin working on the issues, I've tried to allow for that as well. I will endeavor to keep the sections as clear as possible (through occasional reformatting) for ease of reading for participants who are less active. Sunray (talk) 23:51, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Metrics do not conform to one consistent standard. But all WP contributions can be referenced to reliable sources. Where there is more than one scope, the most comprehensive of 50 states, DC and the five major territories should be used as the contiguous zone of the United States [51], such as Total "states and other areas" which includes all five major territories [52]. For instance, trade statistics from the U.S. Census Bureau and others using that data reflect "the movement of goods between foreign countries and the 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands..." without Northern Mariana Islands, Guam and American Samoa [53].

WP editors should NOT try to synthesize a report of trade statistics for only 50 states and and DC, --- inventing their own metric by WP:OR to omit trade to Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands from total figures as reported from the U.S. Census Bureau. The sources should be reported with references to illustrate the narrative text, "the U.S. conducts international trade". Footnotes can identify various aggregations of the U.S. in its 50 states, DC and five major territories, as they are used in each data base. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:02, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is this the issue: Need to ensure that we refer to, and conform with, core WP polices on content such as WP:OR and WP:VER? Sunray (talk) 00:02, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think the issue is whether the article should state that the U.S. consists of 50 states and D.C. and has overseas territories or whether it consistent of the 50 states, D.C. and some or all of its overseas territories. The other issue is which sources we should use to determine this. If it is determined that not all the territories are part of the U.S., there is no reason not to mention information about them so long as we do not assert they are part of the U.S. TFD (talk) 06:25, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
To have a reasonable discussion between the alternatives presented, SOME source should be presented which says in the time since 1990, "the five major territories are not a part of the United States". — We have scholars and U.S. government sources reporting they ARE a part of the U.S., but none have surfaced to exclude them.

Editors have previously advanced the unsourced OR argument that only the Supreme Court can incorporate the islander populations. But they are no longer “aliens” according to the Immigration and Naturalization Act by Congress, not the Supreme Court. What was politically “dangerous” to the nation in the early 1900s Insular Cases is no longer.
The Insular Cases say the political question of citizenship and enfranchisement is left to Congress. NO source claims Congress has not mutually made their populations citizens/nationals with enfranchised self-governance and delegate Members of Congress in the 21st century. And some note the Congressional policy of evolutionary extension of privileges and constitutional guarantees has politically “incorporated” Puerto Rico. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:35, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is WP:PSTS, use (or non-use) of primary, secondary and tertiary sources. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:35, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I know it is fun to parse century old case law, but I am unsure any reader really will care - they seek accurate current information, and to that end the only issue I find is: What does a reader expect to find? Readers do not expect, in my experience, to find abstruse discussions about the legal history of a nation, or whether the Northwest Territory was a "single territory" or actually already parts of the states which then gave territory which was already part of the United States to the new territory or not (noting Connecticut still had a piece of that territory long after everyone forgot about it - not only the cession of the Western Reserve to Ohio, but a tiny sliver found hundreds of years later due to surveying errors - the border between the Carolinas is finally being settled now) . Neat facts - but of de minimis value in a general encyclopedia. Therefore our only task ought to be "What source is of the best current value to the readers we expect to find?" Collect (talk) 15:02, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Collect is correct. In short, we are called to pick a sourced number that best editorially suits the article reader's need for information on square units. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:40, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly readers expect to find information about areas under U.S. jurisdiction, what they do not expect to find is misinformation about these areas. In an article about the U.K. for example it is informative to say that at one time one quarter of the Earth was under British jurisdiction. It would be misleading to say that at one time the U.K. covered one quarter of the Earth. TFD (talk) 17:53, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Readers expect sourced information to include the five major territories with delegate Members of Congress participating in the U.S. federal republic. 19th century British Empire jurisdiction again without sources to explain how that relates to 21st century U.S. territories, mutually citizens by referendum, enfranchised self-governance and delegate Members of Congress.
Jurisdiction alone does not make a place "a part of the United States" that is a straw man. "Despite widespread popular belief, U.S. military installations abroad and U.S. diplomatic or consular facilities abroad are not part of the United States ...." p.5 [54]. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 18:47, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Issue 1. Sources to be used to describe the component parts of the United States of America.

Sources including the five major territories and nine uninhabited islands

Scholars John Kincaid, Alan Tarr. describe “The United States now encompasses 50 states, a federal district (Washington DC) that serves as the capital, 11 island territories (e.g., Guam and Puerto Rico), and some 600 federally recognized Native American tribes that have the status of “domestic dependent nations”. p.382 [55] TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 17:13, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Scholars Akhtar Majeed, Ronald L. Watts, Douglas Brown. note that "The American federation is composed of fifty states, a federal district (Washington, D.C.), fourteen territories" (five major territories, and nine small islands) and numerous federally recognized Indian tribes. p.296 [56] TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 17:13, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

U.S. Presidential Proclamation, September 2, 1999. found in Sean D. Murphy, “United States Practice in International Law: vol. 1, 1999-2001. Extension of U.S. Contiguous Zone enumerates the five major territories and “any other territory or possession over which the United States exercises sovereignty”.

U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO), [57] U.S. Insular Areas: application of the U.S. Constitution], November 1997. p.9n. The five major territories have U.S. citizens/nationals by birth with “permanent allegiance to the United States” with Constitutional provisions beyond fundamental as extended by Congress and the Courts, including citizenship and the franchise excluded in the Insular Cases. The nine uninhabited islands are also enumerated, eight of which have only “fundamental personal rights under the Constitution”, “no determinative determination has been made” for uninhabited Palmyra Atoll. p.7.

From the statute governing Homeland Security (14) The term ‘‘State’’ means any State of the United States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and any possession of the United States. (16)(A) The term ‘‘United States’’, when used in a geographic sense, means any State of the United States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, any possession of the United States, and any waters within the jurisdiction of the United States [58]. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 15:44, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sources including the five major territories

The five major territories to be included as a part of the United States geographically as enumerated by the preponderance of sources include Puerto Rico, U.S. Virgin Islands, Northern Mariana Islands, Guam and American Samoa. In one source, American Samoa is categorized as the last “overseas possession”. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 19:22, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Scholar Jon M. Van Dyke, in a peer reviewed journal “[59] The evolving legal relationships between the United States and its affiliated U.S.-flag islands" in the Hawaii Law Review Fall, 1992 includes the five major territories as “a part of the United States”.

Scholar Bartholomew Sparrow in a peer-reviewed publication, “Empires External and internal: territories, government lands and federalism in the United States” found in “Louisiana Purchase and American Expansion, 1803-1898” (2005) which he co-edits with Sanford Levinson, p. 231-232, enumerates the five major territories and notes, “At present, the US includes” them.

Scholar Donald P. Haider-Markel notes the five major territory ambiguous status, "They are officially a part of U.S. territory,” … despite remaining 'unincorporated territories’. From the Congressional Quarterly Press, p.649 [60].

Scholar Earl H. Fry. describes the “U.S. federal system” from U.S. Virgin Islands in the east to Guam in the west including the five major territories, … their delegates to Congress have the same status as DC. … the system is complicated by 562 federally recognized tribal governments. p.297 [61] TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 17:13, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Presidential [62] Executive Order 13423, addressing national environment, energy and transportation management legislation of the Congress, "‘‘United States’’ when used in a geographical sense, means the fifty states, the District … Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, the US Virgin Islands, and the Northern Mariana Islands and associated territorial waters and airspace.”

U.S. Customs and Border Patrol, Needing a passport enumerates the five major territories and describes them as “parts of the United States”.

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, [63] Welcome to the United States: a guide for new immigrants” p. 7, 77, 101, summarizing current U.S. law, reports that the United States “now consists of” 50 states, DC and the five major territories.

U.S. State Department addresses the five major territory governors as residing “throughout the territory of the United States” in the Legal Advisor [64] Memorandum of January 20, 2010, regarding U.S. Human Rights Treaty Reports, and again regarding human rights in a [65] letter February 18, 2014 referring to the five major territories as “throughout our country”.

U.S. Congress, [66] Mapping Congress, “History, Art & Archives" includes the modern five major territories in the Range of Congresses: 80th-114th. Viewed January 27, 2015.

7 FAM 1112 [67] p.3 The term “United States” includes Puerto Rico, Guam, the Virgin Islands and Northern Mariana Islands; American Samoa is characterized as the last "outlying possession" with non-citizen nationals p.5. [68] 7 FAM 1120, however they are not considered aliens within the United States, they may not be deported. Domestic in a foreign sense, it is foreign in a domestic sense as the Insular Cases provided, but in the 21st century with nationals of the soil, enfranchised self-government and delegate Member of Congress withheld by the Supreme Court.

U.S. Census reports “State and other areas” Total Area (land and water) including the 50 states, DC, Puerto Rico and four major territories [69]. It excludes the “U.S. Minor Outlying Islands”. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:12, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

U.S. State Department. Report submitted to the United Nations Committee on Human Rights. The persons living in DC and the five major territories live "within the political framework of the United States” [27], with local government “largely determined by the area’s historical relationship to the U.S. and the will of the residents.” [80] [70]

U.S. National Response Framework for FEMA defines U.S. in the Stafford Act: “United States” means the fifty States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands. p. 2. [71]. We can find modern examples of including the five major territories in legislation, but none to exclude them in any respect but for taxes. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:24, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For medicare, The term “United States” means the 50 States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, American Samoa, and ships in territorial waters. [72]. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 15:05, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For the Department of Education, DC and the five major territories are included in the U.S. political framework, “State” ... refers to each of the 50 states, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, United States Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands. note 5. [73]. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 15:14, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Social Security Administration uses the term "United States" to mean the 50 States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Guam, the Virgin Islands of the United States, American Samoa, Swain's Island, and the Northern Mariana Islands. [74] TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 15:22, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sources excluding the five major territories

CIA Factbook: United States; government: distinguishes between “administrative divisions” including 50 states and 1 district; versus “dependent areas” including five major territories and nine uninhabited possessions listed alphabetically [75]. Used by excluders 2013. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 15:44, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
U.S. Census Department’s Current Population Survey (CPS) includes "every state and the District of Columbia.” in a subset of its data bases. [76]. Used by excluders in 2014. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:04, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
U.S. Census report differentiates between subtotals for the "United States" (the 50 states and DC) and "Other areas" (including the five larger island territories). [77] older ≠ wiser 16:35, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Issue 2. What figure best helps Wikipedia readers?

We should use the most current, most comprehensive measure for the United States available from a reliable source, In the case of area, the U.S. Census Bureau, August 2010.

The U.S. Census Bureau reports “State and other areas” Total Area (land and water) as 3,805,927 Sq. Mi., 9,857,306 Sq. Km. This includes the states, DC, Puerto Rico, and "Island Areas" of American Samoa, Guam, Northern Mariana Islands, and U.S. Virgin Islands. "The table does not include area calculations for the U.S. Minor Outlying Islands. The area measurements were derived from the Census Bureau's Master Address File/Topologically Integrated Geographic Encoding and Referencing (MAF/TIGER®) database.”

The MAF/TIGER database is used for the geospatial data layer for Homeland Security activities, transportation layer of USGS National Map Program, House of Representatives, federal redistricting, distribution of federal funds to state, county and local government for schools, transportation, Medicare and others. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 19:44, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The source of greatest value is almost certainly the one which is cited the most often in current reliable sources (2000 to 2015 would be a reasonable date range, I should think), as best as we can determine that figure. Right now the most used figure appears to be 3,794,100 sq. mi. with some being a hair higher - which is only the 50 states plus D.C. Clearly the 3,805,927 is less used, but still a valid figure, and should be listed as total area subject to US "national jurisdiction" and not confuse the readers with details about types of territories otherwise. So after looking at all the current sources we should likely state:

The total land and territorial waters area of the United States (50 states plus District of Columbia) is 3,794,100 square miles, with the total area of national jurisdiction (including territories) being 3,805,927 square miles.

For population, moreover, the total population as stated by the Census Bureau is for the 50 states and D.C. (using the 2010 census) and again we should also give total population under United States national jurisdiction as well.

NOAA etc. are pretty useless (I can not accept any source which describes "mass" in terms of area! "the mass of the contiguous United States (all states except Alaska and Hawaii) is approximately 7.7 million km2 (square kilometers)")

I discount sources which cite Wikipedia, of course. Sound like a reasonable solution here? We can use both figures without hopelessly confusing readers. (Note: "area of national jurisdiction" appears to be a term of art to encompass territorial waters for purposes of fisheries and other uses, as well as land areas) Collect (talk) 23:23, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree we can use both figures without hopelessly confusing readers. While the U.S. as a federal republic includes the 50/DC and five major territories, the national jurisdiction includes the 50/DC, five major territories and nine uninhabited islands. I believe there are two additional contested, one with Cuba and one with New Zealand? I think they are safely left aside from the "national jurisdiction" if no reliably sourced data bases report them.

The MAF/TIGER data base for total "state and other areas" does not report the nine uninhabited islands described as U.S. Insular Territories in the GAO report. It looks like you have some acquaintance with several additional sources, could you help out with references in the section above? What is available? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:54, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Issue 3. Drafting a statement as to the component parts of the United States

Global perspective?

We should also consider what definition of the United States, is most used internally and externally? What do most Americans see as the United States? What do most non-Americans see as the United States? If they differ, which should be given more weight? So we avoid having this article tagged with a Template:Globalize tag.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:03, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like an important point. Would you (or other participants) be able to specify the policy you think would guide us in this? Sunray (talk) 19:18, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RS & WP:WEIGHT.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:54, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am unsure that "component parts" is particularly relevant, alas. I recall The New Yorker "view of the world" cover. And, frankly, lots of Europeans think of Canada as being sort of the US. We have two areas pretty well sorted out - I suggest we note that there is the "50 + DC" and also the "areas under US national jurisdiction" which includes the "Fab 5." Collect (talk) 19:37, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think Canadians would like that, but that'd be a hoot, but perhaps 51st state already covers that.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:54, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

From the Articles of Confederation: Canada acceding to this confederation, and adjoining in the measures of the United States, shall be admitted into, and entitled to all the advantages of this Union; but no other colony shall be admitted into the same, unless such admission be agreed to by nine States.” Offer expired with the Constitution being ratified: New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new States shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress. As Canada is not part of any other state in the US<g>, its admission could be done by Congress with little problem. Collect (talk) 20:45, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is a widget to sort out frequency of use of terms. But most in the world commonly refer to the United States meaning the 50 states, “the States” without DC, as at the Encyclopedia Britannica, the U.S. as “a federal republic of 50 states” [78]. We have agreed to add DC when we have data bases which include it. When we have data bases to include the five major territories, we should include them, when we have data bases to include the nine uninhabited territories, we should include them. The "contiguous zone" of the U.S. includes all elements under discussion. As sourced they are all a part of the U.S.,

"the United States of America including the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, the United States Virgin Islands, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and any other territory or possession over which the United States exercises sovereignty," [79].

In formal discourse internationally, the federal republic of the U.S. is made up of the places represented in the U.S. Congress, "By law, its current membership is set at 435 Representatives [from 50 states], plus nonvoting delegates from the District of Columbia and the [5] U.S. territories." [80]. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:44, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Draft proposals

The United States of America also known as .... generally refers to the 50 states and the federal district, as comprising the area which elects the President of the United States. The national jurisdiction of the United States of America includes fifty states, a federal district, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico .... and territorial waters. The government of the United States is a federal republic.

Would seem to me to cover everything in a neat bundle, get rid of unread footnotes, and be accurate. The "nonvoting delegates" bit muddies things far too much for most readers, and is not prescribed in the US Constitution. Besides which DC falls into that category at this point, although it does elect Electoral College members. Collect (talk) 13:16, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The federal republic of the United States includes all national populations with representation in Congress. “The federal state shall constitute a sole person in the eyes of international law". p.160 [81]. The "non-voting delegates" have floor privileges to sponsor legislation and offer amendments in the House, as well as voting rights on committees.

The United States ... is a federal republic consisting of 50 states a federal district, and five major territories with Members of Congress. Its national jurisdiction extends to another nine uninhabited islands and territorial waters.

A note can enumerate the five major territories. I’m reluctant to give up defining the U.S. as a federal republic in the first sentence. Electing president is not determinative of participation in a federal republic, membership in Congress is. Congress is the authority for admitting DC and the territories into Congress, not the Constitution, Congress has evolved its political incorporation of DC and the territories with citizenship, enfranchisement and delegate Members of Congress, which the Supreme Court would not do because it is a political question. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:50, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My proposal is not contradictory to your proposal, but defines in terms of Presidential elections - and "commonly used" to stop the bickering over exact definition of what is part of the "federal republic". Part two then gives the specific international term of art "national jurisdiction" as seeking to give the international definition involved, and thus to cover all bases in what I hope is an elegant manner. We can add a third sentence very easily to assuage your concerns:

The Government of the United States is a federal republic

And not go into legalistic debate any more on this topic <g>.Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:02, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, including a description of the U.S. as a federal republic, a form of government "in which the component parts (states, colonies, or provinces) retain a degree of self-government" is important [82]; what sources would you use to justify shifting the emphasis away from local and national representatives to only voters for national Chief Executive in a federal republic? --- Of course, there is only "bickering" where there is contradiction without sources, and our mediator has listed sourcing as issue #1 for our discussion. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 17:14, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Electoral College (United States) is the only unifying feature - but is certainly one which is sourceable and specifically addresses 50 + DC. Thus seemed quite the best way to explain that usage. The "national jurisdiction" usage then addresses the greater meaning, without leading into continued discussions about incorporated, partially incorporated, unincorporated etc. territories which we have seen in the past, and should be pretty much accepted as having a specific international meaning. Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:20, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, you may be right, although Congress may be a unifying feature of the federal republic as well. It seems you are proceeding from 50 states and DC a priori rather than from the reliable sources which report that the five major territories are “a part of” the U.S. and the U.S. “now consists of” the five major territories. To be policy compliant, shouldn’t there be sources opposed to those listed in Issue #1 which include the five major territories? Something to exclude them? Is there only unsourced contradiction? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 18:21, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Is [a term] commonly used to refer to" is not going to work. No country that I can think of on Wikipedia is ever referred to in such a passive, whinging way, as a mere "term" rather than, well, a country. A country IS or it ISN'T. It's never what is COMMONLY THOUGHT OF it. That's just the first of many issues with this proposal. I'm having flashbacks to the last time people tried to create a sentence by committee, rather than settling the fundamental issues first. Maybe that's how things are done on Wikipedia now. --Golbez (talk) 05:40, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Golbez above. The objective of Collect’s compromise is to elevate the 50/DC aggregation with a source excluding the five major territories.

The United States … is a federal republic consisting of 50 states and a federal district. [note 1][note 2] The national jurisdiction of the United States of America includes 50 states, the District of Columbia, five major territories, nine uninhabited possessions and their associated waters. [note 3].

[note 1: source excluding five major territories tbd]

[note 2: Sources also report the five major territories with delegate Members of Congress as “a part of” the U.S.; list three]

[note 3: list two sources and enumerate the two classes of insular territory]

This preserves the characterization of the U.S. as a “federal republic” which I believe is paramount for the first sentence. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:16, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't bad.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:41, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK -- removed "commonly" though I did not think that would be a major sticking point. BTW, I did not have any "objective" other than to seek language generally acceptable as a compromise. OK now? Collect (talk) 13:28, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Final draft from me:

''The United States of America also known as .... is a federal republic with a national jurisdiction of fifty states, a federal district, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico .... and territorial waters. The republic has a President as head of state, chosen by an Electoral College elected within the fifty states and a federal district, frequently called the United States by itself.

I prefer the earlier version frankly, but let's see if we can work towards a compromise of some sort. I suggest, moreover, that adding legalistic footnotes does not benefit readers of the article. Collect (talk) 18:25, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not as good as TVH's version IMHO, but is a good compromise as well. Both are verifiable using reliable sources, and either would have my support.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:41, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Taking Collect’s second draft as a baseline, for the introduction, I would further compress it into

Proposal #5. ''The United States of America, commonly referred to as the United States (U.S.), America, and sometimes the States, is a federal republic with a national jurisdiction of fifty states, a federal district, five major territories, nine uninhabited possessions and their territorial waters. [n 1] The republic has a President as its head of state, chosen by an Electoral College of electors from the fifty states and Washington DC." [n 2]

[note 1] Enumeration the territories, the five major territories followed by the nine uninhabited possessions.

[note 2] The 50 states and DC are frequently referred to as the United States without including territories in general conversation and for many statistical purposes.

This removes the "legalistic" footnotes Collect objects to. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 20:09, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is no real value to "nine uninhabited possessions" and "their territorial waters" does not need "their" in it - as the "territorial waters" are found in a majority of the states as well. Try five major territories, some minor possessions, and territorial waters as being sufficiently accurate for readers. And the end of the second sentence should not be stopped at a footnote but continue D.C. , which are frequently referred to as the United States. which removes the "general conversation" and "statistical purposes" asides which are not all that important in the lead. If you do not object to it in a footnote you should not object to it in the text IMHO. Collect (talk) 00:03, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

" is a federal republic with a national jurisdiction " Why can't you just say "is a federal republic with fifty states, ... "? What sets "national jurisdiction" apart from "includes"? Also, why are we caring about territorial waters? Every country has jurisdiction over its territorial waters. Is that being included just so we can include the "national jurisdiction" line? If so, ... did you ever stop to think as to why you think the United States needs to be treated so much differently from literally every other country on earth? Maybe we're doing it wrong here? --Golbez (talk) 05:58, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Simpler is usually good. What do others think of these modifications? Sunray (talk) 08:16, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"National jurisdiction" is the term used as a "term of art" used to indicate the land and seas covered by the laws of a specific nation. As such it is precise and accurate. Collect (talk) 14:01, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, with Golbez' edits. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:04, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In light of Sunray and Alanscottwalker comments, following Golbez' simpler edit and to parallel another republic country article:

"France ... is a unitary sovereign state comprising territory in western Europe and several overseas regions and territories.[note 13]" --- Note 13 enumerates the several overseas regions and territories with membership in the National Assembly and those without.

Proposal #6. The United States ... is a federal republic with fifty states, a federal district, five territories and several overseas possessions. [Note 1] --note 1 enumerating the territories with Members of Congress and those without.

The "national jurisdiction" Collect raises as a term of art should inform our phrasing of the first sentence so as to find a mediated compromise. Simpler and sourced is better, in a manner akin to other WP country articles makes sense.TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:58, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This seems like progress to me. Or am I missing something? Sunray (talk) 23:00, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think that Golbez use of “with” captures the “national jurisdiction” elegantly, without raising “comprising territories", a hot button term for unsourced objections. Leaving the five major territories out entirely would be wp:undue given their sourced status as “a part of the U.S.” by scholarly [83], and "parts of the U.S." by government [84] sources, see mediation Item #1 for others, but I would compromise with unsourced editor interpretation of "unincorporated" in primary sources to indicate an "ambiguous" status for territories in the introductory sentence such as Golbez proposes to arrive at a mediated solution. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:50, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

I prefer the language proposed by Collect. Whether the territories are or are not actually a "part" of the federal republic have been the subject of prolonged and extremely pointless argumentation. older ≠ wiser 12:05, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The upshot of the dispute resolution was a 2-to-1 majority for including the five major territories. I mean to accommodate the minority three by modifying the wording to include “represented in Congress”. Of course they are domestic in a foreign sense (see "Global perspective" above) and foreign in a domestic sense per the Insular Cases.

It was stipulated by both sides, — after some productive discussion, — that their populations of U.S. citizens/nationals are enfranchised in self-government with delegate Members of Congress — WITHOUT asserting they are “a part of the U.S.” for internal tax purposes, because it is sourced they are not for that limited purpose, stipulated by both sides in the discussion.

But the delegates of DC and the five territories are Members of Congress participating in the federal republic, unchallenged. No sources describe the U.S. as only 50 states and DC. other than online almanacs (2013) and an unsourced data base footnote (2014) in conflict with other reports published by the same two sources including the five major territories. We should avoid WP:cherry pick, selecting the most comprehensive expression of the U.S. for each article purpose. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:55, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Collect's language addresses the geographical extent of US jurisdiction without getting into murky and controversial matters regarding the political status of the territories. older ≠ wiser 13:04, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The first issue in this mediation is, "Determining the sources to be used describe the component parts of the United States of America in accordance with WP core content policies (WP:OR, WP:VER, WP:NPOV)." There is no controversy without a single reliable source excluding DC and the five major territories from the Congress in the 21st century, only level four argumentation, contradiction without sources.

See American Samoa: Coleman Radewagen. District of Columbia: Eleanor Holmes Norton, Guam: Madeleine Z. Bordallo, Northern Mariana Islands: Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan, Puerto Rico: Pedro Pierluisi, Virgin Islands: Stacey Plaskett. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:41, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Collect's proposal appears generally policy compliant. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:50, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@TVH, there is general agreement that territories are included in a geographical understanding of the US (at least in many common contexts). There is no agreement to the word games and cherry-picking of sources that you play in trying to define what constitutes the Federal republic. older ≠ wiser 17:26, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Including the sourced area of the U.S. Total “states and other areas" by the MAF/TIGER database as reported by the U.S. Census [85] was the main point of the Fall 2014 discussion.

What "word game" is there in “a part of”, “includes”, “the U.S. means”, “parts of the U.S.”, “now consists of” …the five major territories? There is personal attack, but no counter-source? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 18:08, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What is the point? (sidebar discussion)

The exact same arguments, both in style and substance, are happening above that happened on Talk:United States for the past few years. What exactly is supposed to be different about this mediation? I have no interest in engaging in the above arguments, I've done that for years and am tired of it, so unless something changes I'll simply withdraw from this process and be silent on whatever comes out of it, whatever quality it may be. --Golbez (talk) 19:33, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read the proposed compromise language in the section above? Collect (talk) 19:57, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The compromise language appears fair, and easily verifiable by RSs.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:20, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I stand by my statement. It's literally the exact same things we've been going through for years, just on a different page. It didn't work then, and if it works now, with that... Maybe, Sunray, the problem is that we have the same people in the echo chamber as we've always had, and we need a truly fresh perspective, like yours, to wrangle things. --Golbez (talk) 05:41, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The point is sources. An editor called me a “sea lion” [86] to point out that the U.S. article was his blog, and I had no right to disrupt his personal venue by calling for reliable sources. Mediation issue #1 is finding the reliable sources to use in determining the scope of the U.S.

The “problem" is that there remain no sources to exclude the five territories from the federal republic of the United States in the 21st century. There are RSs to verify the U.S. is a federal republic, none to verify the U.S. is an elective monarchy, government where the executive is elected as a dictator. The defining characteristic of the U.S. government is representation in Congress. See my proposed language for a third alternate above to compromise without giving up sourced information. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:24, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"to point out that the article was his blog"? No, I'm not going to engage with someone who blatantly mischaracterizes me this way. [So, again, literally no different from the talk page] Sunray, this is purely my perspective and it's clearly a minority one, but this is not succeeding so far. I would love to engage, but with you, not with them. This can't be a situation for "self-mediation", as obviously that hasn't and doesn't work. We need active mediation here if this has any chance to succeed, unless success is obtained solely by my silence. --Golbez (talk) 06:02, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can be more active, but I have to say that I think that the discussion in progressing now. Participants will have to cover the same subject matter, but need to work together to produce a resolution. I can assist, but ultimately it has to come from the participants. It will be helpful for the parties to stick to content and avoid bringing up old grievances. Sunray (talk) 08:03, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Despite a few writers who say that the U.S. is not a constitutional republic but an empire that has illegally incorporated foreign countries, the settled law of both the U.S. and international law is that the U.S. is a constitutional republic that administers a number of overseas territories. Therefore the U.S. constitution applies in full to the U.S. and in part to territories under its jurisdiction. Certainly it would be bizarre if the U.S. did not treat its overseas territories as part of the U.S. in some sense, just as the UK still treats Canada as part of the UK in some sense, but it is OR to say that makes them part of the U.S. Articles should not present the views of small minorities as facts. TFD (talk) 16:33, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Canada is not "part of the UK" - it is part of the "British Commonwealth" and recognizes QE II as "Queen of Canada", just as she is sovereign over the other members of the British Commonwealth which still are monarchies. Canada does not fall under the "national jurisdiction" of the UK. Puerto Rico does fall under the "national jurisdiction" of the US. On this TVH is correct. I just wish he would accept the compromise language I had suggested. Collect (talk) 18:32, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO, I do not think that the minority/fringe opinion that the U.S. illegally incorporated foreign countries should be given weight in this article, and especially not in the lead section. Agreed with Collect's statement above.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:43, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Along with my second draft, I like Collect's second draft proposal above, perhaps compressed, leaving the enumeration of the territories to a footnote at the end of the first sentence. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 19:42, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

From experience: Readers ignore footnotes like the plague. Better to list quickly and be done. Collect (talk) 19:51, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

They are covered in "Political divisions" individually. I thought a note listing might be a little value added at the start for those who do not read into the article. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 20:22, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RightCowLeftCoast, the reality is that you are arguing for a fringe view based on very poor interpretations of original sources, ironically only argued by people who are 180 degrees away from you in the political spectrum. TFD (talk) 07:21, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No. All he his arguing is the United States has territory, which in fact it does. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:06, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@TFD. It is a poor interpretation of original 1901 sources that says "that the U.S. is a constitutional republic that administers a number of overseas territories.” That is minimally true, but there is more beyond 100-year old “settled law” in the courts. The possessions “administered” by presidentially appointed governors of army/navy officers without local legislatures is past.

As of the late 20th century, the five major territories are by Congressional law, populations of U.S. citizens/nationals with enfranchised self-government and delegate Members of Congress. See the 1997 GAO report cited [87]. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:18, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@RightCowLeftCoast: The United States government does not believe it illegally incorporated foreign countries to acquire the U.S. territories, and in any case in the modern era the five major territories have freely chosen political union with the U.S., with Congress mutually making U.S. citizens/nationals. We have from both Democratic President [88] and Republican President [89] enumerating the five major territories as a part of the United States geographically in its contiguous zone. The administrative departments of the U.S. government calls them “parts of the United States” [90], and the U.S. “now consists” of them, enumerating all five [91]. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:25, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm unclear what the discussion in this section is in aid of. Should the content aspects be linked to the previous discussion under Issue #3. Is the "What's the point?" question a side bar? Sunray (talk) 23:03, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It’s not clear to me what the relevance of the empire/Canadian discussion has to the question of the United States Insular Territories. It is one of the reasons I wanted to amend the "Question to be addressed" above. The empire discussion suffers from a distinct lack of sources to tie the 19th century British Empire populations of non-citizens to the modern day United States federal republic, as modern day U.S. populations of islander citizens/nationals are not aliens, but a part of the United States as a preponderance of our Issue #1 sources show.

Excluders have been reluctant to reference Insular Cases on this page, but from Downes v. Bidwell 1901[92], Political incorporation is made by Congress with extension of the privileges and immunities of the Constitution, extending that clause “in effect produces the incorporation of that territory.” (individuals in a territory previously have included citizens, nationals and alien Native-Americans) — which Congress has done for the entire populations of all five major territories as of 1988, see 1991 GAO report p.28 [93]. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:47, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Diversion from content

Here is an example the word games and cherry-picking of sources that (along with frequent and lengthy repetition) makes it so tedious attempting to make progress. You place text in quotation marks, implying it is a direct quotation from the source you cite, and yet that text does not exist in the sources. The sloppiness (as well as previously discussed distortions and bias) makes it difficult if not impossible to trust at face value interpretation made of these sources without independent and unbiased verification. older ≠ wiser 17:02, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

More personal attacks without counter-sources.

Sorry, I got caught up in a paraphrase concerning the historical process of politically incorporating territories. The court at Downes v. Bidwell deliberated over the wisdom of citizenship for islanders, "whether savages or civilized, ... entitled to all the rights, privileges and immunities of citizens. If such be their status, the consequences will be extremely serious."

But a century later the U.S. islander population status is that of mutually made citizens/nationals with privileges and immunities of the Constitution since 1988. The point remains, they now do not have the constitutional status of 19th century indigenous populations subject to overseas British imperial rule. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 18:47, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Even if you theory that extending birthright citizenship to a territory by legislation automatically incorporated that territory into the U.S. (and it would help if some source actually made that claim), it would still not apply to American Samoa, since citizenship has not been extended to them. TFD (talk) 06:27, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Without offering sources of your own, you complain that I source Levinson and Sparrow (2005), explaining the historical process of territorial incorporation in the U.S. tradition. Have you in good faith accepted all but American Samoa as politically a part of the U.S.? But their U.S. nationals, 1.5% of the Insular Territories, are not aliens as our sources show.

The one-sided nation-state extension of citizenship does not “automatically” incorporate, that is a straw man. Referendums by islanders make a self-determination of their political union with the U.S., but you offer no sources to the contrary stating “modern territories are not a part of the U.S.” or even, “the status of the territories is ambiguous”.

Legitimate citizenship in the modern era must be mutual. The process is evolutionary, beginning post WWII, it is not until 1988 that the privileges and immunities clause is extended as shown in the 1991 GAO report. As referenced by your Sloan source, in Lawson and Sloan’s article in the Boston College Law Review, Puerto Rico is now politically “incorporated” as modern jurisprudence uses that term of art, p.1175 [94]. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:45, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Sunray: Sorry to be so new at this. The coding convention which used to work uniformly [url-pipe-title] intermittently adds the characters %7 or %7C which leads to an error page at each referenced URL. I have attempted to repair the coding listing the sources at Issue #1 with the single brackets method to link to referenced pages [url] in the references. I mean to use working links to sources as much as possible. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:50, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

TVH, I'm not clear about what you are trying to do. If you want to put a title on an external link it would be: [url title] A space is needed between the url (which is in HTML) and the title. You may be getting an error because the code used in Wikipedia is Wiki-markup which is a simplified version of HTML. The two don't mix--hence the need for the space. But I'm not technically inclined, so I may have misunderstood your problem. You are welcome to elaborate--succinctly, of course :) If needed we can get help. But I'm wondering if you or other participants have thought about a subpage (or pages) for sources. Also, we need to stay on track with the discussion. Sunray (talk) 18:12, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See p. 1161: "according to the federal government, Puerto Rico remains [an unincorporated territory]." So we have a conflict of sources, the U.S. executive, Supreme Court and Congress, and the United Nations on the one hand and your source on the other. TFD (talk) 16:04, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

TFD has pointed out a conflict between sources. I imagine there will be many such conflicts. It will be necessary to evaluate sources with reference to WP:VER and WP:RS, and WP:RS/AC. So applying WP policies (which trump guidelines in the event of a conflict) and guidelines, how do we resolve this conflict between sources? Sunray (talk) 18:12, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Of course the federal government says Puerto Rico remains an unincorporated territory — for taxes as the Supreme Court says, and — after weighing all the parameters, including citizenship and enfranchised self-governance previously withheld by the Supreme Court — the scholars CONCLUDE that Puerto Rico is politically “incorporated” as modern jurisprudence understands the term p.1175 [95]. The U.S. executive and the United Nations sources in our Issue #1 include the five major territories as “parts of the United States” [96], and “within the political framework of the United States” [27.] [97].

Given contradictions, it is best to leave the ambiguous phrasing which is inclusive of both viewpoints that Golbez hit upon, — the U.S. is a federal republic with 50 states, a federal district, five major territories and nine possessions — dropping the “comprised of”, and adopting the U.S. human rights report to the U.N., “within the political framework of the U.S.” — another ambiguous statement perhaps, but there remains no source to say the modern territories are "outside the political framework of the U.S." TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 19:29, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And again - the concept of mediation is to reach a compromise which meets the valid positions of as many editors here as possible. Giving a deliberately ambiguous lead which does not actually benefit the reader is not a compromise I am willing to back, alas. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:32, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But supposing we can source the “ambiguous constitutional status of the overseas territories”? Donald P. Haider-Markel, “Political Encyclopedia of U.S. States and Regions”, (2008)“Overseas Territories” p.649 [98]. “The United States overseas territories — the U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, [American] Samoa, the Northern Mariana Islands and Puerto Rico —

"…These conflicting attitudes ...are reflected in the ambiguous constitutional status of the overseas territories: they are officially a part of U.S. territory, and their residents have U.S. citizenship or are U.S. nationals (as in American Samoa), but they remain 'unincorporated territories', lacking the full constitutional protection and political citizenship afforded to the states.” TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 17:00, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Which seems ideally suited for a discussion in the body of the article, but of relatively little value to general readers who want the lead to be a nice short summary of the entire article. Leads which lose the reader at the first sentence are not doing their job. IMHO, of course. That is why I suggested a very short lead, and relying on the concept of "national jurisdiction" as being a well-defined term of art which can be used accurately here. We do not need detailed discourse on differences in constitutional protection etc. when we are simply introducing the article to a typical 10th grade student. Again, IMHO. Collect (talk) 17:09, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We are agreed. This discussion suited for the body of the article is separate from the proposal #6 above, derived from the example of France for the first sentence and using terminology suggested by Golbez which asks of me to replace "federal republic [consisting of]" inserting "federal republic [with]", but which maintains the scope of the "national jurisdiction" as sourced.

Proposal #6. The United States ... is a federal republic with fifty states, a federal district, five territories and several overseas possessions. [Note 1] --note 1 enumerating the territories with Members of Congress and those without parallel to the Note 13 at the first sentence in the France country article. See the section above "Draft proposals. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 19:22, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that many readers may assume "with" to mean something other than the correct "national jurisdiction" which is more precise here. When we are fortunate enough to have a precise term, the ambiguous term seems to be a lesser choice. I would also note that a non-voting "member of congress" is not exactly a member of congress, but subject to any changes of the rules of the House, and under the Constitution apparently can not have a vote counted if the vote actually would have meaning. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:32, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Collect: It is true that non-state places do not have the constitutional status of states until statehood. The DC and five territory delegate Members of Congress are titled Congressmen and Congresswomen but cannot vote on the floor.

But they have floor privileges to sponsor bills and amendments, sit at desks on the floor, speak freely to other Members, they are given the same office, staff and resource support as other Members, vote in committees, party caucuses, and joint committees with the Senate. They appoint two cadets to the four military academies each year.

Today’s delegate Members of Congress have more privileges than those of Alaska and Hawaii before they were made states, and are constitutionally elevated over British overseas territories with mere Parliamentary observers. Just a footnote. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:09, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I sense that we may be close to an agreement here. How about we formulate the two alternative wordings in a subsection, below. We can decide later on which one we will put forward for the lead. Sunray (talk) 20:58, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Territories are part of the United States as the Special Administrative Regions are part of the People's Republic of China. Really, there isn't no reason they shouldn't be included. They don't claim independence from the U.S., they don't have embassies with other countries, and no country recognizes them as independent nations. Foreigners wishing to visit the territories must fallow US immigration laws. The territories must fallow most federal laws, as with the states, and the Indian Reservations, the federal government continues to ballance federal laws with the territories having self-autonomous rule. The United States, excersises it's continued control over the territories with heavy US military presence. The people living on the territories are US nationals and US citizens(except American Samoa). And the people enjoy most of the same freedoms as the ones enjoyed in the states and federal district, with noticable acceptions being voting and territories debating if owning a gun is a right. As with those living in the states, citizens of the territories get territorial citzenship along with US citizenship(again, except American Samoa). The inhabited territories can compete in the olympics seperately from the US.Seqqis (talk) 21:47, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Isle of Man is explicitly not a part of the United Kingdom. However, it passes nearly all of the above cases as well: It doesn't claim independence; it doesn't have embassies; no one recognizes it as independent; there is no Manx citizenship, they are all UK citizens; etc etc. I'm not saying at all that the American territories are equal in status to Man, what I'm saying is that these statements alone, or even in concert, do not by themselves mean "part of the country". Only the country itself can state if that means inclusion. And then you list some statements that work against that, for example the Olympics and the lack of citizenship for one of the territories. (Of course, having or not having an Olympic team doesn't really matter, as Hong Kong, Aruba, Guam, and Chinese Taipei all compete, despite their varying degrees of independence, whereas Manx athletes compete on the British team) --Golbez (talk) 00:17, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, all US Citizens are US Nationals and American Samoans are US Nationals but not necessarily citizens.[99] Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:31, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So we have four alternatives. Would participants prefer to work on combining them or shall we move on and come back to this section later? Sunray (talk) 06:26, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposals for statement in the article lead

The United States of America also known as .... is a federal republic with a national jurisdiction of fifty states, a federal district, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico .... and territorial waters. The republic has a President as head of state, chosen by an Electoral College elected within the fifty states and a federal district, frequently called the United States by itself. (no footnotes)

2. The United States of America (USA), also known as the United States (U.S.), America, and sometimes the States, is a federal republic with fifty states, a federal district, five territories and several overseas possessions. [1]

[Note 1] The fifty states and the District of Columbia are often referred to as "the United States" without including U.S. territories. Enumerate the "national jurisdiction" of five populated territories then the nine without populations following the France article style. Leave existing geographic description in tact.

3. The United States is a federal republic with fifty states and the District of Columbia. It also has overseas territories.

Proposal Y:': "The United States of America (USA)—commonly referred to as the United States (U.S.), America, USA—is a federal republic located primarily in North America. Of its 50 states, 48 are contiguous, and with Washington, D.C., are in central North America between Canada and Mexico. The state of Alaska is located in the northwestern part of North America and the state of Hawaii is an archipelago in the mid-Pacific. The country also has five populated and nine unpopulated territories in the Caribbean and the Pacific. . . .

4. The U.S. is a federal republic in the North American continent, with possession over 14 territories. It is comprised by 50 states plus the District of Columbia (see "List of states and territories of the United States"), plus territories in the Caribbean and the western Pacific.

5. The United States of America - (insert the current commonly known as text) - is a federal republic primarily in the Western Hemisphere. It is comprised of the United States territory: fifty states on the North American continent and Polynesia, a federal district, and territories in the Caribbean, Polynesia, and Micronesia.

Concur with 1, 2, Y and 5 as acceptable working drafts for a mediated solution. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:07, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal discussion

Support #2. While #1 is acceptable to me, because it includes the territories in "national jurisdiction" and uses Golbez phrasing "a federal republic with fifty states...". But it does not answer Golbez style objections, calling for brevity in the introductory sentence using a style parallel to that used in other country articles. So I prefer #2 for now because it parallels the France article, and it makes early note of the U.S. election of President from Collect's draft proposal. The footnotes may not be frequently read, but they relate to the areas of most intense editor controversy. They are best left out of the introductory narrative for the sake of conciseness for the general reader. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:19, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support #1 "Brevity" should include the footnotes, making #1 actually shorter (adding in elisions, it is more than 30 words shorter than the one including footnotes). Second, following any other article is not the issue - there is no MOS statement applicable here, nor is France a parallel entity to the US. Third, the lead is supposed to be a summary, and the addition of cites and footnotes is generally deprecated on Wikipedia. Such niceties are properly placed in the body of the article. Fourth, the term "national jurisdiction" is clear, while the term "with" is pretty much meaningless in international discussions. Collect (talk) 11:35, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose #3, does not match the inclusiveness of some reliable sources presented during this discussion.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:43, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To give him his due, TFD asserts that the U.S. executive, Supreme Court, Congress, and the United Nations support his position. He just has not provided them here. — nor do we know how they contradict the dozen U.S. executive sources cited in this discussion which are in effect currently and unchallenged in the Supreme Court. Perhaps he can share his sources in Issue #1 listing above? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:58, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I provided a source above: "See p. 1161: "according to the federal government, Puerto Rico remains [an unincorporated territory].""[16:04, 3 February 2015 (UTC)] You accept that above. ("Of course the federal government says Puerto Rico remains an unincorporated territory — for taxes as the Supreme Court says...." [19:29, 3 February 2015 ] Here's a source that the UN considers three of the territories to be Non-Self-Governing Territories.[100] All you have presented is an argument that because the U.S. exercises control over these territories, they are part of the U.S., which is a strawman argument - no one has argued that the U.S. does not exercise control over its unincorporated territories, otherwise they would not be territories, incorporated or unincorporated. TFD (talk) 14:02, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Noting your position, do nay of the above proposals sufficiently address it in the nature of compromise? Collect (talk) 14:16, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is not just argument to include. There are a dozen sources in Issue #1 here enumerating the five major territories as a part of the United States. Lawson and Sloane weighs the “unincorporated” status for taxes on p. 1161 and they conclude on p. 1175, Puerto Rico is in a modern sense “incorporated” due to citizenship and self-governance [101]. The 2008 federal district case observing that Congress has “in fact incorporated” Puerto Rico remains unchallenged in the Supreme Court. p.26 [102]. The primary U.N. sourced “non-self governing status” for three territories does not contradict five territory status as "within the political framework of the United States” as reported by the State Department to the U.N. in 2011 [103]. As another scholarly source notes their ambiguous status, "They are officially a part of U.S. territory,” … despite remaining 'unincorporated territories’ . p.649 [104]. There are reliable sources for compromise. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:01, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The lead does not need cites for every claim (indeed many prefer to see cite-less leads)- only a fair representation of what the body will contain - with the appropriate sources then only placed in the body of the article for the specific detailed claims in the body of the article. None of the sourcing you use contradicts the claims proposed for the lead as far as I can tell. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:27, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think the first two examples are too vague and make it appear that the territories are legally part of the U.S. But the fact the U.S. has external territories - and also associated states - is relatively minor for the overall topic. We can look at other articles - United Kingdom and New Zealand for example, that mention territories in the lead without claiming they are parts of the country. If we claim they are part of the U.S., it complicates the article, because we have to explain why the constitution does not apply in full to them, why they have unlike states an albeit limited international personality, why they can be disposed of by Congress (as the Philippines was) without a constitutional amendment, etc. If we want to say they are treated as parts of the U.S. or that some writers think they have the legal status of incorporated territories and therefore for example birthright citizenship applies to American Samoa, that is too detailed for the lead and should be elsewhere in the article. TFD (talk) 16:01, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Several above are fine but I present slight variation from current US article for consideration, with a slight strike and my comment in bracket:

Proposal X: "The United States of America (USA)—commonly referred to as the United States (U.S.), America, USA—is a federal republic[. refs are already here, which make it a good time to end a sentence] ~~consisting of 50 states and a federal district.~~ The 48 contiguous states and Washington, D.C., are in central North America between Canada and Mexico. The state of Alaska is located in the northwestern part of North America and the state of Hawaii is an archipelago in the mid-Pacific. The country also has five populated and nine unpopulated territories in the Pacific and the Caribbean. . . .

Less is more, less to argue over, and gets the info across in a compact manner. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:52, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

... I think I like this, I can work with this. But it needs something more, that first sentence ends way too abruptly. Also, the first mention of states should really say 50, or be very close to the 50, because otherwise the reader's first impression is "48 states and then some others". Maybe move the geographic location forward... "... is a federal republic located primarily in central North America, where 48 of its 50 states, along with the federal district of Washington, D.C., lie between Canada and Mexico. ..." And then continue with the same description of 49, 50, and the territories. --Golbez (talk) 00:23, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How about:

Proposal Y:': "The United States of America (USA)—commonly referred to as the United States (U.S.), America, USA—is a federal republic located primarily in North America. Of its 50 states, 48 are contiguous, and with Washington, D.C., are in central North America between Canada and Mexico. The state of Alaska is located in the northwestern part of North America and the state of Hawaii is an archipelago in the mid-Pacific. The country also has five populated and nine unpopulated territories in the Caribbean and the Pacific. . . . -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:56, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Endorsed. Love it. (Actually, we need to say WHAT Washington is, so still need to say 'federal district' or 'capital') However, we still have the open question of if the territories - all 14 of them - are part of the country. If they are, then we need to modify the rest of the article to match that. But, I need to point out that this makes no substantive difference between the uninhabited and inhabited, and thus no reason to exclude the uninhabited from any facts or figures, so what some people have been arguing as including the 5 but excluding the 9 wouldn't work for this opening sentence. Furthermore, I see no reason to exclude the 9 if we include the 5. This is about the area the U.S. has national jurisdiction over, right? And that includes the uninhabited territories, right? --Golbez (talk) 03:01, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The link to DC is sufficient, as for the rest of your comment, it seems like a non-sequitur. Of course we will cover all of them in the article. We treat them as are, populated United States land, that US citizens/nationals live on and in. Unpopulated US land with virtually no area that are unpopulated (basically because they are too small to support any population). Alanscottwalker (talk) 03:47, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Of course we will cover all of them" Actually I think some here suggest that the uninhabited territories should not be considered part of the country, or ignored on a de minimis basis. I could be wrong. We'll see. And no, the link to DC is not sufficient; you say Alaska and Hawaii are states, but those links aren't sufficient; we have to say why it's important that we're listing DC separately. I don't understand what you're saying in your last two sentences. --Golbez (talk) 04:03, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mentioning DC by name is in the sentence where we don't mention the 48 states by name, setting it apart that it is not a state (I don't know what you mean by special). The sentence mentioning Alaska and Hawaii are states is to round out the 50 (and named not because they are special but because they are in different locations). In the last two sentences, I was contrasting the different reality of the populated lands and the unpopulated lands of the US. It is usual to cover different reality. The unpopulated lands are de minimis in both area (much less than 1%) and population (0). Alanscottwalker (talk) 07:43, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Where to begin... 1) Setting it apart that it is not a state? OK, so what is it if not a state? We should tell the reader. Simply giving a name is useless. 2) "The sentence mentioning Alaska and Hawaii..." Um, we mention those because they are not contiguous, but we mention they are STATES because to do otherwise would be confusing. If it just said "Alaska is in x, and Hawaii is in x", a reader might wonder... why do I care about Alaska and Hawaii? Why are they being mentioned here? 3) That's nice, but I have no clue what that has to do with the article, unless you're suggesting the uninhabited ones be omitted due to "de minimis" status. If you're not suggesting anything of the sort then I don't know why you're continuing to harp up the differences between them. --Golbez (talk) 08:46, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No. Readers are not idiots, and you should not write as if they are. The different areas are being mentioned because the are in different areas. You have no clue why we treat different areas in our article differently? Readers are clueful of that, even if you are not Alanscottwalker (talk) 08:55, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Right, so, uh... I'll just go back to agreeing with the paragraph as long as it includes that DC is the federal district. --Golbez (talk) 08:57, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Washington DC" is enough for the first few sentences of the lead. Alanscottwalker (talk) 09:21, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Proposal Y by Alanscottwalker, endorsed by Golbez. Scholar Donald P. Haider-Markel notes the five major territory status, "They are officially a part of U.S. territory,” … despite remaining 'unincorporated territories’. Congressional Quarterly Press, p.649 [105]. And the nine uninhabited possessions [106] are a part of the "contiguous zone of the United States" by presidential proclamation [107]. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:14, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would very much prefer if you would refrain from ever speaking for me. You have made it clear you will falsely represent me, so I don't want you to represent me at all, whether it be true or not. --Golbez (talk) 03:39, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I note support from three participants for Proposal Y. Would others be willing to comment? Sunray (talk) 17:37, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think the details about "contiguous states" helps, and the federal district is better described as such than as "Washington DC." The tidbit about Hawaii being an archipelago belongs in a geography section - but ill suits the lead. I find it, alas, cumbersome and possibly off-putting to readers who wish to know about the nation more than they wish to learn geographical details in the lead. I would note that Puerto Rico is a "commonwealth" and is not a mere "territory" - (Northern Marianas are also a commonwealth IIRC). If we delve into geography, we should note that special status in the lead as being far more important than the Hawaii bit <g>. So I demur on the geography lesson being given in the lead where our first order of business is to state what the United States is. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:04, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Y appears to be a fairly positive proposal, better than Option 3 IMHO. It is vague enough that it allows all POVs, but excludes none. A section about the specifics of the lead, in regards to the different interpretations of the make up of the subject of what is being discussed, can be included. But the relative briefness of the Y proposal is one that I can live with. Sure, it could be more detailed. But as others have said, that can be included elsewhere in the article, or in sub-articles such as United States territory.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:24, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Collect, it was just a matter of going off the current article that has that exact "lesson" in those exact sentences with a very slight emendation -- whatever any of us do here; it has to be adopted by the wider wiki community, and often that means surgically small measures based on the present state of the article. Moreover, 'this is the place this article is covering (its history and present - and some key terms)' is not illogical - which is presumably why it was set up that way. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:34, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am a firm believer that "what the article says now" is not the primary consideration we should worry about - my concern is what best serves readers, not anything more nor less. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:03, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So far as there is negligible difference between Proposal Y and the current lead, I have no objection. Could it be said more elegantly? — very likely; but while I agree with Collect that the emphasis on somewhat minor geographical details seems unnecessary for the lead, I'm not sure it is worth an on-going rehash. older ≠ wiser 19:27, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Proposal Y alternate 1. "The United States of America (USA)—commonly referred to as the United States (U.S.), America, USA—is a federal republic located primarily in North America. Of its 50 states, 48 are contiguous, along with the federal district, Washington, D.C. The state of Alaska is northwest of the lower 48, and the state of Hawaii lies in the mid-Pacific. The country also has five populated and nine unpopulated territories in the Caribbean and the western Pacific. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 22:46, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:19, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The description of where in North America it is disappeared in this one; okay, so the 48 states are contiguous, but where are they? We say Alaska is "northwest" of them but that doesn't even state which continent it's on. What was wrong with saying the 48 are between Canada and Mexico, and Alaska is west of Canada? --Golbez (talk) 03:42, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The info box has a map immediately adjacent the introduction to further orient the reader, more detailed description of the United States geography follows in the article. I meant only to follow suggestions of Collect and older≠wiser and try to remove some of the somewhat minor geographical details. "The state of" phrases are redundant, since the passage reads "Of its 50 states, 48...Alaska...and Hawaii..."

Proposal Y alternate 2. "The United States of America (USA)—commonly referred to as the United States (U.S.), America, USA—is a federal republic located primarily in North America. Of its 50 states, 48 are contiguous, along with Washington, D.C., the federal district. Alaska is located northwestern of "the lower 48" states and Hawaii lies in the mid-Pacific. The country also has five populated and nine unpopulated territories in the Caribbean and the western Pacific. ... TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:23, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's unfair to force readers to rely on an infobox, also due to accessibility concerns. This proposal is somehow getting worse with each iteration. --Golbez (talk) 13:30, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tweaking in case this can work out:

The United States of America (USA), often referred to as the United States (U.S.), America, and USA, is a federal republic based in North America. 49 of the fifty states, as well as its federal district, are in North America, with Hawaii being in the Pacific Ocean. The national jurisdiction also includes five populated and nine unpopulated territories.

Shorter, eliminates the geographical trivia (most readers already have a pretty good clue from the word "America" for sure, and should meet some concerns, and uses the well-defined term "national jurisdiction." Collect (talk) 12:57, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The irony here is that Federal jurisdiction (United States) specifies that the country only has fifty states and a federal district, just illustrating how widespread a change we're discussing. --Golbez (talk) 13:30, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Which means that article might be in error -- the term "national jurisdiction" as shown above includes all land, territories and waters under the "national jurisdiction" of a country. That article appears to deal solely with the Constitutional limits of the powers of the Federal Government vis-a-vis state powers. Clearly the internation law defines the limits of the "national jurisdiction". Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:49, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If the United States by law and treaty has control over lands and territorial waters, it has "national jurisdiction" over such lands and waters - clearly no other nation can assert that they have such control, for sure. This is not the same as the Constitutional issue of Federal vs. State jurisdiction within the State. Do you see that difference? Collect (talk) 14:04, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I care not about the difference. I care about the fact that it is just another symptom of the fact that whatever we decide here will (or at least, should, though no one seems to be stepping up to want to do the dirty work) have massive wiki-wide implications. --Golbez (talk) 14:06, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Importance of facts in articles - Sources/Puerto Rico

And I note stating facts can not adversely harm Wikipedia, while eliding facts can. Avoiding texts on international law, one can still note [108] The U.S. federal government has full responsibility for the conduct of foreign relations of all areas subject to United States jurisdiction, including all U.S. states, territories, and possessions. (Colin Powell), Gonzales v. Williams, 192 U.S. 1, 16 (1904). [Appellant, a Puerto Rican native and resident born before the signing of the Treaty of Paris who was traveling to New York] was not a passenger from a foreign port, and was a passenger “from territory or other place” subject to the jurisdiction of the United States., Nat. Bank v. Yankton County, 101 U.S. 129, 133 (1879). All territory within the jurisdiction of the United States not included in any State must necessarily be governed by or under the authority of Congress., Boumediene v. United States, 476 F.3d 981, 992 (D.C. Cir. 2007). [With regard to Guantanamo Bay,] Congress and the President have specifically disclaimed the sort of territorial jurisdiction they asserted in Puerto Rico [.], Congressional Research Service (CRS), Political Status of Puerto Rico: Options for Congress, Report Number RL32933, May 29, 2008, pp. 8 – 10 and 18. Puerto Rico remains a territory of the United States, subject to congressional jurisdiction under the Territorial Clause of the U.S. Constitution., General Accounting Office, U.S. Insular Areas: Application of the U.S. Constitution, November 1997, Page 1. More than 4 million U.S. citizens and nationals live in insular areas [defined as “all territories over which the U.S. exercises sovereignty,” including Puerto Rico] under the jurisdiction of the United States. The Territorial Clause of the Constitution authorizes the Congress to “make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property” of the United States. Relying on the Territorial Clause, the Congress has enacted legislation making some provisions of the Constitution explicitly applicable in the insular areas., Whenever a bill comes up that relates to Puerto Rico, it is referred to the committee on Resources. Why? Because the Committee on Resources has jurisdiction over Indian and insular affairs, meaning territories. Meaning no matter what we may say about the Supreme Court decisions, no matter what we may say about U.N. resolutions, the proof is in the pudding. We are sitting here debating this. We would not be debating this if there was a bilateral pact. If Puerto Rico really had the say in this matter, they would have said, “Hey, U.S. Congress, we don’t need you to give us the right to vote. We have the right to vote.” Puerto Rico could not do that because they are under the Territorial Clause of the United States Constitution, like it or not., [109] All persons born in Puerto Rico on or after April 11, 1899, and prior to January 13, 1941, subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, residing on January 13, 1941, in Puerto Rico or other territory over which the United States exercises rights of sovereignty and not citizens of the United States under any other Act, are declared to be citizens of the United States as of January 13, 1941. All persons born in Puerto Rico on or after January 13, 1941, and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, are citizens of the United States at birth. ad infinitum. The term "jurisdiction of the United States" includes the territories, and (by treaty) substantial territorial waters. Collect (talk) 14:18, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll back out of this thread then because you're clearly talking to someone else who's not in it, which is very confusing. --Golbez (talk) 14:54, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Simplifying: The only goal is to serve the reader. Accurate statements serve the reader better than using inaccurate statements found in any other Wikipedia article - we can never use a Wikipedia article as any kind of source. The reliable sources are clear as to the "national jurisdiction" of the United States. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:10, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there are badly sourced WP articles, they cannot be used as sources. WP:other stuff exists. As to the facts of federal court jurisdiction, at the U.S. Courts government webpage map, we see federal jurisdiction extends to Puerto Rico (PR-First Circuit), U.S. Virgin Islands (VI-Third Circuit), Guam and Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI) (GU, MP-Ninth Circuit). [110] See the narrative at [111]. American Samoa cases go to U.S. district courts in Hawaii or DC [112]. The populations of the five major territories are “within the political framework of the United States” as the State Department correctly reports to the U.N. [113]. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 17:12, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There has never been any dispute that the U.S. administers its external territories. The dispute is whether those territories are part of the U.S. or are unincorporated as ironically your source says they are. TFD (talk) 18:10, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The technical way your argument uses "part" is both pedantic and irrelevant - I take from what you have argued, you get that use of "part" from the early 1900 Insular Cases but you have never explained how the Insular Cases could possibly exclude these places from coverage in the article we are discussing. These places are part (no pedantry needed) of the United States article, and that is the sensible editorial fact that matters, here . Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:06, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@TFD. I'm not sure I follow, --- are you agreed with Proposal Y? Regardless of how you may comprehend scholarly works, the idea is to come to a mediated agreement on article language. "Unincorporated" applies for taxes, it is not governing to exclude U.S. citizens with privileges and immunities clause since 1988. But the consensus here is that our "dispute" is beside the point. For my part, I am agreed on Proposal Y based on the sources above -- Congressional Quarterly Press, p.649 [114]. 1998 GAO report [115] and presidential proclamation [116]. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 20:29, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

proposal discussion arbitrary break

I note that we seem to have agreement with the substance of Proposal Y by Alanscottwalker, Golbez, TVH, RightCowLeftCoast, & Bkonrad (I hope I've got that right). Two alternates were proposed by TVH and one by Collect. ~~Others who have been active in the discussion are Collect and TFD, but~~ I am unclear where TFD stands on the approval meter. We haven't heard from @Robert McClenon, The Gnome, and Wzrd1: for awhile. Here's the question: Do you support Proposal Y (or either of the two alternates) as a working statement of what would be added to the lead? Alternately, would you be able to live with it (i.e., stand aside)? Sunray (talk) 22:30, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would accept the tweak on Y I gave. Not Y as it stood. As I understand it, several of those you mentioned would also support the tweaked version, as they had supported my earlier proffer. Collect (talk) 22:48, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that clarification, I've amended the wording of my summary, above. Sunray (talk) 22:55, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I believe TVH, Bkonrad, RCLC and TFD also supported earlier versions I had proposed, to set the record straight. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:15, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for the extended absence, life and all. Proposal Y looks acceptable to me, it covers the facts quite well. Making it clear that Alaska and Hawaii are not contiguous with the rest of the nation is covered and the territories are covered.Wzrd1 (talk) 03:05, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think that I concur with Proposal Y, but have questions. The mediation was originally started because of slow-motion definition about the infobox and about list entries involving the United States. Does the acceptance of Proposal Y mean that the infobox will include the population of the five populated territories and the area of the fourteen territories as the primary figures, with the 50 states and DC being footnoted? Likewise, in lists (such as countries by area, countries by population, per capita GDP), does that mean that the population and area figures will be those that include the territories, or do those have to be mediated from the beginning? (If those have to be mediated again, I withdraw my concurrence.) If we agree to Proposal Y, does it apply everywhere? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:15, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I hope not. The actual substantive question here has not been adequately discussed, simply - yet again - a sentence written in committee. No discussion over whether Wikipedia as a whole should use a definition of the U.S. that includes the territories, and which territories. (And we saw above, it doesn't just affect lists - things like Federal jurisdiction (United States) would have to be brought into the fold. We're talking potentially hundreds of articles on a variety of topics that need to be managed for this. The question being of course, what happens if there's push back from editors in those articles? Do we replay this, or tell them to consider it settled law? Or would such pushback be a sign that maybe the wrong decision was made here? So many questions.) --Golbez (talk) 03:24, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure whether I agree or disagree with User:Golbez, because I am not sure whether he is saying that the question of scope does apply to other articles or that it does not. Below, I thought that he was stressing that it does. He mentions pushback from the owners of other articles. Will those articles just be ignored, or do we intend to identify them and, if necessary, engage other editors in discussion? Will the mediator, User:Sunray, please tell us where can go? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:15, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It depends. When WP is a sourced encyclopedia, can there be variances in articles? Yes, depending on the purpose of the article and their sources. The five major territories are not states, but they are “officially part of U.S. territory”. The nine minor possessions are a part of the “contiguous zone” of the United States, but they do not appear on any data bases we have discovered. The five major territories appear in total area tables published by the U.S. Census, but they are not totaled in its population database reporting. Editors referencing Commerce Department figures on international trade use an aggregate of 50 states, DC and Puerto Rico.

We depend upon editors to act in good faith and source their figures. Data bases across articles do not conform to any one definition. We rely on the wp:psts policy to avoid editor original research into primary documents creating their own customized data bases. The U.S. country article can define the broadest definition of territorial area --- apart from questions of constitutional status ---, but other purposed articles can also have SOURCED variances to the total territorial extent. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:29, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So, for example, what definition of the United States should Federal jurisdiction (United States) use? This is not a matter of picking and choosing which database to use, as it has nothing to do with numbers. I don't know how I can impress on you folks that this is about more than "what number do we use for the area". --Golbez (talk) 15:33, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That is outside the purview of this mediation. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:37, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I completely disagree. The purpose of this process should be to determine what the United States is, and to modify Wikipedia properly to fit that. If you think this mediation is solely about one paragraph then we've been wasting our time. For example, if United States states that the territories are part of the country, will Puerto Rico be updated to match? Will List of islands by area be updated to change it to say "United States (Puerto Rico)" instead of giving PR an apparent separate status? There are many other articles as well. We'll have to reconcile all of these issues, right? Or is this just about one paragraph and one infobox and who cares if Wikipedia is not at all internally consistent? Because, right now, it generally is consistent, in treating the territories as separate from the country. You're wanting to reverse a decade of interia and thousands of articles. This is unavoidable if this article is changed to regard the territories as part of the country. And, it must make you wonder why that inertia begins in the first place. I support, at most, adding the relevant figures of the territories to the infobox in a footnote, and an additional sentence or two in the article, but that's it. If the primary definition of the country is going to flip from "no territories" to "yes territories" then we have a much, much larger job ahead of us. --Golbez (talk) 15:51, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Sunray: please tell us what the true scope of this mediation is. If it is solely what the opening paragraph and infobox of the article are to say, then I will bow out, as apparently my perception of this process is different from everyone else's, and I'd want to avoid sowing more confusion among the group. --Golbez (talk) 15:57, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In this particular case I mostly agree with User:Golbez, except that, if he chooses to "bow out" and was a key editor in the conflict, I would suggest that, rather than continuing the mediation, the mediation be declared to have failed. I completely disagree with User:Collect that any particular inconsistency is beyond the scope of mediation. If this mediation is to be useful, it needs to minimize inconsistencies across articles. Are other articles, such as Federal jurisdiction (United States) covered? If not, what is the purpose of this mediation? User:Sunray - Please clarify what is the scope of mediation. If it is just about word-smithing the opening paragraph and infobox, then it is a waste of time. If more, we need to know that it is more. Thank you. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:11, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is no inconsistency between my suggested compromise and the "Federal jurisdiction" article. This mediation, however, is specifically about one article and the use of the meaning from that article for defining "United States" in lists of nations., as indicated in the original defined scope of the mediation. If we wish to hold an RfC for general use on Wikipedia, then this is not "best venue." Nor is mediation a failure if it fails unanimity - the goal is "best available consensus" seeking to reach a compromise which may not be perfect, but which the greatest number of editors agree to abide by - the principle is that this will be a sufficiently great number that no RfC on the article talk page is likely to overturn it. My consistent belief is that the aim is to serve readers as the primary goal, and so clear and accurate language stating the facts in a manner suited for the best use of the reader is my primary personal goal. Collect (talk) 16:56, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Then I should never have been allowed to participate, as my response to the mediation itself as well as opening statement runs completely counter to your interpretation of the mediation. I agree, this isn't the best venue, but it's the one we got stuck with. --Golbez (talk) 17:37, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this isn't a perfect forum. Is there a better one that we can use instead, or can we use mediation anyway, or what? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:46, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@ Golbez and Robert McClenon. We can rely on sourced contributions. The Federal jurisdiction (United States) article already includes the territories by reference, as it makes reference to modern statutes. Here we have an article properly tagged for lack of citations for verification. Nevertheless, there is NOW a reference for 28 U.S. Code § 1332 where the word “States” includes "the Territories, the District of Columbia, and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.” [117] Why should we not rely on the good faith of editors and use the references they have used? The map at [118] is available at wikimedia commons: [119]

If editors stay with reliable sources in the modern era, problem solved for a sourced online encyclopedia for articles with a scope encompassing the "political framework of the United States" as the State Department has it in its report to the U.N. in 2011 [120]. There is no reason to alter the sourced contributions of subsidiary articles. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:19, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In response to User:Collect, I was not saying above that the mediation is a failure if it does not achieve unanimity. However, it is, in my opinion, a failure if it does not achieve a consensus that will put an end to the endless slow-motion edit-wars over this article, or if the edit wars then instead just go on to making other articles consistent with this one. So my question for the mediator, User:Sunray, is whether the result of the mediation is binding on editors who have chosen to "bow out" of the mediation. User:Golbez, in particular, has expressed disagreement with the majority of other editors about the territories. If the mediation achieves a result that doesn't satisfy Golbez, is he still bound by it? If he isn't bound by the mediation as such, can an RFC be used to achieve enforceable consensus (knowing that consensus can change), or are we right back where we started? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:46, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well I can say you don't have to worry about that; should it not go "my way" I have no interest in continuing a fight. My work here has been to try to get people to understand the scope of the change they're proposing, but if that won't happen, oh well, quest failed. But, I know you aren't just talking about me, you're talking about everyone who works on the other articles as well, and perhaps they're wondering why a change might be forced on them that they had no input on. --Golbez (talk) 17:50, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Going back to Robert's question, the short answer is: No. If you would like more detailed discussion, you may wish to identify with a link what article you are talking about, and why you think it would change. Previously, it was mentioned the Federal Jurisdiction article is affected, to the extent it is, it's only for the better, because that thing is a mess, but in general, no. Hand waiving to multiple unnamed articles, isn't going to get anyone (or the pedia) anywhere. For example lists are often based on sources that make lists (often source lists that disagree with each other), we are obviously not going to change the sources for lists. But we are not discussing a list article, here. And no, we do not constitute an editorial board for the entire pedia, if that is your question. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:28, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To respond to the initial question of this sub-section, I am OK with the second alternative version of Proposal Y, it appears to follow that of the article United States territory.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 07:02, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The term "has" makes me cringe ("The country also has five populated..."). It can have every meaning possible and, so, has none. Also, the geographical description gives undue weight to locations outside the Americas. Here's an alternative: "The U.S. is a federal republic in the North American continent, with possession over 14 territories. It is comprised by 50 states plus the District of Columbia (see "List of states and territories of the United States"), plus territories in the Caribbean and the western Pacific." For an intro and/or an infobox, this should suffice. The main text can go into as much detail as needed. -The Gnome (talk) 09:45, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@The Gnome: This is acceptable in that “has” and “plus” have the same effect of including the territories in the federal republic, though Hawaiians will feel left out in your draft. We want to avoid the assumption that since Alaska and Hawaii were on the U.N. non-self governing list, they were once not a part of the United States federal republic for a couple decades in the mid 20th century, while they were territories with delegate Members of Congress. That is a false correlation between the U.N. list and being removed from the federal republic. The U.N. does not secede sub-units of federal republics.

DC and the five major territories are not states, but they participate in the federal republic with equivalent delegate Members of Congress. Without acknowledging the DC delegate, we are back to the 1970s license plates, “DC--the last colony”, when DC was excluded from the federal republic while Puerto Rico was not. The non-states are in much the same boat as citizens without state privileges until statehood, hence the DC and Puerto Rico statehood movements. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:43, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Golbez: There is no need to change articles that are referenced to current reliable sources such as 21st century statutes which list all five major territories. Some other reliably sourced reports and lists include a) Puerto Rico and not other major territories, b) four major territories and not American Samoa, c) no major territories, or d) five major inhabited territories and nine minor uninhabited territories. Let editors use current reliable sources with the largest applicable aggregate depending on the scope of each article and available sources.

No one should create editor WP:OR reports to conform to any arbitrary standard, because there is no one standard reporting on the scope of the United States in all the reliable sources. The discussion in Fall 2014 is touched off by the reliably sourced report from the U.S. Census, which includes the five major territories. That figure may be footnoted in the info box as I understand it?

It is enough to note that the five major U.S. territories are a part of U.S. territory by reliable sources. It may also be of interest that they along with DC participate in the federal republic by a delegate Member of Congress as sourced. That is adequate to the purposes of a general reader, without seeking to definitively resolve technical arguments about the legal status of territories which is ambiguous as sourced, and best addressed in Territories of the United States. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 15:45, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am not for the proposal by Golbez as written. Most of the federal republic is in North America, but not all of it. Wouldn't it be more adequate to say it is primarily in the Western Hemisphere, thus not excluding Hawaii.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:41, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My proposal didn't exclude Hawaii, I don't know what you're talking about. --Golbez (talk) 21:57, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The U.S. is a federal republic in the North American continent, with possession over 14 territories. It is comprised by 50 states plus the District of Columbia (see "List of states and territories of the United States"), plus territories in the Caribbean and the western Pacific.

As I stated above "Most of the federal republic is in North America, but not all of it". The Hawaiian islands which makes up the State of Hawaii is not in North America; thus the statement regarding the location of the federal republic excludes it. It can be read as excluding other parts of the United States that are not in North America as not being part of the subject of the article we're discussing. Granted I see there is an attempted inclusive sentence in the second sentence, but it might fall short.

To tweek what Golbez wrote, even though I think "proposal Y, second alternative" is OK, perhaps this tweek of Golbez might work better for Golbez:

The United States of America - (insert the current commonly known as text) - is a federal republic primarily in the Western Hemisphere. It is comprised of the United States territory: fifty states on the North American continent and Polynesia, a federal district, and territories in the Caribbean, Polynesia, and Micronesia.

--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:04, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am extremely confused as ... that proposal has nothing to do with me and I would never support it. And your tweak is just bad... Guys, I'm really freaking confused now. Please start making sense. --Golbez (talk) 19:24, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can live with this. -The Gnome (talk) 03:30, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Resolving "source" contradictions

@Sunray: has asked how we shall resolve contradictions in the sources, the answer should lie in reliance on scholarship rather than editor original research into primary sources. See wp:psts under wp:No original research.

Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event. Policy: -- "DO NOT analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so." Example. U.S. government reports territories as “unincorporated” related to the Commerce Clause and others, therefore conclude territories are "not a part of" the United States in any sense, WITHOUT any supporting secondary sources.

A secondary source provides an author's … interpretation, analysis, or evaluation of the facts taken from primary sources. Policy: "Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from reliable secondary sources. Articles may make an analytic or evaluative claim only if that has been published by a reliable secondary source." Example. Although U.S. government reports territories as judicially “unincorporated” for tax purposes, and "a part of" it for homeland security, citizenship travel and other administrative purposes, SIX scholars in reliable sources conclude that the federal United States includes the five major territories or more. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:00, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We have no scholars to say, “U.S. territories are not a part of the U.S. territory.” Excluders use unsourced data bases and online almanacs omitting territories to assert an opinion, or cite territories are “unincorporated” for taxes, “foreign in a domestic sense” for internal tariffs from the Insular Cases, then interpret that to mean territories are not a part of the 21st century U.S. in any sense.

WP:SCHOLARSHIP. "Articles should rely on secondary sources whenever possible. For example, a review article, monograph, or textbook is better than a primary research paper. When relying on primary sources, extreme caution is advised: Wikipedians should never interpret the content of primary sources for themselves.”

WP:OPINION. "The article should represent the POVs of the main scholars and specialists who have produced reliable sources on the issue." We have six scholars who describe the federal U.S. as including five major territories or more.

WP:WEIGHT. "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources.” Those few excluding territories also exclude DC from the federal U.S. although both kinds of non-state sub-units have delegate Members of Congress. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:45, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Logic

We should subject the lead sentence to the logical thinking found in a syllogism.

1. If A is true, then B is true. --- If A: territory populations are within the political framework of the U.S. government, then B: territories are a part of the U.S.

2. A is true. --- A: The populations of the five major territories are within the political framework of the U.S. government (State Dept. [121]),

they have permanent residents with permanent allegiance to the U.S. with three-branch self-governance (GAO rept. [122])

the president is their head-of-state, all have delegate Members of Congress, they are under the regular protection of federal district courts.

3. Therefore, B is true. --- The five major territories are a part of the U.S. [123]

- A syllogism supported by secondary sources. Scholar Jon M. Van Dyke at University of Hawaii, in a peer reviewed journal [124], “The evolving legal relationships between the United States and its affiliated U.S.-flag islands" in the Hawaii Law Review, Fall 1992 includes the five major territories as “a part of the United States”. The United States is a federal republic which includes 50 states, a federal district and five major territories. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:48, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Progress update

Golbez has asked a question about the scope of this mediation. I want to respond to that and also offer my views about progress to date and where it might lead. I welcome participants' comments on each point. Sunray (talk) 18:11, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Scope of mediation

The primary issue, as defined in the request is: Whether the United States should be defined as the 50 states and the District of Columbia, or as the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and five territories. As an additional issue, Golbez stated: "This has far more wide-ranging impacts than just the infobox and some list articles." As long as the parties agree, we can modify the scope, as needed. I would like to hear the views of participants about additional impacts that need to be considered. Sunray (talk)

Our concern has been the scope of the territory of the United States, which modern scholarly and government sources define as 50 states, DC and the five major territories for the “political framework of the United States” [125], with an additional nine uninhabited places for national jurisdiction. Editors should be exhorted to use current reliable sources for the scope of each article.

An example of possible article impact is brought up as a object of concern, Federal jurisdiction (United States) and we see it has a modern reference to national "Judiciary and Judicial procedure”, Chapter 28 U.S. Code § 1332, which includes 50 states, DC and the five major territories at (e) [126]. No change is required as to the scope as presently referenced because there is a modern source.

Puerto Rico is raised as a concern. Virginia article's opening sentence reads, "Virginia…is a U.S. state located in the South Atlantic region…”; Puerto Rico article’s opening sentence reads, "Puerto Rico…is a United States territory located in the northeastern Caribbean…” I do not see a problem, or am I missing something? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 20:15, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It labels Puerto Rico as "unincorporated" despite your multiple sources saying it is de facto incorporated; it refers to it as a "possession", which is language that has been strongly objected to by you and others; it speaks of "political relationship with the U.S." as if it were separate, so that could be modified to make it more inclusive (no one ever speaks of Michigan's relationship with the United States) [though a later section does say "within", so this is an internally inconsistent issue]; it speaks of military being the "responsibility of the [U.S.]", which is language typically used for external territories (again, no one says the military of Michigan is the responsibility of the U.S.); it mentions suzerainty to the U.S., which is an incompatible term with integration; and this is just what I found in a five minute jaunt by searching for "United States".

The situation up til now has been to generally treat the territories as possessions of the country but waffling on whether or not they were part of it. There's been some inconsistencies on that but it generally worked. But the proposal with you has always been to treat them as 100% part of the United States, not as possessions or unincorporated or anything like that. And so the articles must be reconciled with that. But maybe I'm blowing this whole thing out of proportion. What I don't understand is how people can say we can use one number for area in one place, and a different number in a different place. The country is the country, isn't it? Why would there be different sources used for area? Or population? Or anything? --Golbez (talk) 21:56, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Golbez that we should use the same scope to define area, to define population of that area, et cetera. That is what I have been saying is the single most important concern, even more important than getting the "right" scope definition. Inconsistency as to whether the territories are part of the United States would be wronger than wrong. Now, is anyone proposing inconsistency, or are we agreed that consistency is even more important than "rightness"? Are we in agreement that in other articles such as lists comparing countries that consensus in this article as to scope is automatically inherited into lists? Are there any other cases where we need to force inheritance? Robert McClenon (talk) 22:51, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1) What inconsistency, with what article, precisely are you talking about? 2) It's well known that 'consistency is the hobgoblin of . . .' 3)we don't impose consistency, on an inconsistent world, we describe and detail the inconsistencies; 4)we don't impose consistency on inconsistent reliable sources, we describe and detail those inconsistencies. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:11, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Any inconsistency between different articles within Wikipedia. I mean that if we state, in this article, what the population of the United States is, that figure must be what is used in lists of countries by population, and in computing per capita GDP, and in other lists. In this mediation, we have inconsistent reliable sources as to what is the US, and we have to select which ones we use, and we should discuss them in the body of this article, but then the result in this article must inherit. Anyway, your quote from Emerson is itself literally correct but misrepresents what he meant, because he said, "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of ...". Having inconsistent figures in different articles would be a foolish inconsistency, which is worse. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:24, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is usual to report the inconsistency, if there is one -- that is considered the wise course -- Wikipedia does not impose it's own view, it does not have a view per WP:NOR. For example, we don't calculate per capita GDP on Wikipedia, sources do and we report it. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:32, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Alanscottwalker. For instance, academic sources highlight the ambiguous status of Puerto Rico. Especially after 1952, sources diverge in their interpretations, and several need to be accounted for in a balanced way. I do not require lock-step narrative, that is not how the scholarship reads.

What I don't understand is how there can be any objection to using different reliable sources for different article purposes. There can be no requirement for editors to manipulate data bases by original research to create unpublished statistics for the sake of an arbitrary consistency. Import-export data for the U.S. include 50 states, DC and Puerto Rico, not "50 states and DC".

The federal judiciary encompasses the territories by law and in their government webpage maps. No one should create a map expunging them from the reliable government source to conform to "50 states and DC" in the name of editor imposed WP:OR consistency. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 00:15, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The only place where "50 + DC" is apt is with regard to presidential elections / electoral college as I have noted a few times now. Collect (talk) 00:40, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm truly, honestly not being difficult for the sake thereof, or at least trying. There's enough people saying things that I disagree with so strongly that I'm starting to wonder if I'm the one being crazy and not them. So, apologies, but I'll back out of the argument I've created here about wiki-wide changes, consistency, etc. and focus purely on, well, what everyone else wants to focus on. The paragraph and infobox. Not the wiki-wide implications, and not the 'definition' aspect since ... I appear to be the only one who thinks that's an issue here. And yes, I know that sounds snarky and bitchy and that truly is not my intention, I just can't think of a better way to put it. So I'm trying to prove it with actions instead of words, because words are failing me, and I simply won't argue about this part any further at this time. Future inconsistencies will have to be dealt with if and when they emerge. --Golbez (talk) 22:03, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think that it is a significant issue, which is why I started this thread. I don't think that we need to resolve it now, but I do intend to raise it again after we have worked through the other issues. Sunray (talk) 02:41, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Current status

I've said, a couple of times, that I thought that this group was working well together. Let me amplify what I mean: Participants have engaged, in good faith, to discuss the primary issue. Progress has been made and, imho, the group is near to an agreement on the opening sentences of the lead. I am delighted at the way that participants consider each other's perspectives, avoid personal attacks and collaborate on finding ways to address each other's comments. I've said that it bodes well. Here's how I think that could play out: If editors of differing viewpoints treat each other with respect, they may be able to engage as a team of article editors. The result can often be a superior article. I have seen this happen many times (though it isn't always easy and it does take time). Sunray (talk)

So far, I am also satisfied, but I am concerned by statements about certain editors that they may withdraw from the mediation. One editor in particular who has made such statements is, in my opinion, a key participant in the opinion-building process. Are editors who withdraw from mediation still bound by any rough consensus that it develops? Robert McClenon (talk) 22:46, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Robert McClenon: Your use of the phrase "rough consensus" suggests to me that you understand that a decision among participants in a mediation may not be the final step in the process. Mediation is not binding. In order to have a stable situation for an article it is usually important to get a consensus of the article editors. In a case that has been mediated, sometimes a facilitated discussion needs to follow on the article talk page. In such a process, I think it is important to bear in mind that consensus is not necessarily unanimity. Rather all views need to be considered and addressed in coming to a decision. Then, if there is consensus among article editors, it is binding, unless and until an editor brings in new information for consideration. Sunray (talk) 16:27, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For the United States country article, it is enough to say the U.S. territories are a part of the U.S. territory for the general reader, without resolving complex issues of constitutional status which sources report as ambiguous. The ambiguities may be briefly noted with further sourced discussion at Territories of the United States. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:01, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that consensus does not have to be unanimity, and, as Sunray notes, I refer to rough consensus. I still have a multi-part question about the binding nature of the mediation. First, is the result binding on editors who took part in the mediation but did not agree with the consensus? Second, is the result binding on editors who did not take part in the mediation? Third, can an RFC be used to make the result of the mediation binding on other editors? Fourth, not directly related, I have seen statements about the confidential nature of mediation. How does that effect having the mediation be binding on editors? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:16, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus derived in mediation is not kept "secret" - the discussions leading to such a consensus are expected to be considered confidential - and not to be used outside these walls. One exception would be that the Arbitration Committee may examine them with regard to any case on the topic (including matters related to editor behaviour). It is, moreover, bad form to agree to a consensus here and then work against it once this is over. Collect (talk) 18:47, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The future

To expand on the previous section: It is an important article. Whatever is concluded in this mediation will have to be run by the WP community. If we have consensus and participants are able to show leadership, we could initiate an ~~RfP~~ RfC to build the consensus. I would suggest that any RfC should have a facilitator who a) helps ensure that agreed on groundrules are respected, and, b) assists in getting consensus. Consensus is not necessarily unanimity and the decision rule needs to be clearly spelled out. Unregistered accounts would probably best be included in the discussion but not the decision. If there is a team of editors and sufficient energy, other major articles could be updated as part of the RfC decision (i.e., the RfC could specify that this would happen). However, as we know, no consensus is immutable. Any editor can propose a change at any time and a new consensus may emerge. Sunray (talk)

What is an RFP, and how does it differ from an RFC? (As a retired contractor to the US government, I know what an RFP is, and I have bid on RFPs, but I don't think that is what we mean.) Robert McClenon (talk) 22:42, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Typo I suspect. Not important. Collect (talk) 00:01, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, a typo. Fixed. Sunray (talk) 16:29, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

While I know that there is still some work to be done to finalize the first three issues, would participants be willing to begin working on the 4th and 5th issues? Sunray (talk) 02:49, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Issue 4. Developing a footnote to the foregoing statement that describes the issues and sources used

Scholars of the modern United States include territories, while recognizing the effect of the Insular Cases of 1901-1922. Haider-Markel, Donald P., "Political Encyclopedia of U.S. States and Regions”, [127], vol. 1-2, Congressional Quarterly Press, “Overseas Territories” p. 649, “The United States’ overseas territories... [have an] ambiguous constitutional status…they are officially part of U.S. territory, and their residents have U.S. citizenship or are U.S. nationals (as in American Samoa), but they remain 'unincorporated territories’, lacking the full constitutional protection and political citizenship afforded to the states." - Haider-Markel is the Chair of the political science department at University of Kansas. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:42, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

While the internal constitutional status of the territories remains ambiguous, internationally, the federal republic presents itself externally as a "sole person", with the President of the United States as the Head of State for the populations of 50 states, DC and five major territories. U.S. State Department. Report submitted to the United Nations Committee on Human Rights. The persons living in DC and the five major territories live "within the political framework of the United States” (27), with local government “largely determined by the area’s historical relationship to the U.S. and the will of the residents.” (80) [128]. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:23, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The "national jurisdiction" of the United States extends over the land and water of a "contiguous zone" of the United States. U.S. Presidential Proclamation, September 2, 1999. found in Sean D. Murphy, “United States Practice in International Law: vol. 1, 1999-2001. Extension of U.S. Contiguous Zone [129] enumerates the five major territories and “any other territory or possession over which the United States exercises sovereignty”. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:23, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Administratively, modern legislation includes the five major territories as a part of the "United States", or defines "states" to include those territories, and that is reflected in U.S. executive regulations. U.S. Customs and Border Patrol, "Needing a passport” [130] describes “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).” TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:23, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Draft footnote proposal 1. Scholars of the modern federal United States include 50 states, the District of Columbia and territories, while recognizing the effect of the Insular Cases of 1901-1922 [131]. Since citizenship and enfranchised self-governance, protection under federal courts, and delegate Members of Congress, territories are “within the political framework of the United States” [132]. The national jurisdiction of the U.S. extends to a “contiguous zone” including territories and possessions under U.S. sovereignty [133]. Modern legislation includes the five major territories as part of the “United States”, or defines “states” to include those territories [134], and they are administratively "parts of the United States" [135]. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:06, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Issue 5. Agreeing on a means of consulting with the wider community about the agreed on statement and footnote

RfC alternative 1. As there appears to be no single standard in the reliable sources for the scope of the United States, Shall editors report the most current aggregation of the U.S. from reliable sources for the purposes of each article --- enumerating the territories, in whole or in part, or excluding them as the case may be, depending on the applicable sources for the scope of each narrative? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:13, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That appears to be very inclusive for all points of view, while not being clunky and directly in the lead by being in a footnote. But would it be better in a footnote, or in a specific section of the article, or in a sub-article (that may already exist elsewhere)?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:48, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alas - this mediation has no real aegis over more than the single article being discussed. My own suggestion (based on the principle of serving readers) is that we clearly define the "national jurisdiction", and, where appropriate, mention the electoral delineation of the US. For area, as I noted, the latter is more commonly found, and should be so described as representing the electoral area. Collect (talk) 13:27, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Right. My suggestion is sort of the status quo, various sources for various purposes. But do we even need this step?

Proposal Y (and its variants) is informed by the “national jurisdiction” term of art, isn't it?

Presidential electoral delineation (50 & DC) and Congressional electoral delineation (50 v. DC-5) are of interest in the political divisions section. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 20:05, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think the point of this issue does not concern other articles, but rather that this mediation is binding only on those few of us who agreed to it. There are a multitude of others who may be unaware of this discussion or have better things to do and who may disagree with whatever is agreed upon here. older ≠ wiser 20:17, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why not use the content from United States territory that is verified to reliable sources help guide us?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:49, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of U.S. states and territories by population also includes the five major territories as does United States Congress, and United States Naval Academy. It seems the wider community already includes the five major territories when addressing topics related to the United States. Or am I missing something?

We certainly should not begin a campaign to remove the territories from U.S.-related articles such as the 114th Congress series for an unsourced arbitrary consistency; DC and the territories are in Congress since the 1970s, they participate in the federal republic as territories, they are sourced into the articles on each Congress. Our sources include the five major U.S. territories as a part of the U.S. territory, regardless of their constitutional status, which we see in these examples from the wider community. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:55, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with those who have pointed out that the scope of this mediation has to do with the United States article only. The issue for this section is to discuss a means of consulting with the wider community about the agreed on statement and footnote. I've mentioned the possibility of initiating an RfC and there has been some discussion about that above. There are other means of consulting the wider community. Whatever means we choose the minimum would be to get consensus of article editors regarding the United States article. Beyond that we could also secure agreement from the WP community (through RfC, WikiProject/US, or other means) to establish consistency between articles about the U.S. Sunray (talk) 19:20, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If the goal at some point is to propose a fairly uniform means for dealing with general descriptions of nations, then we ought to look at the broader language which would be reasonably applicable to those other nations. Thus (hypothetically):

Name of nation, also called alternate names, is a (form of government) primarily located in (place). It has (number and types of sub-entities) comprising the nation, and its national jurisdiction also includes (sundry elements).

Otherwise there is little need to propose a wide discussion, I fear. Collect (talk) 23:36, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This in a general way follows the introduction of the France article. If we use New Caledonia as a model of the overseas territory of a sovereign nation-state, on the U.N. non-self-governing list, not considered an integral part of France, but France “comprises" the modern New Caledonia of French citizens without regard to race, with representation in the National Assembly, we could say of the five major U.S. territories in the United States lead sentence:

"The United States of America, also called alternate names, is a [federal republic] primarily located in [North America]. It has [50 states, a federal district and five major territories] comprising the nation, and its national jurisdiction also includes [nine uninhabited possessions]. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:58, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As I stated above, that can be seen as excluding Hawaii in the first sentence. It appears that The Gnome is OK with my proposal above. What are others opinion of it? --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:18, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RightCowLeftCoast proposal which is livable for The Gnome is also acceptable to me, it is better written than other variations of Proposal Y, but we already have one "never" vote. I was just crafting a draft that was more generic in format to conform to Collects proposal here. Proposal Y seems to have all but TFD signing on in one form or another for one version or another.

As we continue to amass sources addressing the federal government of the United States, from Sparrow in 2013 and Van Dyke in 2014, we now have six scholars -- Kincaid, Majeed, Van Dyke, Sparrow, Haider-Markel, and Fry -- to include the territories as a part of the federal United States, despite scholarly issues of constitutional status regarding territories and tribes. None to oppose including the territories but those two also excluding DC. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:28, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Progress update

Recalling the "Outline of the mediation process" I presented, above, I am amazed at the progress participants have made. We are in Stage 3 and could now move towards closure and wrap this up. I know that some of you are fatigued and that there are still issues for which we need to finalize agreements. However, I want to congratulate you for the work you have done. I now propose to do a summary of where we are with each of the issues and identify subjects for which we need to finalize agreements. If there are no objections, it would take me a few days to prepare that. In the meantime, I encourage participants to develop summary sections for each of the issues, highlighting where agreement is needed. If this happens, it will make my work easier and speed things along. If any of you proceed to work on this, but run into disagreements with other participants, I suggest that you just allow each other to state your points without engaging in much further discussion. Flag any disagreements and ping me if you need to. Questions? Comments? Thank you for your constructive participation thus far. Sunray (talk) 17:29, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Sunray: I think the addition of three Canadian university (McGill-Queen’s Press) publications identifying the U.S. territories and Indian tribes as within “the U.S. federal system” (2008), the U.S. “now encompasses” territories (2005), the U.S. is “composed of” territories (2006), has put a chill on the discussion. These are new to the two-year discussion. I have expressed my willingness to “live with” four of the six proposals on the table as a matter of collegial collaboration, but I’m interested in seeing your recap of the discussions so far, and it seems others await summarization by a neutral party. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:57, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agreeing on opening sentences of lead

Reading through the discussion, I'm thinking that we should try to simplify the consensus process. The following statement was put forward as a tweak of Proposal Y, above. Would participants be willing to indicate whether they would consent to using it?

The United States of America (USA), often referred to as the United States (U.S.), America, and USA, is a federal republic based in North America. Forty-nine of the fifty states, as well as its federal district, are in North America, with Hawaii being in the Pacific Ocean. The national jurisdiction also includes five populated and nine unpopulated territories.

If this statement does not yet gain your consent, please suggest alternatives. Let's workshop this. Sunray (talk) 19:09, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Change "based in North America" to "primarily in the Western Hemisphere"; incorporate information found at United States territory. No need to separate a national jurisdiction sentence, if we don't delineate it as done in the proposal above; because all U.S. flagged vessels and U.S. registered aircraft are in the jurisdiction of the United States as are diplomatic compounds, military bases, territorial waters, and to a more limited extent EEZs, so no need to go into that. I oppose the separate sentences splitting the territory of the United States into two sentences as proposed above, which separates the U.S. States & D.C. from the rest of the United States.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:08, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Summary of changes proposed by RCLC: 1) Use the wording "primarily in" instead of "based in" (Western Hemisphere or North America?). 2) Eliminate "national jurisdiction" wording. 3) Include the territories in the previous sentence. Sunray (talk) 20:24, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see no reason to prefer "Western Hemisphere" over "North America". One is a more restricted definition and actually gives a geographic context. No one would ever describe Russia as "mostly in the Eastern Hemisphere". --Golbez (talk) 23:14, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I really dislike the "national jurisdiction" part. If the territories are part of the country, say so. If they are possessions of the country, say so. This national jurisdiction business seems like a waffle. (Of course, if this is a waffle to get past the point that some territories are not as much a part of the country as the others, that's fine, but then that opens the door to an actual analysis of the status of each territory, which no one seems interested in doing) I would very much prefer the simpler phrase "the country has" or "the country possesses" to "the national jurisdiction also includes". Basically, this mediation has been forced by people who state unequivocally that [some or all of] the territories are part of the country. I would like to see them stand up for that instead of using this waffly language. --Golbez (talk) 23:14, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"National jurisdiction" as a "term of art" in international law is the only wording which correctly places everything into one entity. Sans that phrase, we are back exactly where we started utterly (noting Golbez's objections to the term as being a "waffle" while it is the term actually used by the UN and by treaty.) Collect (talk) 23:22, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The United States of America also known as United States (U.S.), America, or USA, is a federal republic based in North America. It often refers to the 50 states and the federal district, as comprising the area which elects the President of the United States. The national jurisdiction of the United States of America includes fifty states, a federal district, ~~the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and other possessions and territories~~ five territories and nine unpopulated possessions and territorial waters. (modified per suggestion by Golbez)

Is concise, includes where the US is "based", and includes the common usage which does not include area of national jurisdiction. "Based" neither claims nor implies that every inch is in North America, thus is correct. Collect (talk) 23:32, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, recognized that "national jurisdiction" is a term with specific meaning in international law. I wonder, though, whether it is needed here. Granted that we are trying to be inclusive and technically correct, but another goal is to make this lead engaging and readable. WP is widely quoted and it seems to me that the best leads are ones that express a definition in an engaging way. "North America" seems more precise. Can we come up with a formulation that would improve on "based in"? Sunray (talk) 00:25, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Based" is simplest lest we have to note that parts of the US are on each side of the International Date Line etc. The lead must be short, clear, accurate, and most of all be of use to the reader. It allows us to discuss further the definitions without having a year-long wrangle over "incorporated" or "unincorporated" and if we allow that wrangle to rule, this mediation, whose goal must be a compromise addressing the positions of as many editors as possible, can not succeed. As Franklin asked:

It is therefore that, the older I grow, the more apt I am to doubt my own judgment of others. Most men, indeed, as well as most sects in religion, think themselves in possession of all truth, and that wherever others differ from them, it is so far error. On the whole, sir, I can not help expressing a wish that every member of the convention who may still have objections to it, would, with me, on this occasion, doubt a little of his own infallibility, and, to make manifest our unanimity, put his name to this instrument. Collect (talk) 00:33, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is the U.S. really such a unique butterfly that it requires wording not used on any other article, even if it is a "term of art"? And please show me another country article that specifies the territorial waters, as if it needed specifying; that seems completely unnecessary. Also, "based"? Why based? "Primarily in" seems most appropriate. Finally... "Often"? Really? We can't say what the bloody country IS, we can only say what most people THINK it is? And why does Puerto Rico get a special mention above the other territories? Also, "other possessions and territories" please show me a possession that is neither a territory, state, or federal district, please. Golbez (talk) 01:17, 1 March 2015 (UTC

All the points made by Golbez in the message immediately above are, in my opinion, totally valid and should be taken into account. -The Gnome (talk) 21:38, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Please tell me this is not what the discussion came up with because it's horrible. And if it's NOT what the discussion came up with then why is it being suggested now --Golbez (talk) 01:17, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for saying that a suggestion which was supported by several earlier is horrible. That is precisely the way to get a compromise as far as I can tell. We can readily change the Commonwealth bit to "five territories" quite simply if that is actually the problem you see. Voila! - it is modified to meet your objections. Collect (talk) 03:52, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, surprisingly, being supported by a handful of human beings does not in fact make something not-horrible. And what of the other objections I raised? And actually this introduces a new problem - are the uninhabited territories "territories" or just possessions? The intro seems to make that distinction and I'm not sure if that distinction is supported. If they are not territories then we have a few more articles to modify. --Golbez (talk) 08:19, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I modified the proposal in exact accord with what your apparent wishes are. Our proper goal is an accurate and readable lead which serves the reader, and to compromise in order to produce a lead. Are you averring a willingness to compromise to produce such a lead? Collect (talk) 14:07, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well okay, I'll restate my sentence with the bit removed that was improved: Is the U.S. really such a unique butterfly that it requires wording not used on any other article, even if it is a "term of art"? And please show me another country article that specifies the territorial waters, as if it needed specifying; that seems completely unnecessary. Also, "based"? Why based? "Primarily in" seems most appropriate. Finally... "Often"? Really? We can't say what the bloody country IS, we can only say what most people THINK it is? --Golbez (talk) 19:00, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

====Yet More Questions==== I was outside the United States for ten days and I am confused. Is there now disagreement as to what we thought was an agreed version of the lede? What is the specific issue at this point? Is it about the scope of the article (that is, are the territories in the United States, or do they only belong to it), or is it about the wording of the lede? If the former, what has broken down? If the latter, can we wordsmith it? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:38, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I do wonder whether the mediator was too optimistic earlier in saying that the mediation was going well. The problem here is that this seems to be an intractable content dispute, and that every time we think that we have addressed the content dispute, someone isn't satisfied. Maybe the mediator only thought that things were going well because we don't have persistent conduct issues, only an intractable content dispute. By the way, what is intractable about the content dispute? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:38, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, are we at least in agreement that we should use the same treatment for all five territories, or is that also in disagreement? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:38, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, one editor has referred to a particular draft as horrible. What is horrible about it, and does he have an idea for improving it? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:39, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

At the very least, we should absolutely not say "often". If anything is a non-starter that is. We cannot begin an article saying that a country is "often" X. No, it *is* X. What "X" is is what should be under discussion, not finding ways around having to tie it down to "X". Are there any other countries on Wikipedia described in such a fashion? No? There's probably a reason for that. And I'm shocked that it survived this long and makes me worry for the process as a whole, as that's just ... well, horrible. Maybe sentences shouldn't be drafted in committee and, instead, the wider aspects should be discussed and then a sentence grows organically out of established facts, rather than making a sentence so convoluted as to fit everything and satisfy no one. [time travel will show you that this was precisely my problem with the RFC years ago - not the factual outcome, which I can acquiesce to, but the vile wording that it produced, as if they were machine-translating into English] --Golbez (talk) 19:00, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

First - Wikipedia allows different articles to be worded differently. That you think this is unusual is unfortunate - we do not have any "article template" suggesting that there is anything remotely wrong with this proposal. Second, "often" is used to refer to the fact that the other sense is used in many places. Your insistence otherwise implies an unwillingness to understand just what "compromise" entails. As for your willingness to berate editors who actually are doing their darndest to attain such a compromise is a tad unfortunate as well. Are you in fact stating that you are opposed to finding compromise language here? Collect (talk) 19:13, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@ Robert McClenon. The five major territories all should be treated the same as DC. All five major territories have permanent allegiance to the United States as U.S. citizens and nationals [136], and like DC they all five have three-branch self-governance, the president is their head of state, all have delegate Members of Congress, and they are under the regular protection of federal district courts.

Regardless of their “unincorporated” tax status, they are “outside the 50 states and yet within the political framework of the United States. These include persons living in the District of Columbia, American Samoa, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands.” State Department report to the U.N. [137].

A variation of The United States ... is a federal republic comprised of fifty states as well as a federal district, five major territories and nine possessions. would leave the extant geographical description in tact, but I thought adapting the geographical description was the key to the widely accepted Proposal Y. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 20:02, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've collapsed some of the discussion in this section. My reason for doing this is that at this stage of the mediation process, we are looking for points of agreement. Simply that. At the top of the section, I made this request: "If this statement does not yet gain your consent, please suggest alternatives. Let's workshop this." That is what I suggest we continue to do. Positive contributions will be welcomed. If you are o.k. with a particular wording, would you be able to say so? If not, simply state what you would prefer. We need to move this forward. Sunray (talk) 20:13, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing:

The United States of America (USA), commonly referred to as the United States (U.S.) or America, is a federal republic consisting of 50 states, a federal district, five inhabited territories and nine uninhabited territories. The 48 contiguous states and Washington, D.C., are in central North America between Canada and Mexico. The state of Alaska is located in the northwestern part of North America and the state of Hawaii is an archipelago in the mid-Pacific. The territories are islands scattered throughout the Pacific and the Caribbean.

Takes the existing opening and adds the territories to the composition of the country, which is all that we should have been discussing here. --Golbez (talk) 22:46, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above proposal by Golbez is not disagreeable. It clearly states that U.S. is made of several components without saying that not of those components are not part of the United States. it then goes into where those components are located. I would not use the term "scattered".

Let me suggest a tweak:

The United States of America (USA), commonly referred to as the United States (U.S.) or America, is a federal republic consisting of its territory: 50 states, a federal district, two commonwealths, three inhabited territories and nine uninhabited territories. The 48 contiguous states and Washington, D.C., are in central North America between Canada and Mexico. The state of Alaska is located in the northwestern part of North America and the state of Hawaii is an archipelago in the mid-Pacific. The commonwealths and territories are islands in the Pacific and Caribbean Oceans.

--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:17, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand the need for the awkward wording. This boils down essentially to "The country consists of its country". Also, there is no substantive difference between the commonwealths and the territories, as even Puerto Rico states that it is a territory. Also, the Caribbean is not an ocean. :) So,

The United States of America (USA), commonly referred to as the United States (U.S.) or America, is a federal republic consisting of 50 states, a federal district, five inhabited territories and nine uninhabited territories. The 48 contiguous states and Washington, D.C., are in central North America between Canada and Mexico. The state of Alaska is located in the northwestern part of North America, the state of Hawaii is an archipelago in the mid-Pacific, and the territories are islands in the Pacific Ocean and Caribbean Sea.

Combined the last sentences so we don't get a short sentence just for the territory locations. --Golbez (talk) 23:22, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As I read it, you are defining the actual US nation as consisting of "50 states, a federal district, 5 inhabited territories and 9 uninhabited territories" precisely? (By the way, part of Alaska is also an archipelago - the Aleutians, and part of Florida is also an archipelago, just so we do not mislead readers. Be sure to add that in. Oh -- Samoa is also an archipelago. Might as well make sure we cover it all, right? And part of Washington too, just to be absolutely accurate, of course.) But what about people who think only areas which elect the president are really part of the US? How do you reconcile the two distinct usages? Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:58, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Then either they're wrong or two articles are needed, like we have one for The Netherlands and Kingdom of the Netherlands, or New Zealand versus Realm of New Zealand. There is zero reason for this article... well, not this article, but this sentence, regardless of the article it prefaces... giving the reader two distinct definitions for the entity the article is about. Also, saying something is an archipelago does not mean that nothing else is an archipelago, but you knew that already, but okay, if you dislike that, should we just say Hawaii is in the middle of the Pacific? --Golbez (talk) 01:46, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Golbez latest proposal, as amended, though the original flows better as the phrases are balanced. Read the two out loud to hear the difference.

The United States of America (USA), commonly referred to as the United States (U.S.) or America, is a federal republic consisting of 50 states, a federal district, five inhabited territories and nine uninhabited territories. The 48 contiguous states and Washington, D.C., are in central North America between Canada and Mexico. The state of Alaska is located in the northwestern part of North America, the state of Hawaii is [an archipelago] in the mid-Pacific, and the territories are islands in the Pacific Ocean and Caribbean Sea.

The 5 inhabited and 9 uninhabited territories are from the Insular Territories of the 1998 GAO Report which we all agree on as a source. There are other uninhabited possessions claimed which are contested by Cuba and New Zealand? but we have not sourced them in our discussion, so there is no reason to strain at the micro-detail while they are actively under negotiation and when we are explicitly sourcing our U.S. non-state sub-units as DC, the major five territories, (State Department report to the U.N. item 27 [138]) and the minor nine (GAO Report [139].) TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:05, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Best solution for that is to remove the numbers. Simply say "50 states, a federal district, and numerous island territories." --Golbez (talk) 15:34, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We already determined that the usual cited figures for area etc. found in resources are for the more limited view of the US (50+DC) - thus this new version only stating the "national jurisdiction" as being the same as "consisting of" is a vast leap, and likely a vast leap from what I had thought we has as a consensus before. I could not agree to such a step backward from the prior versions which were widely accepted here. We must note the other usage of US which is more restrictive than the "national jurisdiction". (BTW, "realm" is basically the same as "national jurisdiction" with regard to geography if one wishes to use archaic terms which originally applied to "kingdom" but are now not specific. With regard to "area of interest" it is still occasionally used.) Collect (talk) 13:35, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, my main motivation is to avoid the term "national jurisdiction". It may be a term of art but I don't find it helpful for the average reader, especially since it's unique wording among all the country articles on Wikipedia. (This isn't to say that we can't have unique wording; it's to say that maybe, if it's never been needed elsewhere, even for the complex countries like the UK, France, and the Netherlands, then maybe there's a reason for that and it's not needed here). If the territories aren't part of the country then they're possessed by it, except for the fact that many here would reject such a wording.

Maybe we've been going about this all wrong. Instead of having the composition first, make it second. That way you can happily include both in the composition without making a judgment:

The United States of America (USA), commonly referred to as the United States (U.S.) or America, is a federal republic primarily in central North America. The 48 states and federal district that make up the contiguous United States are between Canada and Mexico, the state of Alaska is in the northwestern part of North America, and the state of Hawaii is in the mid-Pacific. The country also has numerous island territories in the Pacific Ocean and Caribbean Sea.

That said, if we're truly married to the term of art "national jurisdiction" then I'll yield, while noting my extreme distaste for its usage in this context. --Golbez (talk) 15:34, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since we began this discussion, it has now come to light that the five major territories and DC are equivalent non-state sub-units "within the political framework of the United States. These include persons living in the District of Columbia, American Samoa, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands." State Department report to the U.N. item 27 [140]. As noted in our Canadian publications referenced above, the U.S. “now encompasses” territories, they are “within the U.S. federal system” and the U.S. is "composed of" territories.

The United States...is a federal republic [of], [comprised of], [composed of], [with a national jurisdiction of] 50 states as well as a federal district and five major territories located primarily in North America. The 48 states and federal district that make up the contiguous United States are between Canada and Mexico, the state of Alaska is in the northwestern part of North America, and the state of Hawaii is in the mid-Pacific. The country also has numerous island territories in the Pacific Ocean and Caribbean Sea. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 18:51, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please no. Let's not start throwing in new sources at this late stage. It doesn't change anything substantive, except of course that ... no, I'm not rehashing the same bloody argument again. --Golbez (talk) 19:22, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I like this discussion but note that there are just a few of you engaging right now. Are you close to having a text that we can put forward for all participants to agree to? Sunray (talk) 21:39, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose "...a federal republic primarily in central North America... The country also has numerous island territories in the Pacific Ocean and Caribbean Sea." That lead sentence is subject to the Non sequitur (logic), specifically Denying the antecedent.

1. If A is true, then B is true. example: If I jump from a tall building, I will die.

Lead logic: If A: territories are incorporated, then B: territories are a part of the U.S.

2. A is false, example: ~ A. I will not jump from a tall building.

Lead logic: ~ A. Territories are unincorporated for taxes and tariffs.

3. Therefore, B is false. example: Therefore, ~B. I will not die.

Lead logic: Therefore, ~ B: territories are not a part of the U.S.

- Non sequitur reasoning is fallacious, and here the conclusion is also unsupported by secondary sources.

Support the Golbez-RightCowLeftCoast Diff [141], The United States ... is a federal republic consisting of 50 states, a federal district, five inhabited territories and nine uninhabited territories.” TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 06:17, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

i'm going to regret asking this, but: what? they are two statements of fact. it is a republic. it has territories. also you proposed identical language. you're opposing your own proposal and labeling it as a non sequitur. there's is no 'if this then that'. it is two statements of fact. this makes no sense. this makes no sense. this makes no sense. this makes no sense. i am so confused. --Golbez (talk) 06:32, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

i'm seriously considering withdrawing support for that out of pure spite for the insanity you caused me above. also it was superceded by a subsequent proposal. but whatever. this is insane. let's bury this abortion and stop wasting everyone's time. --Golbez (talk) 06:32, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wait until the six others offer their opinions. I'm just saying, we should use a sourced syllogism as the foundation of the lead sentence.

1. If A then B. If a non-state territory is within the political framework of the U.S. as is its federal district, then it is a part of the United States.

2. A is true. DC and the five major territories are alike "within the political framework" of the U.S. government (State Dept. doc. item 27 [142]),

they have permanent residents with permanent allegiance to the U.S. as citizens/nationals (GAO rept. [143])

the president is their head-of-state, all have delegate Members of Congress, they are under the regular protection of federal district courts.

3. Therefore, B is true. --- The five major territories are a part of the United States.

- A syllogism supported by secondary sources above Tarr (2005), Katz (2006), Van Dyke (1992), Sparrow (2005), Haider-Markel (2008), Fry (2009). No counter secondary sources are offered.

Support. "The United States is a federal republic which includes 50 states as well as a federal district and five major territories with a national jurisdiction extending to other uninhabited islands."

Support the Golbez-RightCowLeftCoast Diff [144], "The United States ... is a federal republic consisting of 50 states, a federal district, five inhabited territories and nine uninhabited territories.” TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:15, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can live with Collect’s sentences rearranged Diff [145] The United States .... is a federal republic with a national jurisdiction of fifty states, a federal district, five major territories and several uninhabited islands. The republic has a President ... elected within the fifty states and a federal district, frequently called the United States by itself.

Can live with Sunray’s summary amended Diff [146] The United States ... is a federal republic predominantly in North America. Forty-nine of the fifty states, as well as its federal district and two major territories are in North America and the Caribbean Sea, with Hawaii and three major territories being in the Pacific Ocean. The national jurisdiction also includes nine unpopulated territories. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:47, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mediator's comment TVH has indicated which of the leads he supports and which he could live with. Would other participants be willing to do this? It would be good to have a simple format for this. Anyone able to set that up? Sunray (talk) 22:44, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can support this, as written by Golbez:

The United States of America (USA), commonly referred to as the United States (U.S.) or America, is a federal republic consisting of 50 states, a federal district, five inhabited territories and nine uninhabited territories.

But perhaps it should be rewritten slightly as:

The United States of America (USA), commonly referred to as the United States (U.S.) or America, is a federal republic consisting of 50 states, a federal district, five inhabited territories and other uninhabited territories.

We can wikilink "consisting of" to United States territory, which will give further detail as to the specific location of the 50 states, a federal district, five inhabited territories and other uninhabited territories. I would rather not enumerate the uninhabited territories as their are territorial disputes with other nation states on who has those territories, and the count of United States Minor Outlying Islands is 11.

Although I do not feel that we need to specifically state the location of the areas where the USA is, it appears to be common practice with other national articles, therefore this is something we can work on, and appears to be close to reaching consensus, once we agree on the first sentence.

As for this suggestion by Collect, would it name specifically the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands as it is naming specifically the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:02, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's also the fun fact that Wake Island is not in fact uninhabited. Sure, the people there are military, but there's 200 of them. That's a sizable population. --Golbez (talk) 16:33, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What are the choices?

I see that we are being asked which of the lede sentences we will support. Since the choices are scattered over the talk page, it is not easy to compare them. I am willing to accept the one offered by Golbez, which is free of geography. What are the other options? I don't really want to walk through the entire talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:22, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like I've thrown the end game of this into chaos, by I suppose objecting when it wasn't time to object. --Golbez (talk) 16:33, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I felt that you repeatedly threw the game into chaos by saying that you might withdraw from the mediation, but I don't own the mediation, and it has never been clear whether the mediation can bind parties who have withdrawn from it. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:10, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you were oddly obsessed with finding out if the mediation was binding on me, as if it mattered to either of us. And I only did that when I was confused as to the scope of the mediation. I still am, but have decided to just go along with this exercise of picking a first sentence. But since then? eh. I have decided I no longer care. Do what thou wilt. --Golbez (talk) 16:00, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all. Sometimes you say things which lead me to believe we are agreed. Just yesterday, you said, “two statements of fact. it is a republic. it has territories.” Diff [147]. So, we can think this through together.

Definition. The United States is a federal republic, a nation-state with a scheme of representation for its citizens and nationals in Congress.

1. If Congress represents the U.S. citizens/nationals in a place by name, then the named place is a part of the United States federal republic.

2. Permanent populations of U.S. citizens/nationals in DC and five major territories are represented by name with delegate Members of Congress.

3. Therefore, DC and five major territories (PR, USVI, CNMI, GU, AS) are a part of the U.S. federal republic. Sourced by six scholars.

"The United States ... is a federal republic consisting of 50 states, a federal district, five inhabited territories and nine uninhabited territories.” — Golbez Diff [148]. This is good faith agreement as far as I can see. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 19:02, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So far in this section, which is meant to recap the entire talk page, we have one consolidated draft from Sunray, followed by three alternatives, which may be added to. Sunray has asked for alternatives, "If this statement does not yet gain your consent, please suggest alternatives. Let's workshop this." Diff [149]

A1. The United States ... is a federal republic based in North America. Forty-nine of the fifty states, as well as its federal district, are in North America, with Hawaii being in the Pacific Ocean. The national jurisdiction also includes five populated and nine unpopulated territories.

A2. The United States ... is a federal republic primarily in North America. Forty-nine of the fifty states, its federal district and two major territories are in North America, with Hawaii and three major territories in the Pacific Ocean. The national jurisdiction also includes unpopulated territories.

B1. The United States .... is a federal republic with a national jurisdiction of fifty states, a federal district, five major territories and several uninhabited islands. The United States has a President elected within the fifty states and the federal district alone.

B2. The United States ... is a federal republic based in North America. It often refers to the 50 states and the federal district, as comprising the area which elects the President of the United States. The national jurisdiction of the United States of America includes fifty states, a federal district, five territories and nine unpopulated possessions and territorial waters.

C1.The United States ... is a federal republic consisting of 50 states, a federal district, five inhabited territories and other uninhabited territories.

C2. The United States ... is a federal republic consisting of 50 states, a federal district, five inhabited territories and nine uninhabited territories. The 48 contiguous states and Washington, D.C., are in central North America between Canada and Mexico. The state of Alaska is located in the northwestern part of North America, the state of Hawaii is [an archipelago] in the mid-Pacific, and the territories are islands in the Pacific Ocean and Caribbean Sea.

It might be helpful to restate the preferred draft language rather than referring to the author to avoid ad hominem responses. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:10, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Poll of choices, additional proposals

First choice. C1., second choice B1 third choice A2. -- No additional draft language proposed. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:25, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
First choice C2. Second choice C1. I may propose an alternative within 24 hours. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:15, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Somewhat indifferent, although probably should eliminate the wordy ones. C1. on the other hand, seems too brief for all this talk we have done -- it seems we should aim for just a bit more of agreement. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:47, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would prefer first sentence similar to The United States ... is a federal republic consisting of 50 states, a federal district, and other territories. I don't see it as helpful to try distinguishing major/minor populated/unpopulated etc in the first sentence. older ≠ wiser 19:18, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
B2 then B1 with "alone" removed as not really helping the readers. The C "consisting of" is problematic - as the territories do not have actual voting members of Congress (they can not vote on actual Bills), and thus they do fall into a separate group from the electoral nation. Collect (talk) 22:08, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As none of my suggestions below have been included by TVH in the list above (and arguably above the list), B1 is the best of all those in the list. I do agree with Bkonrad with his statement. As I said below, I think it is best to get consensus of the first sentence first, and work on other sentences of the first paragraph, once we have crossed the first hurdle.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:19, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Additional discussion

First regarding the straw poll above, it is not a substitution for discussion, but can help to see if a consensus has arisen. Several things though. As pointed out by Golbez, Wake Island is populated, and as pointed out by myself the United States minor outlying islands consist of 11 not 9 territories. Therefore, I propose the following:

The United States of America (USA), commonly referred to as the United States (U.S.) or America, is a federal republic consisting of 50 states, a federal district, six inhabited territories and other uninhabited territories.

--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 03:31, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I like the phrase "other uninhabited territories" or "other island possessions". The uninhabited islands, those with transient workers on coconut plantations and military bases are included in the U.S. by its national jurisdiction, rather than the five major territories having a constitutional status participating in Congress as a part of the federal republic. Maybe "50 states, a federal district, five major territories and other island possessions". --- It is understood that the five inhabited islands which are the five major "territories" have a permanent population, unlike the other "possessions", so we might use the two terms to distinguish them. Let's see how the consensus emerges above to see what we will probably be working with. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:11, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why not just say than

...and other territories."

Creating the sentence

The United States of America (USA), commonly referred to as the United States (U.S.) or America, is a federal republic consisting of 50 states, a federal district, and other territories.

Why delineate between major inhabited territories and other posessions?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:40, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

While it is true, and it may be that this will be our final consensus, that "50 states, a federal district and other territories are a part of the U.S. national jurisdiction", that statement does not reflect the enhanced constitutional status of the five major territories in the way that they are equivalent to DC. Beyond national jurisdiction, the people of the five major territories participate in the federal republic of the United States.

Definition. The United States is a federal republic which represents its people in Congress.

1. If U.S. people are represented in Congress, then their places are a part of the United States federal republic.

2. DC and five major territories have delegate Members of Congress representing U.S. people (citizens/nationals).

3. Therefore, DC and five major territories are a part of the U.S. federal republic --

- they are “within the political framework of the United States.” (item 27). State Department rept. to the U.N. [150].

So, another preference is, “The United States is a federal republic of 50 states, a federal district and five major territories, as well as island possessions." TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:16, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Provisions for a federal district are described in the constitution separately from the territories and residents of DC are able to vote for president, unlike any of the territories. older ≠ wiser 13:23, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Right, and then there are the subset of territories that like the federal district are represented in the national legislature, which subset have U.S. court districts, like the federal district does. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:15, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

While the Insular Cases once withheld both citizenship and suffrage from “savages” of alien cultures in 1901, by the 1980s, Congress has mutually extended both nationality and a voice in the national councils to the major five territories, approved in local referendums.

But this was done by Congress in its historical tradition of U.S. territories, not creating states by fiat before a substantial petition from the populace. OTOH, only 3-5% ever vote for independence from the U.S. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:28, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This would be ok:

The United States, commonly referred to as the United States (U.S.) or America, is a federal republic of 50 states, a federal district and five major territories, as well as numerous other island and bank territories.

--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:01, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@RightCowLeftCoast, Bkonrad, and Alanscottwalker: — as you are here — could you weigh in on the poll of preferred draft wording above, or craft another alternative? Thanks in advance. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:28, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to the straw poll, I already made my opinion known about it, and have provided in this discussion several alternatives in this discussion. Therefore, voting is not a substitution for discussion. Not attempting to be an obstructionist, but why poll to see if a consensus has been formed, when it hasn't yet.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:01, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To see if there can be some narrowing of the alternative draft elements, especially if first, second, third choices can be expressed to capture some sense of what editors can live with. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 19:58, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RCLC, The reason TVH distinguishes between the inhabited and uninhabited territories is that he accepts that the U.S. may acquire territories without those territories becoming part of the U.S. He has however set up a set of shifting criteria that transform these territories into parts of the U.S., all of which require a permanent population.

Furthermore, the sources TVH cites that claim the U.S. has incorporated the inhabited territories do not make the same claim for the uninhabited ones. It could be that they concentrate on their view that the U.S. is acting like an imperial nation depriving indigenous populations of their right to self-determination, which hardly applies to a desert isle.

TFD (talk) 18:03, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@The Four Deuces: Welcome back, please express your preference for first-second-third choice or offer an alternative to the others in the "Poll of choices, additional proposals” section above. It sounds as though you approve of the three Canadian sourced publications of scholars which describe the federated United States (or national jurisdiction) as 50 states, a federal district, five major territories, minor islands and Indian tribal areas.

As I see it, that is not incompatible with the three U.S. sourced publications of scholars which describe the United States as composed of 50 states, a federal district and five major territories. But I have consistently agreed to any formulation which does not arbitrarily exclude islander population of U.S. citizens/nationals with delegate Members of Congress from the U.S. federal republic. They are citizens, they vote, the political union withheld by the Insular Cases has been overcome by Congress and islander referendums in the late 20th century, while maintaining an "unincorporated" status for federal taxes and tariffs. Some scholars speculate that territory populations vote to remain territories to avoid federal income and corporate taxes.

The “shifting criteria” you accuse me of, encompassing a larger scope of national jurisdiction comes from good faith attempts to find a mediated solution by working collaboratively with other editors here and the promise of a mediated solution. I can live with the national jurisdiction formulation, and geographical formulations, in several of our drafts. Please participate in the Poll above. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 19:04, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that a poll doesn't replace discussion. Nor is it a means of determining consensus, unless that is it's stated purpose (which it wasn't). I suggested the poll as a way to see where the main points of agreement are. It won't work unless all parties participate in it. So I encourage all those who have signed onto this mediation to ~~take it~~ indicate their preferred choices in the section above. Sunray (talk) 15:52, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A U.S.G. source to support the Canadian publications and national jurisdiction drafts, unlike my original draft proposal, an interactive map imposed on a orbital space shot of the earth’s surface published by NOAA at "U.S. Maritime Limits and Boundaries Webmap", [151]. click on the islands for the region name, boundary ID, legal authority, etc.

The "legal authority" are the Presidential Proclamations no 5928, December 1988 for Northern Marianas and Guam, Johnston Atoll, Howland, Baker and Jarvis Islands, etc.--- and no. 7219, August 1999 for American Samoa, Puerto Rico and U.S. Virgin Islands [152], which also enumerates Northern Mariana Islands and Guam. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 17:02, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Collect: Yes, there is a distinction between state Representatives and territory delegate Members of Congress.— DC and the five major territories citizens are alike. They do not vote on final passage, BUT they can sponsor legislation, engage in floor debate, vote in committee. party caucuses and in conference with the Senate, and otherwise have all the privileges of a U.S. Representative including office space, staff, academy appointments, etc.

The modern territory delegate Members of Congress (that is their title, Congressman and Congresswoman), have more privileges today than the those for the territories of Alaska and Hawaii before their statehood in the mid 20th century (they too were on the U.N. non-self governing list but were a part of the United States). DC and the territories are non-state participants in the U.S. federal republic or the "federated United States" --- as sourced by six scholars. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:32, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I am not delighted with "consisting of" for a different reason, it seems to be used here as a form of "include". Include or 'which includes' would avoid the implication that the United States is not one nation. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:44, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And the Congress can alter and has altered their status from time to time. And no territory has any representation in the Senate. So as far as "governing" the US - they don't. DC, moreover, is included in the electoral definition of the US - which thus places it in the position of direct electoral nexus to that definition of the US. Collect (talk) 12:46, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It looks as though we can both live with a variation of B1. Congress has altered the status of DC from time to time, DC has no U.S. Senator, DC and the five major territories are alike “within the political framework of the United States” according to a State Department report to the UN. (item 27, [153]). TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:36, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Op. cit.: Residents of the District, numbering approximately 601,700, are United States citizens and have been entitled to vote in presidential elections since enactment of the 23rd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution in 1964. Collect (talk) 17:06, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Insert. op.cit. "Other governmental levels. 80. The governmental frameworks in areas not within the 50 states, such as the District of Columbia, American Samoa, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands, are largely determined by the area’s historical relationship to the United States and the will of the residents." TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:47, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can't keep track of this anymore because I don't care to. This argument has been going on for years, repeated mainly by people who seem to only care about hearing themselves speak, with no actual goal in sight. I'm over it. I'm clearly in the minority anyway, and my input has done nothing but throw the process into chaos, so, I'm out. And don't worry, Robert, about me being bound to the agreement, no matter how much you obsess over that - I don't care anymore. I want to be out of it. Leave me be. --Golbez (talk) 17:39, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that despite the various means of acquisition, the five major territories in the modern post-WWII era have made self-determination to mutually be a part of the U.S. nation state with a) local elective self government, b) representation in the national councils and c) equal citizenship without regard to religion or race. This is the modern international test for “self-determination” of a defined group within a nation-state. The U.S. historic tradition for non-state territories is a delegate Member of Congress in the national councils.

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 [154]); it is just as irrelevant as the same Court's Plessy decision. 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 actual goal is to include the lead description of 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. Our mediation process here approaches a variation of that improvement to the article. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:11, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The U.S. common core report to the U.N. is information about the country relevant to all treaties, such as its political structure [155]. The December 30, 2011 report to the U.N. says that "The United States of America is a federal republic of 50 states, together with a number of commonwealths, territories and possessions. Item 22 [156].

A significant number of United States citizens and/or nationals live in areas outside the 50 states and yet within the political framework of the United States. These include persons living in the District of Columbia, American Samoa, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands. (Item 27 [157]. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 15:00, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

At U.S. request for mediation, trying to thread the needle in the poll returns between B1-2 “national jurisdiction", and C1-2 “federal republic consisting of”, —

Proposal. The United States is a federal republic consisting of 50 states, as well as a federal district and other territories in its national jurisdiction. [note]

This can be parsed in various ways which accommodates the major divisions among editors as I see them, with an eye to include ALL initial participants -- across a spectrum of ambiguous interpretations.

a) The federal republic consists of 50 states, as well as a federal district and other territories. or,
b) 50 states, a federal district and other territories are in its national jurisdiction. -- or —
c) a federal district and other territories in the national jurisdiction are in a non-state status. — or —
d) a federal district and other territories in its national jurisdiction but outside the federal republic.

I do not believe d) is a correct inference from the ambiguous statement, so I would like a clarifying footnote citation from the State Department “Common Core Document” to the U.N. Committee on Human Rights, noting Item 22: "The United States of America is a federal republic of 50 states, together with a number of commonwealths, territories and possessions." and, item 27: “...outside the 50 states and yet within the political framework of the United States. These include persons living in the District of Columbia, American Samoa, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands." [158].

Any thoughts in response to this redraft, --- or any main principles up front, in response to Sunray's invitation below for a priori Principles-for-objection before trying to reach an accommodation or redraft among the poll responses? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:59, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is solid progress. In recap, I'm supporting the following version: "The United States of America is a federal republic of 50 states, together with a number of commonwealths, territories and possessions. These include persons living in the District of Columbia, American Samoa, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands." -The Gnome (talk) 15:49, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree with the restatement, because the issue isn't persons living in the District of Columbia and the five territories, but those territories themselves. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:23, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How about: "The United States of America is a federal republic of 50 states, together with a number of commonwealths, territories and possessions, which include the District of Columbia, American Samoa, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands." Robert McClenon (talk) 16:25, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget the also known as part after "The United States of America ...". That being said, I wouldn't be opposed to Robert McClenon's proposal. I would like together to United States territory.

Question, did we drop the Federal District wording?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:03, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The first mention along with states becomes redundant once we include the non-states together in the list of sub-units where the Congress "retains final authority in a number of important areas including the [DC] laws and budget (item 81 [159]) as it does with the territories. They also all have a delegate Member of Congress alike. I also can live with Robert McClenon's draft.

Question: Should we footnote with one source, U.S. Department of State, “Common Core Document of the United States of America:…to the United Nations Committee on Human Rights …" December 30, 2011. Item 22, 27? or double up with scholars and other U.S.G. sources including islander U.S. citizens and their places in the political framework of the United States? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 19:03, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear God, I hope the proposal has not become to list out the territories in the first sentence. That is a no go as far as I'm concerned. I'd rather list all fifty States before mentioning any of the still officially unincorporated territories in the first sentence. older ≠ wiser 20:56, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For the five, "five major territories" is a well sourced shorthand (even if it were not, paraphrasing is what Wikipedia does). So, "five major territories, and various possessions", or some such -- why this is so difficult is beyond me, so what's the log jam? Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:10, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bold lettering can be, as it is in my case, a declaration of near hopelessness. :-) -The Gnome (talk) 09:57, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The United States is a federal republic consisting of 50 states, a federal district, five major territories and various possessions. [note] Sunray (talk) 07:36, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. especially since it seems to meet Bkonrad's objections for his "live with" concurrence. -- The enumerations can be in links: 50 states, a federal district, five major territories and possessions. -- The phrasing a) "50 states together with a number of", and b) "50 states as well as DC and territories" were meant to accommodate all parties. This is another such attempt by the mediator in my view.

Much of the world and not a few political scientists define the U.S. federal republic as 50 states alone, as does the Encyclopedia Britannica [160]. They treat the places directly under Congressional legislative review separately. All non-state legislatures are alike constitutionally under Congressional legislative review (for DC, see item 81 [161]). Like the U.S. Common Core Document, to include DC is to include the five major territories in the political framework of U.S. constitutional structure (item 27 [162]). TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:11, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, although, I prefer the more formal "composed of" [163], as Chief Justice John Marshall wrote: "[United States] is the name given to our great republic, which is composed of states and territories." Loughborough v. Blake, 18 U.S. 317 (1820) (The District of Columbia, like other territories, is subject to congressional authority.) [164] Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:35, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Methinks the term "composed of" was applicable in Marshall's reference in general to "states and territories." That indeed is the composition of that entity we call "United States." It is not composed, for example, of colonies. But when we are making specific references to that composition and define it, when we're trying to determine that composition, i.e. "50 states, a federal district, five major territories," etc, then the term "consisting of" seems much more appropriate. -The Gnome (talk) 10:04, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. -The Gnome (talk) 10:04, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As we have been going at this for months, I will say OK (I can live with) to Sunray's suggestion but would like the wikilink to United States territory used for the wikilink of possessions (as it is the most inclusive of articles).--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:11, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mediator's comment - principled objection

I've been racking my brain to come up with a statement that meets most of the major concerns raised. You are so close. To get consensus you will need to come up with something that a) meets major concerns, and, b) all of you can live with. One way to do this is to introduce the notion of principled objection. That is the statement would have to meet generally accepted principles. This would mean that an objection not based on a principle wouldn't block agreement. This would require that you all agree on the principles that obtain. I know that you have been at this for a long time and I don't want to put you through much more. It's just that you are close... Sunray (talk) 21:48, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

wp:weight "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources.”

The lead sentence in the country article should reflect the scope of the nation state as it describes itself before the world in the modern era — as sourced by itself and scholars writing on the modern era, post WWII and 21st century. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:34, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree that WP policies and guidelines represent "principles" and a principled objection would one that was based on them. Sunray (talk) 01:09, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

One of the other parties to this mediation has asked how we get out of this impasse. I would just like to agree on a lede sentence, and, as I have said over and over, I would prefer to agree on the "wrong" lede sentence if it is one that we can work with and that is used consistently throughout all English Wikipedia references to the United States, rather than one that is applied inconsistently, which would be wronger than wrong. As to the concept of principled objection, I will object to any definition that implies that the five territories are not part of the United States, because that runs contrary to twenty-first century usage, and will in particular object on principle to any definition that relies on the concept of "incorporated and unincorporated" territories, because that is such an esoteric distinction that it is not worth using. Can we agree on some lede sentence that includes the five major territories (with or without some mention of their status)? Robert McClenon (talk) 21:23, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a logjam? If so, what is the logjam? Robert McClenon (talk) 21:25, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The section below represents the working consensus for decisions in this mediation. There have been no principled objections as yet. I will post a final draft next week for participants to take a last look at. Sunray (talk) 16:44, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal for lead sentence

It would be great if everyone could take a look at this statement which has emerged from recent discussion. The editor in me likes its simplicity. What do you all think? Sunray (talk)

The United States of America (USA), commonly referred to as the United States (U.S.) or America, is a federal republic composed of 50 states, a federal district, five major territories and various possessions. [note listing territories and possessions]

Agreement

Please indicate whether you agree with the proposed lead sentence. If you do not agree, please state the principle (WP policy, guideline, other principle) on which your objection is based. Sunray (talk)

Support proposal in accordance with the discussions as above. -The Gnome (talk) 10:09, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support proposal, see comment below. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:49, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support proposed lede. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:14, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fine. (Again, per my comment above.) :) Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:25, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Alanscottwalker: Which of your comments are you referring to here? Sunray (talk) 00:18, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, just saw this (I don't think I was pinged). I think I meant my last coemment but it does not really matter, I think. Support. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:07, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK older ≠ wiser 00:23, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support, with reservations, per my comments above.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:13, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@RightCowLeftCoast: Do you mean linking to "National territory"? Sunray (talk) 00:18, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Sunray: Linking to United States territory.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 11:49, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So we might have four links:

[[U.S. state|states]], a
[[Washington, DC|federal district]],
[[United States territory|territories]]
[[United States Minor Outlying Islands|possessions]].

Rendering the lead sentence: The United States of America (USA), commonly referred to as the United States (U.S.) or America, is a federal republic composed of 50 states, a federal district, five major territories and various possessions. [note listing territories and possessions]. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:15, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the above.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:07, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Tweaks, concerns, other issues... Sunray (talk)

I hope that this draft meets the concerns of Bkonrad, TFD and Golbez, --- if we can agree this is NOT a statement of internal status “in a domestic sense” relating to the incorporated v. unincorporated dichotomy within the U.S. political framework.

Perhaps the note should also observe the five major territories are “unincorporated” for taxes, but that the once judicially withheld a) citizenship/nationality, b) elective self governance and c) delegate Member of Congress have been extended by Congress in the modern era and that those privileges are unchallenged in the Courts. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:55, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If we refer to the territories being "unincorporated" for taxes, should we mention in passing that taxation differs between different territories? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:17, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any need to mention this in a note. Volumes have been expended debating this in various venues. older ≠ wiser 00:25, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If the lede is accepted, what are the next steps in mediation? Getting the lede, and therefore the scope, was the salient issue that caused some of us to request mediation in the first place. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:17, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the lede was very important to this mediation. I think that the way participants have hung in and collaborated on it suggests that the other issues (as listed above) should be relatively easy to resolve. Though I probably shouldn't say that just yet—we are still waiting for some participants to sign on. Sunray (talk) 00:49, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RightCowLeftCoast posted above, "As we have been going at this for months, I will say OK (I can live with) to Sunray's suggestion but would like the wikilink to United States territory used for the wikilink of possessions (as it is the most inclusive of articles).—“ Diff [165]. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:46, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Still believe Sunray's term "consisting of" is the appropriate one in this context. (This contra Alanscottwalker's position.) However, this should not be a consensus breaker. I leave the choice up to the Mediator. -The Gnome (talk) 13:43, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate that. In some consensus systems they use coloured cards (e.g, red, yellow, green). The yellow card indicates "I have a concern that I would like registered, but it isn't enough to block consensus." The other thing I would add, and I know you know this, but just for clarity for people coming back to the discussion, having been away: It wasn't actually "Sunray's term," it was my attempt to summarize the "rough consensus." Sunray (talk) 18:49, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Collect, RightCowLeftCoast, The Four Deuces, and Wzrd1: I know that some of you have indicated various stages of weariness or burnout with the discussion. However, I just want to flag that some good work has been done and we have a proposed lead sentence. Would you be willing to indicate your agreement (or not) in the section above? There is a note in the preceding section about "principled objections" should you disagree. Sunray (talk) 19:05, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Per fresh ArbCom case against me, I am hors de combat - please look at TFD's UT page to note my attempt at actually getting a compromise effected. That compromise is my position if anyone wishes to post it. Collect (talk) 20:18, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I guess nothing like a good old fashion witch hunt to make people want to have lively discussions to create lasting consensuses.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:17, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is this what you're referring to, Collect? " 'National territory' and 'national jurisdiction' are, moreover, standard terms of art, and should not be our stumbling block, in my opinion. If both of you join the compromise, it will pretty much be accepted. If neither does, the mediation is pretty much doomed." It's all I could find from you that seems relevant in TFD's Talk Page.-The Gnome (talk) 10:05, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Collect informed me that this is not what he meant at all. I'd suggest that any and all interested parties consult TFD's Talk Page and look for Collect's posts about why compromise is the only course. -The Gnome (talk) 20:17, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article lead should follow the “national jurisdiction” definition in an international sense for the general reader, as substantiated by the U.S. State Dept. “Common Core Document” of Dec 30, 2011 to the U.N., describing the “constitutional structure” of the U.S. as “a federal republic of 50 states…and other constituent units” (item 22), including DC and the five major territories in the U.S. political framework (item 27) [166], --- and supported by six linked scholars in our references section. The lead should not focus on domestic distinctions among the states and non-states within the U.S. constitutional and political framework. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:06, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Golbez, who recently asked not to be bothered again on this subject, earlier had a draft wording of " a federal republic consisting of 50 states, a federal district, five inhabited territories and nine uninhabited territories.” Diff [167].

He also suggested “a federal republic with fifty states…” in an exchange concerning Collect’s interest in the “national jurisdiction”. Diff [168]. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:48, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

TFD initial statement is an assertion that the Insular Cases doctrine, a judicial “unincorporation” a century ago, still means what it did in 1901, — denying islander citizenship, their elective self governance and a delegate Member of Congress to the islanders because they were “aliens” and a “danger” to the republic in 1901. “Unincorporation” is a term used currently by the U.S. government. Diff [169].

But Congress has since superseded the Court in all of these elements in the post WWII modern era, and it extended the privileges and immunities clause to the last of the five major territories in 1988. The implication that the meaning of “unincorporated” for the territories is unchanged over a century is anachronistic for the 21st century.

In fact in a domestic sense, “unincorporation” today only means that internal taxes and tariffs may be discriminatory in the territories, and they can have elements of Napoleonic law without jury trials in civil cases that is their legacy from Denmark, Germany and Spain. Currently, the five major territories are constitutionally a part of the political framework of the U.S. as sourced (Item 22, 27 [170]). TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:06, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please please please do not try to bring up incorporation with regards to the lead. older ≠ wiser 11:40, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus

I think that those who are going to signify agreement have now done so and that we now have a working consensus on a lead sentence. Well done folks! Now we need to go through the other issues to determine additional work to be completed. At a minimum, I would suggest that we now complete the note and prepare a brief statement to insert on the article talk page to explain what we have done. Does anyone want to prepare a "to do" list for what remains to be done? Sunray (talk) 22:36, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lead sentence note

Proposal A for discussion, leaving aside the question of whether the five major territories are "a part of" the United States:

U.S. State Department, Common Core Document to U.N. Committee on Human Rights, December 30, 2011, Item 22, 27, 80.

U.S. Presidential Proclamation 7219 Contiguous Zone of the United States, September 2, 1999. William J. Clinton

U.S. General Accounting Office Report, U.S. Insular Areas: application of the U.S. Constitution, November 1997, p. 1, 6, 39n.

In the modern post WWII era, the non-states of DC and the five major "unincorporated" territories of American Samoa, Guam, Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, and U.S. Virgin Islands are geographically within the U.S. Contiguous Zone, and within the constitutional political framework of the United States with citizenship/national status of the soil, elective self governance and delegate Members of Congress. The nine "smaller island areas" without permanent populations are Baker Island, Howland Island, Jarvis Island, Johnston Atoll, Kingman Reef, Midway Atoll, Palmyra Atoll, Wake Island, and Navassa Island. U.S. sovereignty over Serranilla Bank and Bajo Nuevo (Petrel Island) is disputed.

TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:50, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion on lead sentence note

This doesn't cover all United States territory, it is missing two listed in United States Minor Outlying Islands.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:52, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I found them in the GAO 1997 report, p. 39n, "U.S. sovereignty over two other insular areas, Serranilla Bank and Bajo Nuevo (Petrel Island) is disputed." TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 22:48, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Explanation of mediation

Proposal A for discussion,

Over the course of three months, eight editors and a mediator consulted on the scope of the United States to determine a sourced lead sentence for the United States article, with an eye to resolving how the total area of the United States should be reported in the Infobox.

The result was to craft a sentence encompassing the post-WWII modern era national jurisdiction, contiguous zone, geographical sense, constitutional political framework and census “States and other areas”.

The United States of America (USA), commonly referred to as the United States (U.S.) or America, is a federal republic composed of 50 states, a federal district, five major territories and various possessions. [note listing territories and possessions].

TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:10, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion of mediation explanation

Thank you for doing this, TVH. I hope that your proposal for the "Lead sentence note" will be discussed/adjusted/approved by other participants. I like your explanation of mediation. Others may want to tweak, or add to it. Sunray (talk)

Infobox area footnote

Proposal A for discussion, (existing, add note)

9,147,593 km2 (3rd)

3,531,905.43 sq mi [note]

Note: U.S. Census Bureau reports in its “State Area Measurements and Internal Point Coordinates” of August, 2010, “State and other areas” Total Area (land and water) as 3,805,927 Sq. Mi., 9,857,306 Sq. Km. This includes the 50 states, DC, Puerto Rico, and "Island Areas" of American Samoa, Guam, Northern Mariana Islands, and U.S. Virgin Islands. It does not include minor outlying islands.

TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:19, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion of Infobox area footnote

Golbez. mentioned, if I understood correctly, subordinating the five territories area in a footnote to geographic data of “50 states and DC”.

"Thus, my [Golbez] point of view remains that we should lean towards "50 states + DC" first, with territories as a footnote.” — Diff [171]. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:31, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. With the consensus intro sentence as drafted by Sunray, I could live with the Info box displaying the 50 state/DC area, noting the total "states and other” area, as Golbez suggested before he unsuggested it.

There does not seem to be much consistency across the U.S. project info boxes as it is, but I will yield to Golbez that the inforbox statistics should be consistently first “50/DC” to align with other metrics databases that do not presently include the five major territories. I would be interested in hearing from other editors in the mediation. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:39, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would not be opposed to that for information in the infobox. That being said, most editors appear to have dropped out, with TVH dominating the mediation. Also, if implemented, I expect push back on the talk page from those who chose not to enter the mediation, or who have dropped out.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:00, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Seqqis is barred from editing the lead sentence to include territories because Golbez interprets this three month mediation as prohibitive. However, 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.”

It may be that Golbez and TFD have not changed their March 2013 position in March 2015 to exclude U.S. islander citizens from the U.S. in the lead sentence. But both the Dispute Resolution of 2013 and the Request for Mediation of 2015 resulted in two different combinations of editors aligning 3-1 in favor of including them -- as sourced.

I propose posting items on the United States Talk page as we complete them here. Omitting the territories is a recurring issue, we should give Seqqis a chance.. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:12, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For clarity: Jimbo's rule doesn't trump policy. Nor does Jimbo have any say over who can edit. That responsibility is given to administrators and ArbCom. Editors can lose their editing privileges if they violate WP policy. Sunray (talk) 06:41, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deviation from content

I didn't say shit to Seqqis. I complained to you about you. Can't imagine why people drop out of a discussion involving you when you so blatantly mischaracterize them and then proceed to suck the air out of the room. Instead of making up shit, if you have an issue with what I said on the talk page, make a formal complaint or shut up. --Golbez (talk) 13:16, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the Seqqis edit Diff. [172], Seqqis: “The territories were left out”,

Here the Golbez Diff. [173], Golbez: "rv two edits: one, there's a discussion going on right now whether or not to include the territories, ...”

Golbez is mistaken, nothing is made up, there is the record. What complaint is to be made? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:22, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is collapsed but I must set the record straight: I apologize for the fact that I had forgotten I had reverted Seqqis. I thought you were referring to the discussion on the talk page where I complained that the mediation was leaking. However, I do not apologize for the revert itself; there was no need for it, plus it was inaccurate and didn't reflect the article. --Golbez (talk) 15:12, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The subsequent discussion is collapsed but I will not let this slander publicly stand. I did not "bar Seqqis" from editing. I reverted a low-quality change that was better handled on the talk page or, as we have, a mediation. --Golbez (talk) 15:16, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is no slander, you are merely gaming the system to disrupt this page, calling it an “abortion” after you withdrew an accepted proposal out of “spite” and introducing your own personal agenda deviating from the content of the mediation. You leave the impression that you will not conform to the outcome of this process based on reliable sources addressing the modern era -- instead relying on your own personal agenda and original research into primary sources.

You are refusing to collegially find a consensus among those who would a) accept your recommendation for the info box, b) accept your draft of a lead sentence, and c) define the territories as "unincorporated" in a footnote -- sort of like a bully who does not get his way in everything, "rule or ruin". Is there a technical WP term for that behavior?

If I have not mastered the technical jargon of WP, I apologize for the common sense usage of “bar” meaning prohibit, reverting an edit is barring its appearance. I mean no offense, I only object to reverting a contribution easily sourced by the preponderance of reliable scholarly sources. You had access to this page, there is no excuse for not reading the sources provided, and noting there is no substantial reason to exclude islander U.S. citizens/nationals in the modern era from the definition of the federal republic on a contemporary country page meant for the general/international reader.

But you have repeatedly reverted any effort to include islander U.S. citizens from the U.S. on WP — I accept you are not racist, you are only anachronistically introducing a racist Court holding to editing a country page for an undisclosed purpose without supporting sources. The Court ONCE barred islander citizenship, elective self governance and a delegate Member of Congress until the post-WWiI modern era, -- but does NO LONGER because judicial “unincorporated-1901” is gutted by Congressional action in the modern era -- as reliably sourced. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:20, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To quote myself: "I don't care anymore. I want to be out of it. Leave me be." You will note I did not edit this page between then and now - nearly a month - until you lied about me here. That is all I have to say on this matter. --Golbez (talk) 12:43, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is no lie to the respective Diffs, only your unjustified name calling following an explanation and apology. Let's return to correcting an often observed omission in the article excluding the territories in Congress as a (territorial) part of the federal republic. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 18:53, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To do list

Agree on "Lead sentence note" - Final draft statement completed (below). Done
Agree on "Explanation of mediation" for article talk page - draft statement prepared. Done
Insert "Lead sentence note" and Explanation of mediation" into article and article talk page, respectively

- Post final draft in a new section on this page for participants to take a last look.

Infobox footnote on area - Draft completed.

Agree on best format for consultation on the article talk page. Proposal by mediator: RfC

Other?

Final draft for Lede note -- for approval

The United States of America (USA), commonly referred to as the United States (U.S.) or America, is a federal republic composed of 50 states, a federal district, five major territories and various possessions. [note listing territories and possessions].

U.S. State Department, Common Core Document to U.N. Committee on Human Rights, December 30, 2011, Item 22, 27, 80. Viewed April 6, 2016. — The non-states of DC and the five major unincorporated territories of American Samoa, Guam, Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, and U.S. Virgin Islands are within the constitutional political framework of the United States. The nine smaller island areas without permanent populations are Baker Island, Howland Island, Jarvis Island, Johnston Atoll, Kingman Reef, Midway Atoll, Palmyra Atoll, Wake Island, and Navassa Island. U.S. sovereignty over Serranilla Bank and Bajo Nuevo (Petrel Island) is disputed. See U.S. General Accounting Office Report, U.S. Insular Areas: application of the U.S. Constitution, November 1997, p. 1, 6, 39n. Viewed April 6, 2016.

--TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:55, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Amended removing quotes from "unincorporated" and "smaller island areas" by a working consensus of four. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:34, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Amended removing introductory phrase, "In the modern era". TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:29, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agree -The Gnome (talk) 12:10, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Why are "unincorporated" and "smaller island areas" in quotation marks? Seems unnecessary, especially as there is no definition or explanation for the use of scare quotes. And saying "In the modern area" seems unnecessary given the context as well as irrelevantly inaccurate (The U.S. did not exist in any "pre-modern" era). Also, strictly speaking, ALL of the territories are "within the constitutional political framework of the United States" to varying degrees. older ≠ wiser 13:11, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your suggested edits are fine with me. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:22, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The U.S. may have not existed "in any pre-modern era" (if we set that era as beginning somewhere in the 18th century) but the reference to our era is on the status of the non-states of DC and the five major "unincorporated" territories. I agree that the quotation marks around the terms "unincorporated", etc, must be removed or their designation be made clear. -The Gnome (talk) 19:09, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But the context is obviously about what the US is now. The qualification of "in the modern era" is nothing but empty rhetoric in this context. At worst it is like a phantom limb in an abbreviated argument. older ≠ wiser 20:21, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agree to amend removing the quotes around "unincorporated" -- that's a working consensus of four. Amended above.

However, In U.S. history, "Modern era" is post-WWII. DC and the five major territories do not vote for mayor or attain a delegate Member of Congress until the 1970s and 1980s; PR gains its Constitution of "union" with the U.S. in the 1950s; Northern Mariana Islands enters into "political union", finally a delegate MoC 2009..

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

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

Would it read better as "In the post-WWII era, the non-states of ..." -or- "The contemporary non-states of ..." -?- There are still those who have an anachronistic view that the timeline of Congressional action above has not gutted the judicially "unincorporated-1901" leaving a remnant of discriminatory tariffs, and islander-preferred Napoleonic civil law from German, Danish and Spanish legacy relative to juries --- so I thought some reference to time frame would help avoid page disruption.

But if three agree to drop the intro phrase altogether, I'll agree to drop it also to move the mediation process along. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:34, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, — I’m make the count of three — I’ll drop the intro phrase as a "friendly amendment" from Bkonrad/older≠wiser as the legislators say, the change does not alter the sense of the wording. I still don’t like the earlier American colonial experiment and I’m glad it has evolved into internal self determination -- mutual political union of the territories -- WITHOUT the military tribunals, military governors and no voice in Congress that the earlier judicial “unincorporated-1901” allowed.

However, it makes sense to note the change over time at least as "The contemporary non-states of DC and the five .... " which I would support if two others do, since most of the advances came since the Voting Rights Act of 1965, in "contemporary" U.S. history. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:29, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any basis for the implication that the nine smaller island areas are not within the constitutional political framework of the United States in contrast to the five major territories? In any case, the term unincorporated is also misplaced, in that all of the territories are unincorporated with the exception of Palmyra, not only the five major territories. The footnote does not need to devolve into the seemingly endless debate between you and others over the precise status of these territories. It is irrelevant for this context. older ≠ wiser 11:32, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

older ≠ wiser, I mean no implication about status, one source names DC and five territories as within the U.S. constitutional political framework, referencing other possessions in aggregate, the other source names an additional nine plus two disputed possessions as U.S. insular territories. DC is of course a non-state territory which is incorporated, administered by Congress under the Territorial Clause as are the five other territories with local self-government.

a) The State Dept. Common Core Document enumerates non-state DC and the five major territories and it identifies the five major territories as unincorporated. — without mentioning places without permanent population for our footnote. b) the GAO U.S. Insular Areas/Constitution report enumerates nine plus two disputed islands. There is no implication that the nine plus two are not within the political framework, only that the second sentence making the second enumeration is related to the second GAO report citation.

Happily the footnote as drafted makes no determination as to the precise status of these territories, but there is no debate that the five major territories are in some way judicially "unincorporated" even after the Insular Cases have been gutted by Congressional action. Perhaps with this explanation and three of your four proposals met, the draft can get your support, or at least you can "live with" concur? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:08, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As currently phrased, there most certainly are implied meanings based on which terms modify which territories. The note does not need to say anything whatsoever regarding unincorporated or status within constitutional political framework. older ≠ wiser 14:25, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here's my suggestion for the note:

The five major territories are American Samoa, Guam, Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, and U.S. Virgin Islands. The nine smaller island areas without permanent populations are Baker Island, Howland Island, Jarvis Island, Johnston Atoll, Kingman Reef, Midway Atoll, Palmyra Atoll, Wake Island, and Navassa Island. U.S. sovereignty over Serranilla Bank and Bajo Nuevo (Petrel Island) is disputed. See U.S. State Department, Common Core Document to U.N. Committee on Human Rights, December 30, 2011, Item 22, 27, 80. Viewed April 6, 2016 and U.S. General Accounting Office Report, U.S. Insular Areas: application of the U.S. Constitution, November 1997, p. 1, 6, 39n. Viewed April 6, 2016.

That just might gain widest acceptance, but how about adding non-state DC up front as a friendly amendment to read:

"The federal district is Washington DC, the five major territories are American Samoa, Guam, ...".

The non-American English-speaking world is made up of readers familiar with the Encyclopedia Britannica, which introduces the United States as a federal republic of 50 states alone [174]. It is useful to the international reader to name all the U.S. territories, Washington DC identified as the federal district is a useful item of information. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:05, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am fine with that. (Note just for clarity, TVH appears to be amending older/wiser proposal[175] - I had to check the history)Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:32, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm ok with mentioning DC in the note. Only reason I didn't initially is because it is already linked in the lead. I took the purpose of the note to list the other territories referenced collectively in the lead. older ≠ wiser 13:43, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(after ec) BTW, I copied and pasted the citations. The specific page references in those two documents might not be needed for a more general use only to support the identification of the territories.older ≠ wiser 13:50, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm ok with mentioning Washington DC in the note and not linking it, also. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:46, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This feels close to a general agreement, we may have older/wiser proposal as amended, without page notes as last suggested, and a tweak at the “both viewed” date while we are minimizing, as follows:

The federal district is Washington DC, the five major territories are American Samoa, Guam, Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, and U.S. Virgin Islands. The nine smaller island areas without permanent populations are Baker Island, Howland Island, Jarvis Island, Johnston Atoll, Kingman Reef, Midway Atoll, Palmyra Atoll, Wake Island, and Navassa Island. U.S. sovereignty over Serranilla Bank and Bajo Nuevo (Petrel Island) is disputed. See U.S. State Department, Common Core Document to U.N. Committee on Human Rights, December 30, 2011, and U.S. General Accounting Office Report, U.S. Insular Areas: application of the U.S. Constitution, November 1997. Both viewed April 6, 2016.

Keeping the page references might save a challenge, although anyone really interested could run a page search by any term to determine placement of the items in each respective document. The only extra-step would be going for the two disputed territories in the note on page 39. Regardless, I’m for following the most usual WP convention for referencing. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 19:18, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I did not necessarily want complete removal of the page references, only a check that the references were still applicable for the context (i.e., documenting that the territories are a "part" of the U.S., rather than supporting a claim regarding their status. older ≠ wiser 23:46, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Page numbers cited merely identify the U.S. territories; the U.S. claims these under U.S. sovereignty and places them under Congressional authority.

These documents distinguish among possession, territory, commonwealth and statehood status. But the status within the framework is not discussed besides noting major territories as non-sovereign, unincorporated, self-governing with human rights. --- Nevertheless, as I understand it, there is no status "claim" in the draft language as amended by older/wiser. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:05, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with older/wiser, if we are to avoid controversy, it is important to avoid any assertion as to the “status" of the territories in the descriptive lead sentence. It is enough to ambiguously include U.S. islander minorities as of the United States — in a geographical sense, in the national jurisdiction, in territories of its constitutional political framework as sourced by U.S.G. publications to Congress and the United Nations and supported by more than six scholars in the fields of legal history and political science. Am I missing something? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 06:32, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not as far as I can see. -The Gnome (talk) 05:43, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Recap for approval from working consensus

@The Four Deuces, Alanscottwalker, Bkonrad, Wzrd1, Robert McClenon, and Golbez: Would you be able to take a last look and sign off on the wording of the lede and note below? We will be winding down the mediation and moving discussion to the talk page. This is your chance for final comments. Sunray (talk) 06:34, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Working off of older/wiser proposal/amendment, we currently have from our working consensus above:

The United States of America (USA), commonly referred to as the United States (U.S.) or America, is a federal republic composed of 50 states, a federal district, five major territories and various possessions. [n]

Note: The federal district is Washington DC. The five major territories are American Samoa, Guam, Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, and U.S. Virgin Islands. The nine smaller island areas without permanent populations are Baker Island, Howland Island, Jarvis Island, Johnston Atoll, Kingman Reef, Midway Atoll, Palmyra Atoll, Wake Island, and Navassa Island. U.S. sovereignty over Serranilla Bank and Bajo Nuevo (Petrel Island) is disputed. See U.S. State Department, Common Core Document to U.N. Committee on Human Rights, December 30, 2011, Item 22, 27, 80.— and U.S. General Accounting Office Report, U.S. Insular Areas: application of the U.S. Constitution, November 1997, p. 1, 6, 39n. Both viewed April 6, 2016.

TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:26, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to be consistent with what the State Department has.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:25, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agree on the condition that all the relevant wikilinks are put in, i.e. "The United States of America (USA), commonly referred to as the United States (U.S.) or America, is a federal republic, etc". -The Gnome (talk) 13:54, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:20, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agree Alanscottwalker (talk) 09:07, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agree Even love it, I'll suggest what The Gnome (talk) provided terms be the standard, lest we have a clustersmurf when users are looking up various articles and potentially become confused. End users do tend to become easily confused.66.193.25.66 (talk) 09:47, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. older ≠ wiser 10:49, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The phrasing states that American Samoa etc. are part of the U.S. when in fact they are external territories administered by the U.S. TFD (talk) 14:12, 12 May 2015 (UTC)*'[reply]
Agree - Robert McClenon (talk) 14:18, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agree Although, I prefer 'Native American' to 'American Indian'. That is essentially my only niggle. Apologies for the extended absence, work and life has taken its toll upon me.Wzrd1 (talk) 06:59, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comments

Thank you all very much. This has been a long and difficult mediation. The rough consensus holds with six in agreement with the proposed lead and note. TFD opposes on the grounds that the external territories are administered by, rather than being part of the U.S. So I propose the following course of action: I will close this mediation as "successful" and prepare an RfC for the article talk page. On the talk page, I will present the proposal and describe the objection to it. This should happen next week. In the meantime, if you have any further comments or questions, please let me know.

Congratulations on a successful mediation! Sunray (talk) 17:41, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your assistance, during this difficult mediation!Wzrd1 (talk) 07:01, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Minority position

Of course TFD should be represented as a mediation minority —as soon as he participates in the mediation process — by providing a counter-source to the U.S.G. which is sourced as asserting it has territories and states in its territorial jurisdiction, within its constitutional framework, in a geographic sense.

No reliable source is provided to establish that US territories are somehow “in fact” merely “external territories administered by the US”, --- declaring US citizens on islands as aliens. The mediation proposal does not address FAS independent States such as Micronesia. Without a source, TFDs editorial assertion is mere POV, not collegial encyclopedic contribution in the WP mediation process. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:33, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is something that will have to be clarified. The clarification could be made either now or in the RfC. I've created a new section for further discussion if TFD or others so wish. If we can clarify it now, so much the better. If not, the terms of the RfC would logically be that anyone who objects to the mediation consensus must provides references from a Reliable source. To summarize: In order for this issue to be put forward as a minority position, there would need to be a rationale and appropriate reference. Otherwise, it is simply a dissenting view rather than a principled objection (as defined in Section 9.1.3, above).

I would welcome further comments until the end of the day on May 18. Meanwhile, if there other issues, please feel free to open a new subsection, below. Sunray (talk) 21:44, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I and others have provided countless sources on the talk page for the claim that the unincorporated territories are unincorporated. I will copy several below.

"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." ("U.S. Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual Volume 7")[176] (March 15, 2015)
"U.S. courts have ruled that Puerto Rico is a territory of the United States, but not part of the United States...." (Flores, Lisa Pierce, The History of Puerto Rico (2009), part of the Greenwood Histories of Modern Nations, p. xiii)[177] (March 15, 2015)
"It was further settled in Downes v. Bidwell, [182 U.S. 244 (1901)], and confirmed by Dorr v. United States, [195 U.S. 138 (1904)] that neither the Philippines nor Porto Rico was territory which had . . . become a part of the United States, as distinguished from merely belonging to it . . . ." Balzac v. Porto Rico, 258 U.S. 298 (1922) (March 20, 2013)
"The petitioner in [Balzac] relied primarily on the Jones Act, the Organic Act of Puerto Rico, passed on March 2, 1917, to support their assertion that Puerto Rico was incorporated into the United States. The Court rejected the petitioner's argument and held that if Congress intended to change the relationship between Puerto Rico and the Union, it would do so explicitly." Alan Tauber, "The Empire Forgotten: The Application of the Bill of Rights to U.S. Territories", 57 Case W. Res. L. Rev. 147, 165 (2006) (March 20, 2013)
"While some Warren Court justices questioned the validity of the Insular Cases, more recent decisions by the Rehnquist Court reaffirmed the continuing validity of the Insular Cases, Balzac, and, thus, the legitimacy of the Territorial Incorporation Doctrine." Carlos R. Soltero, The Supreme Court Should Overrule the Territorial Incorporation Doctrine and End One Hundred Years of Judicially Condoned Colonialism, 22 Chicano-Latino L. Rev. 1, 3-4 (2001) (March 20, 2013)

TFD (talk) 16:20, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Some observations from the references you have cited may be in order. For example, In the first document, I note statements such as the following:

"Puerto Rico comes within the definition of "United States" given in Section 101(a)(38) INA." ("U.S. Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual Volume 7, 7 FAM 1122 PUERTO RICO).
"The Virgin Islands of the United States come within the definition of "United States" given in Section 101(a)(38) INA." ("U.S. Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual Volume 7, 7 FAM 1123 VIRGIN ISLANDS (U.S.)).

This suggests to me that these territories are, indeed, part of the U.S., and would not seem to support your minority position. So, TFD, would you be willing to make reference to specific sections that provide evidence of your contention in order to support a "principled objection"? Sunray (talk) 19:10, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

INA: ACT 101 - DEFINITIONS says "Sec. 101. [8 U.S.C. 1101] (a) As used in this Act- (38) The term "United States", except as otherwise specifically herein provided, when used in a geographical sense, means the continental United States, Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, Guam, the Virgin Islands of the United States, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands."

Compare with the definitions section for purposes of Veterans Affairs: "(20)The term “State” means each of the several States, Territories, and possessions of the United States, the District of Columbia, and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. For the purpose of section 2303 and chapters 34 and 35 of this title, such term also includes the Canal Zone."[178] Section 2303 covers the amount the department will pay for transporting bodies and funerals.

See also 10 U.S. Code § 101 - Definitions: "(a) In General.— The following definitions apply in this title: (1)The term “United States”, in a geographic sense, means the States and the District of Columbia.... (3)The term “possessions” includes the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and the Guano Islands, so long as they remain possessions, but does not include any Commonwealth."[179]

Certainly no one has argued that D.C. and Canal Zone are states, just that they are treated as states in some legislation, but not in others. Note that one definition includes all the territories, while another contains only four. The nationality title does not include American Samoa because birthright citizenship has not been extended there by Congress, just as it has not been extended to the uninhabited territories. It has been decided that the Citizenship Clause, which guarantees nationality to persons born in the United States does not apply to the external territories. Also, the Veterans section defines "Secretary" as "Secretary of Veterans Affairs." Certainly that does not mean the term "Secretary" means Secretary of Veterans Affairs in other acts.

Defining Status: A Comprehensive Analysis of United States Territorial Relations by Arnold H. Leibowitz (1989) provides an explanation of the status of the unincorporated territories in the first three chapters (pp. 3-44) reproduced in full at Google books.[180] The insular cases determined that Puerto Rico, etc., had not been incorporated into the U.S. and remains good law today.

TFD (talk) 20:17, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

By your own reasoning they a part of United States, as the United States has "plenary authority" over unincorporated territories of the United States - of the United States is key then, its not of somewhere else. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:09, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That is a novel interpretation of the law. If you were correct, then the constitution would apply in full to every territory, which it does not. And the American colonies would have been part of Great Britain. Even writers who claim that the territories have been incorporated into the U.S., never make the argument you do. Have you found any sources that make the same argument you do? And does that mean you now claim the uninhabited territories are part of the U.S.? Incidentally, "unincorporated" means "not part of".[181] You argument is that the so-called unincorporated territories are incorporated. TFD (talk) 22:20, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of this section is to determine whether TFD has a principled objection to the consensus established with other participants. So TFD, have you anything to add (including references) that would bolster your argument? Sunray (talk) 00:09, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your own reference, Libowitz, says the United States has "plenary authority" over these territories, and that is why the the US Constitution, as deemed appropriate by the decision and will of the US government, applies to these United States territories. You even quote chapter and verse of the US government deeming them part of itself. Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:41, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alanscottwalker, could you please provide a page no. for where you think Leibowitz says that. Also, the chapters and verses in the U.S. code cited clearly state that they are definition sections for relevant acts. 10 U.S. Code § 101 - Definitions by the way excludes the territories from the U.S. Sunray, I just provided sources. TFD (talk) 02:34, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hold on, the mediation is basically over. It is not up to Alanscottwalker to provide further arguments or sources. TFD, I've asked you to put together your final argument for a principled objection. Would you be able to do that now? Sunray (talk) 05:17, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I just said above at 16:20, 16 May 2015 that sources say the unincorporated territories are not part of the U.S. and provided sources. TFD (talk) 05:51, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So nothing which applies to the country article at WP, they only concern the Insular Cases article. Sources which refer to the Insular Cases once withholding citizenship to "alien races", civilian judiciary, elective self governance and participation in Congress a century ago are anachronistic in the 21st century with islander citizenship, federal District Courts, elective self governance and participation in Congress. They do not apply to the country article which addresses the present day geographical extent of the US.

Your arcane concern for judicial territorial status is irrelevant to the general readership of WP. Your application of Insular Cases to modern islander “native born” Americans is problematic, since two constitutional scholars in the Boston College Law Review explain that PR is a “paradigm of an incorporated territory as modern jurisprudence understands that term of art” [182]. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:40, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of this thread - which you set up - is to identify the arguments and sources supporting the position that the "unicorporated" territories have not been incorporated into the United States, not an opportunity for you to repeat arguments. I have in fact diligently replied to all your arguments on numerous occassions and all I can suggest is that you read the sources rather than mine them for out of context quotes that support your a priori views. Certainly when I first came across the issue, I had no opinion and read the relevant literature to determine what the generally held interpretation was, and we could avoid a lot of talk page discussion if all editors followed that approach. I would point out also that it may be that the mainstream view is wrong. In your example, Lawson and Sloane argue that the settled law was wrong, and for all we know they are right and the legal textbooks are wrong. Maybe one day they will be accepted, but Wikipedia is not the forum for determining that issue. TFD (talk) 14:31, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What is now needed to close

TFD I noted that you have provided some references. However, I do not yet see a cogent statement of your position. That would be needed to be able to assess whether you have a principled objection to the views of the other participants. Would you be willing to provide that now? Sunray (talk) 17:08, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The position of most legal experts as well the Supreme Court of the United States, the executive and Congress is that the unincorporated territories of the United States are administered by the United States but not part of the United States. The legal position was settled in the Insular cases, which is still good law. As a consequence, the Constitution does not apply in full, although it does protect the fundamental human rights in those territories. Recently, the Supreme Court has decided that these same rights apply to detainees in Guantanamo Bay. However, other provisions do not apply. Hence there is no birthright citizenship in American Samoa, there are different federal tax rates, etc.

The U.S. government does however treat the territories as part of the U.S. for some purposes and has for example extended by legislation birthright citizenship to four territories. However that has not changed their constitutional status.

Some scholars have argued that the territories are part of the U.S. and consequently current government policy is illegal. That is however a minority opinion.

TFD (talk) 19:49, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that statement. It is clear and concise. Would you be able to provide citations for each claim—using the same guidelines as those for WP articles? When you have done that, I will invite other participants to comment. Sunray (talk) 20:42, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Posted below. TFD (talk) 23:31, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What is next step?

What is the next step? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:24, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

TFD's view

The position of most legal experts^[1] as well the Supreme Court of the United States,[^[2]^[3]^[4]] the executive^[1] and Congress^[5] is that the unincorporated territories of the United States are administered by the United States but not part of the United States. The legal position was settled in the Insular cases, which is still good law.^[6] As a consequence, the Constitution does not apply in full, although it does protect the fundamental human rights in those territories.^[7] Recently, the Supreme Court has decided that these same rights apply to detainees in Guantanamo Bay.^[8] However, other provisions do not apply.^[7] Hence there is no birthright citizenship in American Samoa,^[9] there are different federal tax rules,^[10] etc.

The U.S. government does however treat the territories as part of the U.S. for some purposes and has for example extended by legislation birthright citizenship to four territories.^[11] However that has not changed their constitutional status.^[12]

Some scholars have argued that the territories are part of the U.S. and consequently current government policy is illegal. That is however a minority opinion.^[13]

Notes

^ ^a ^b "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 States." ("U.S. Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual Volume 7", 7 FAM 1121.1)[1]
^ "U.S. courts have ruled that Puerto Rico is a territory of the United States, but not part of the United States...." (Flores, Lisa Pierce, The History of Puerto Rico (2009), part of the Greenwood Histories of Modern Nations, p. xiii)[2]
^ "It was further settled in Downes v. Bidwell, [182 U.S. 244 (1901)], and confirmed by Dorr v. United States, [195 U.S. 138 (1904)] that neither the Philippines nor Porto Rico was territory which had . . . become a part of the United States, as distinguished from merely belonging to it . . . ." Balzac v. Porto Rico, 258 U.S. 298 (1922)[3]
^ "The petitioner in [Balzac] relied primarily on the Jones Act, the Organic Act of Puerto Rico, passed on March 2, 1917, to support their assertion that Puerto Rico was incorporated into the United States. The Court rejected the petitioner's argument and held that if Congress intended to change the relationship between Puerto Rico and the Union, it would do so explicitly." Tauber, Alan, "The Empire Forgotten: The Application of the Bill of Rights to U.S. Territories", 57 Case W. Res. L. Rev. 147, 165 (2006)
^ "United States-Puerto Rico Political Status Act, H.R. 856, 105th Congress § 2(4) (1998) ("The Commonwealth [of Puerto Rico] remains an unincorporated territory and does not have the status of 'free association' with the United States as that status is defined under United States law or international practice.")" Lawson, Gary, and Sloane, Robert D. The Constitutionality of Decolonization by Associated Statehood: Puerto Rico's Legal Status Reconsidered, p. 1143
^ "While some Warren Court justices questioned the validity of the Insular Cases, more recent decisions by the Rehnquist Court reaffirmed the continuing validity of the Insular Cases, Balzac, and, thus, the legitimacy of the Territorial Incorporation Doctrine." Soltero, Carlos R., The Supreme Court Should Overrule the Territorial Incorporation Doctrine and End One Hundred Years of Judicially Condoned Colonialism, 22 Chicano-Latino L. Rev. 1, 3-4 (2001).
^ ^a ^b "...the Court adopted the doctrine of territorial incorporation, under which the Constitution applies in full in incorporated Territories surely destined for statehood but only in part in unincorporated Territories." Boumediene v. Bush, 553 U.S. 723 (2008)[4]
^ "We hold that petitioners [detainees in Guantanamo Bay] may invoke the fundamental procedural protections of habeas corpus." Boumediene v. Bush, 553 U.S. 723 (2008)[5]
^ "The State Department's Foreign Affairs Manual ("FAM") accordingly categorizes American Samoa as an unincorporated territory and states that "the citizenship provisions of the Constitution do not apply to persons born there." 7 FAM § 1125.1(b). In accordance with INA and FAM, the State Department stamps the passports of people born in American Samoa with "Endorsement Code 09," which declares that the holder of the passport is a U.S. national but not a U.S. citizen." Tuaua v. U.S., D.C. District Court[6]
^ "If you are a United States citizen or resident alien and are a bona fide resident of Puerto Rico during the entire tax year, you generally are not required to file a U.S. federal income tax return if your only income is from sources within Puerto Rico." IRS, "Topic 901 - Is a Person With Income From Puerto Rico Required to File a U.S. Federal Income Tax Return?"[7]
^ For example, the definitions section of the nationality section includes four territories only,[8] the veterans affairs section includes all the territories and for some purposes the Panama Canal Zone,[9] which was ceded to Panama in 1976, while the armed forces section excludes the territories altogether.[10]
^ "The question before us, therefore, is: Has Congress, since the Foraker Act...enacted legislation incorporating Porto Rico into the Union? Counsel for the plaintiff in error give, in their brief, an extended list of acts...which they urge as indicating a purpose to make the island a part of the United States, but they chiefly rely on,,,the Jones Act.... The act is entitled 'An act to provide a civil government for Porto Rico and for other purposes.' It does not indicate by its title that it has a purpose to incorporate the island into the Union. It does not contain any clause which declares such purpose or effect." "It is true that in the absence of other and countervailing evidence, a law of Congress or a provision in a treaty acquiring territory, declaring an intention to confer political and civil rights on the inhabitants of the new lands as American citizens, may be properly interpreted to mean an incorporation of it into the Union, as in the case of Louisiana and Alaska.... But Alaska was a very different case from that of Porto Rico." (Balzac v. Porto Rico)[11]
^ "...today, Puerto Rico seems to be the paradigm of an incorporated territory, as modern jurisprudence understands that legal term of art.... Under the Insular Cases, all constitutional provisions, and not only those that have been deemed "fundamental," apply to incorporated territories of their own force (ex prorio vigore).... ...it should be clear by now that serious arguments exist suggesting that the current arrangement between the United States and Puerto Rico may violate the Constitution...." Lawson, Gary, and Sloane, Robert D. The Constitutionality of Decolonization by Associated Statehood: Puerto Rico's Legal Status Reconsidered, pp. 1175, 1193[12] [Here the authors show their disagreement with current interpretation.]

TFDs misstatements and nonparticipation

Would TFD agree to the mediation proposal were the territories identified as "unincorporated"? The mediation process dropped the “unincorporation” language identifying the territories which I supported -- amended out by Older≠Wiser Bkonrad. Why did you not support the "unincorporated" element then, actively participating in mediation? TFD is mistaken, the constitutional status of the territories is deliberately, carefully NOT addressed in the passage. This is an idee fixe. Again, TFD is speaking to issues which belong in the Insular Case article, irrelevant to the geographic extent of the US which is pertinent to the US article.

More anachronistic references to the Insular Cases, they are good law only in that there are discriminatory tariffs and taxes in the territories which would not apply were they states. Otherwise the Insular Cases are gutted by Congressional Organic Acts making the territories organically a part of the US -- within its constitutional framework -- by citizenship, nationalization, civil courts, elective self-governance and a territorial Member of Congress.

TFDs conclusion that Lawson and Sloane believe current government policy is illegal is not justified by the quotation provided. The quotation merely reiterates a District and Appellate Court holding unchallenged for five years, that by Congressional action Congress has politically incorporated Puerto Rico by a sequence of laws enacted, -- besides the judicial "unincorporation" for taxes and tariffs which is still good law.

In his ethnocentrism concerning the Insular Case “alien races”, he supposes that territories should not be allowed the civil law systems which are a legacy from Spanish, Danish and German jurisprudence — as under the Code Napoleon without jury trial in some cases provided for under the Constitution — but that is merely an aspect of modern federalism in the US, and in no way makes the islanders a “danger to the republic” as his Insular Cases supposed. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 06:36, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It makes sense to identify the territories as "judicially unincorporated", but it does not make sense to exclude them from the federal republic of the US in the lede sentence, because they have territorial Members of Congress. The Insular Cases establish a doctrine of territories, places, as "foreign in a domestic sense". The places are domestic in a foreign sense, within the national jurisdiction with populations of U.S. citizens (4.5 million) and U.S. nationals (55,000).

They are defined as "native born" Americans by the Census department, within the political framework of the Constitution as sourced to the State Department in 2011 vs citations to 1901 "alien races" before mutual citizenship. Ample U.S.G. sources have been provided to establish all five major territories as within the United States in a geographical sense, and that is the subject under discussion for the general readership of a country article. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:37, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that TFD's disquisition on unincorporated is wholly irrelevant to the consensus edit. The edit does not say the territories are incorporated -- it states the fact that they are territories "of the United States". (It makes no sense to take the incorporation doctrine to mean that these places are not 'of the United States' - the doctrine, as Libovitz says of the Insular Cases is built entirely on the premise the the United States government has "plenary authority" under the Constitution's territorial clause to decide what sections of the Constitution apply in these US territories, leading the Supreme Court not to interfere with what the US government (US Congress and President) does (except for limitation in the cases of "fundamental constitutional" rights, which also only apply because these places are territory of the United States), indeed as the 9th circuit said of one modern territorial government: it is an instrument of the United States' government. As Libovitz says, the doctrine is one of maximum flexibility for the government in ruling these United States' territories. Thus, the US Congress can and has made citizens and nationals at birth in these US territories; it has provided for these US territories, courts and organic law, and representation in the US government, etc; all under the Congress' plenary territorial clause power - it has assigned to the President and the Secretary of Interior plenary authority over the territories, etc, because they are territories of the United States.) Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:56, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The edit says the territories are incorporated and does not state the fact that they are territories "of the United States": the U.S. "is a federal republic composed of 50 states, a federal district, five major territories and various possessions" (my emphasis). Ironically, Sparrow argues that since the territories are part of the U.S., the U.S. is not a republic, but an empire. TVH, what does "judicially unincorporated" mean? Do you mean the courts say they are incorporated but you do not? Would you say that a court found someone "judicially guilty?" TFD (talk) 13:38, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, the edit says nothing about "incorporated" you just read that in of your own imagination as you apparently read into the overwhelming consensus of fellow editors that we mean something, we expressly, do not say; it would be good if you would stop such baseless assumption. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:48, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No it uses the synonym compose. (Compose="to make or form by combining things, parts, or elements."[183] Incorporate="to take in or include as a part or parts...."[184] TFD (talk) 16:14, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, "compose", the ordinary everyday word, does not mean the legal doctrine "incorporated" - we are not writing in legalese, we are writing in lay English for general readers, yet you insist that the words we write are legalese, when they have never been so.Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:23, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As the sources provided clearly explain, to incorporate a territory means to make it part of the U,S. What do you think it means? TFD (talk) 16:30, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As the sources say, incorporated/unincorporated doctrine by the courts means that the US can hold territory, where the Congress has plenary authority and the judicial branch won't interfere, except in the area of fundamental rights. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:42, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How does the doctrine determine which territories are incorporated and which are not. And please do not say that the whole constitution only applies in full to incorporated territories, because the question is why the courts have determined that it onlly applies in full to incorporated territories. TFD (talk) 02:10, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The doctrine does not determine. The US Congress has the plenary authority over US territory pursuant to the Constitution's territory clause, with the limitation being that the Constitution's fundamental rights apply. There is no dispute that this is US territory. If you are asking how you would determine what's incorporated or unincorporated, this is not the place for speculation, and is irrelevant to the edit. We are not looking to write law, we are looking to relate facts that this is US territory, where US citizens/nationals are born everyday. Alanscottwalker (talk) 09:18, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Principled or not, Alanscottwalker does bring up a good point that no where in the language that has achieved consensus (not unanimous consent (due to TFD's object)) says nothing about incorporation or them being unincorporated. We have gone into great lengths how internationally, the territories are seen as part of the United States, while internally (within the United States) when most common people say U.S. they often mean CONUS (with some Americans not even remembering it has Alaska, Hawaii, and the Palmyra Atoll). Also As pointed out by TheVirginiaHistorian, TFD chose not to participate, at a certain point, and for the most part dropped out of the mediation. I expect The Four Deuces to object at the expected RfC, and even beyond.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:11, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The language says, "The United States of America...is a federal republic composed of 50 states, a federal district, five major territories and various possessions." "Composed of" means that the territories are part of the U.S., while "incorporated" refers to territories that are part of the U.S. TVH appears to agree with that, having ten or fifteen times quoted Lawson and Sloans as saying, "Regardless of how Puerto Rico looked in 1901 when the Insular Cases were decided or in 1922, today, Puerto Rico seems to be the paradigm of an incorporated territory as modern jurisprudence understands that legal term of art.” Why do you think he would mention that? If incorporated does not mean "part of", what do you think it means?

For example, the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution says, "All persons born...in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States...." Can you explain why if American Samoa is in the United States that someone can be born there and and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, yet not be a citizen of the United States?

TFD (talk) 06:09, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1. As you well know, that proposition is now under litigation in US courts. The Supreme Court will provide us with the answer how the apparent contradiction can be maintained, were it to remain in practice. You insist on jumping to your own conclusions from your original research where the rest of us must await events.

2. TFD insists on conclusions not supported by his citations. Descriptions of 1901 “unincorporation” have been gutted by subsequent law, the remnant which is good law is domestic discriminatory taxes and tariffs which does not apply to the mediation proposal regarding the internationally recognized geographic extent of the US as sourced.

3. The federal republic is composed of places represented in the national legislature, Congress. The five major territories are represented as US territories in Congress. This is so, apart from internal domestic judicial terms of art which have no application to the international status of the territories, they are within the national jurisdiction, not "external" to the US -- as TFD supposes on his original unsourced reasoning.

4. Someone is politically guilty by impeachment in a political body. One is judicially found guilty in a court of law. The sources do not explain that to incorporate a territory means that in a plain English sense, to make it a part of the US. Instead, your reasoning is a non sequitur, "denying the antecedent", as explained in the syllogism above.

If A: territories are incorporated, then B: territories are a part of the US. (If I jump from a building I will die.)

~A: Territories are unincorporated for taxes and tariffs. (I will not jump from a tall building.) [denying the antecedent, A]

Therefore, ~B: territories are not a part of the US. (Therefore, I will not die.) -- a non sequitur, denying the antecedent, faulty logic.

6. The judicial doctrine of incorporation concerns the narrow subject litigated concerning taxes and tariffs applying in a way which is domestically incompatible with states. It is an arcane "judicial term of art” as sourced. It must be clearly labelled as such for the general reader, "judicially unincorporated", were we to address it at all, and we have deliberately chosen not to do so. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:54, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with your syllogism is that the U.S. one begins with a tautology, which can never be used as a premise. A better phrasing would be:

Territories that are part of the U.S. are part of the U.S. (If I jump from a building I will jump from a building)

All the existing territories except Palmyra are not part of the U.S. (I will not jump from a building)

Therefore all the existing territories except Palmyra are not part of the U.S. (Therefore I will not jump from a building)

You have been reading the reasoning by authoritative sources backwards. Puerto Rico is not unincorporated because the constitution does not apply in full. The constitution does not apply in full because it is unincorporated. Your sources (Sparrow et al) argue that the territories are incorporated and therefore the constitution applies in full.

TFD (talk) 02:32, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

“All of the existing territories except Palmyra are not part of the US" is your illogical and unsourced conclusion. It is not consistent with the facts as sourced. Palmyra is not represented in Congress, its population is not a part of the federal republic. It has no population, to suppose palm trees are represented in Congress is nonsense as Congress represents the people of the US. That Palmyra is judicially incorporated for discriminatory tariff purposes is true.

The American federal system allows for Louisiana fundamental law to be the Code Napoleon versus English Common Law as in all other states. The territorial Constitutional provisions have been expanded, but they leave a federal system allowing for civil (Napoleonic) law to apply as legacies from the Spanish, Dane and German legal systems. Thus the constitution does not apply in full, but the territories are not lawless Insular Case “savages” as you may imply. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:32, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disposition of objection

While we shouldn't re-open the mediation (unless there is a clear consensus to do so), we do need to decide whether TFD's objection is a principled one and thus whether we will include it as a minority position in the RfC. What say you? Is the objection principled (i.e., based in WP policies)? Briefly state your reasons for your determination. Sunray (talk) 20:33, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Verifiability requires that statements are supported by reliable sources. RS say the territories are not part of the U.S. No original research says that editors' conclusions cannot be presented. The statement that Congress has plenary power over the territories, therefore they are part of the U.S. is OR. Neutrality requires that opinions be presented in accordance with the degree of their acceptance in reliable sources. The position that the territories have been incorporated into the U.S. is expressed by a small minority of writers. TFD (talk) 02:04, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not a part of the mediation process. The statement says the U.S. federal republic is composed of places represented in the national legislature. The five major territories indisputably have U.S. territorial Members of Congress in the composition of the US Congress. No source to date says that territories are "external" to the US for the purposes of geographical description of the national jurisdiction of the US. That purported claim is unsupported by the evidence presented, the logic has been shown to be faulty.

The narrow judicial holding a century ago once held territories of "savage" and "alien races" to be “not a part of the US” for the purposes of internal domestic tariffs to protect CONUS sugar cartels. That is now supposed to extend to all descriptive purposes in the 21st century by TFDs unsupported original research. Whereas sources show that territories are now within the constitutional framework for the purposes of citizenship (99%), nationality (1%), elective self-governance, territorial representation in Congress, etc.

If TFD is unwilling to participate in the mediation, his anachronistic misapplication of sources irrelevant to the proposed statement should not be admitted as a part of the mediation outcome. Were he to entertain participating in this mediation process to include some reference to the "judicially unincorporated territories for tax and tariff purposes" that would be another proposition. But he seems intent on misstating the work of the mediation, misstating and misapplying sources, and pushing original research in his own POV. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:42, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

According to the sources, the US Congress and Executive have over and over again said they are "part" whenever they have wanted to -- it's TFD alone that disputes these sources, and he does so by original research, apparently it is his opinion that the Congress and Executive may not consider them part, whenever it chooses to do so, but the courts say the Congress and the Executive have plenary authority to do so, whenever they choose to, and they have expressly said "part", according to the sources. His objection is not based in sources, it's based in his legal interpretation, which is irrelevant to the edit, which merely acknowledge the fact that they are US territory-- Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:46, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

TVH, If "that proposition is now under litigation in US courts", then your interpretation cannot be the consensus view. It could be that the Supreme Court will reverse the Insular cases, but lets wait until they do before saying they have. Alanscottwalker, see the sources I provided. TFD (talk) 14:30, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have read them all. The sources have the US government saying over and over again they are "part" and your legal objection, which you cobble out of your reading of the law is solely that that does not change thier constitutional status - even if your objection were legally well taken, your legal objection is irrelevant and has nothing to do with the consensus proposal - which just acknowldegs that they are US territory. We are not looking for your legal opinion, and we should not base editing on it. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:42, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The mediator, User:Sunray, appears to be asking whether the objections of User:The Four Deuces are principled objections. I disagree with the objections of TFD, and consider his objections to be based on mistaken interpretations of Wikipedia policy, but, because they are based on interpretations of Wikipedia policy, I think that they should be considered to be principled (if crabbed) objections. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:03, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@TheVirginiaHistorian, Alanscottwalker, and Robert McClenon: You have said that TFD has based his objection on misapplied sources, mistaken interpretations of WP policy and original research. Would you be able to support these statements with evidence? Sunray (talk) 05:47, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is his objection: "The U.S. government does however treat the territories as part of the U.S. for some purposes and has for example extended by legislation birthright citizenship to four territories.[cite] However that has not changed their constitutional status." Apart from the fact that the proposal does not discuss their constitutional status, and his objection is irrelevant, his cite there does not acknowledge all the ways the US government expressly treats them as part (geographically, etc.), which have been catalogued during this mediation. His uncited statement, concerning constitutionality, does not even acknowledge that the reason the US government can constitutionally treat them as part is because the US government has the plenary authority to do so for US Territory. I have never argued that they are part because of plenary authority, only that the plenary authority allows the government to do so, and the government has done so over and over again. I have never argued that they are "incorporated", only that whatever that legal doctrine means to TFD, it does and has not prevented the US government from calling them part, as it does. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:04, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In late January, fifteen weeks ago, the mediation established the sources which would be used in common to arrive at a consensus. TFD did not find any objection to them, nor did he offer any alternative sources to participate. Introducing them at this stage is simply out of order, but I will address each one out of respect for the request.

After the close of the mediation, TFD offered sources to establish what the Insular Cases did a century ago. Territories would be “foreign in a domestic sense” for tariffs, “not a part” of the United States for the court holding a century ago pertaining to the sugar industry. These are irrelevant to the discussion of modern day territories as within the constitutional framework of the US as the mediation sourced. See TFD: #1. 7 FAM 1121.1, #2. Flores, #4. Tauber. Other sources are TFD original research related to primary documents and irrelevant to the question of territorial representation in the US federal republic in the 21st century: #3. Balzac v. Porto Rico, #7. Boumediene v. Bush, #8. Boumediene v. Bush, #10. IRS Topic 901, #11

The confirmation of the validity of discriminatory tariffs which would be impossible were a territory a state, is irrelevant to the geographic extent of the US, its national jurisdiction, or its constitutional framework: #6. Soltero. The mediation drafts defined the five major territories as “unincorporated” but TFD did not support that draft, and it was amended away by Bkonrad to avoid any mention of contentious territorial status: #9 .7 FAM 1125.1(b).

Some sources on inspection do not support TFDs claim that the territories are “external” to the US at all: (3) “The term “alien” means any person not a citizen or national of the US”. #11. “nationality section”, territorial residents in the US territories are citizens or nationals. One TFD conclusion is simply unrelated to the text cited, authors explain how Puerto Rico is politically “incorporated” by sequential Acts of Congress as held in federal district and appellate court, unchallenged for five years. Then they explain there is still an argument without advocating a position in the argument: #12. Lawson and Sloane. To impeach their credibility, TFD supposes Lawson and Sloane to believe the USG to be an illegitimate regime, which the quote does not support.

None of these sources support TFDs assertion that the territories are “administered by the United States but not a part of the United States”. From what the sources explain, tariffs are allowed to be discriminatory in the territories. TFDs “The U.S. government does however treat the territories as part of the US for some purposes” is exactly what the mediation has concluded, for the purposes of establishing the geographic extent of the US, what the US includes, what is within the constitutional framework of the US — for the general reader. This is apart from TFD arcane concern for “constitutional status” which is ambiguous within technical judicial terms of art: they are foreign in a domestic sense, domestic in a foreign sense. Unsupported disruption submitted out of order is not a part of the mediation to be reported.

TFD has not participated in the mediation process in a timely fashion, he has violated the procedure, and his citations do not support his conclusions. It is simply POV pushing after the close of a mediation process which was carried out in good faith by eight other editors. His objections are not a part of the mediation process. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:54, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

they are foreign in a domestic sense, domestic in a foreign sense

And since Wikipedia is suppose to be written from a global perspective, it makes sense to not get into the minutia in the lead section about incorporated or unincorporated and write from the "foreign sense" and list all parts of the United States in summary, as consensus here has determined.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:33, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mediator's conclusion

Thank you to those who have commented on this. Clearly participants have taken TFD's comments into consideration. I agree that TFD's sources do not support his contention that the territories are not a part of the United States. I also agree that the details of the distinction between incorporated and unincorporated does not belong in the lead sentence. Based on what I have seen the consensus must stand. Sunray (talk)

Settlement

There is more than one way to dispose of an objection: if it is principled, settlement. TFD objects to one word "compose" - so, what word would TFD propose to take its place, then we can see if the rest of us can live with it. Alanscottwalker (talk)

If we drop "composed", we get

The United States of America (USA), commonly referred to as the United States (U.S.) or America, is a federal republic of 50 states, a federal district, five major territories and various possessions.

I think TFD will still object though. It is not my first choice, but I can live with it.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:39, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The current wording in the article seems fine: The United States "is a federal republic consisting of 50 states and a federal district....The country also has five populated and numerous unpopulated territories in the Pacific and the Caribbean." I am not concerned about the exact wording or order, so long as the meaning is accurate. TFD (talk) 01:59, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is accurate to say the five major US territories are in the federal republic because the territorial Members of Congress represent "native-born" Americans and have floor privileges. They sponsor and co-sponsor bills on the floor, vote in committees and party caucuses, obtain offices, staff, and academy appointment privileges. They are not mere observers in the balcony as TFD has asserted. Unlike the Insular Case “alien races” of a century ago, they eat in the House dining room and can be seen shaking hands with their white counterparts on C-SPAN. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:50, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If we go as TFD suggest, stay with the current wording, then we might as well not have had this months long mediation in the first place! No wonder the editor chose not to take an active part in it, cause the editor did not want to change to the language that has achieved consensus in this mediation.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 03:43, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since we are going to have an RfC to decide whether to keep the current wording or present a new one, it is probably helpful to present arguments for both. TFD (talk) 17:45, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The requirement of an RfC is that it be neutrally presented. There is no requirement that it present adversarial arguments.

Since the intent is to avoid contentious objections related to questions of constitutional status in the territories, it hardly would make sense to introduce objections based on the irrelevant constitutional status of the territories.

The RfC will answer the question, Is there any sourced objection to clarifying the sourced geographical extent, national jurisdiction and constitutional framework of the US in the introductory lead sentence for the general reader? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:55, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Formulation of RfC

We need to formulate the RfC and determine which WP:Projects we want to notify (if any). Would participants be able to begin working on this? Sunray (talk) 05:42, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As a first draft, I propose the Projects might include United States, Geography, Politics. The RfC might be worded,

Over the course of four months, eight editors and a mediator consulted on the scope of the United States to determine a sourced lead sentence for the United States article, with an eye to resolving how the total area of the United States should be reported in the Infobox.The result was to craft a sentence encompassing the post-WWII modern era national jurisdiction, contiguous zone, geographical sense, constitutional political framework and census “States and other areas” for the general reader in the introduction of the US country article. By design, It omits any mention of the contentious technical aspects of constitutional status in the territories and possessions.

Shall we adopt the lede sentence written at the Request for Mediation, describing the geographical area of the United States for the general reader as sourced to State Department and scholarly publications? The implication for the info box is to footnote the total area of the “States and other areas” as reported by the Census.

"The United States of America (USA), commonly referred to as the United States (U.S.) or America, is a federal republic composed of 50 states, a federal district, five major territories and various possessions. [n]

"Note: The federal district is Washington DC. The five major territories are American Samoa, Guam, Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, and U.S. Virgin Islands. The nine smaller island areas without permanent populations are Baker Island, Howland Island, Jarvis Island, Johnston Atoll, Kingman Reef, Midway Atoll, Palmyra Atoll, Wake Island, and Navassa Island. U.S. sovereignty over Serranilla Bank and Bajo Nuevo (Petrel Island) is disputed. See U.S. State Department, Common Core Document to U.N. Committee on Human Rights, December 30, 2011, Item 22, 27, 80.— and U.S. General Accounting Office Report, U.S. Insular Areas: application of the U.S. Constitution, November 1997, p. 1, 6, 39n. Both viewed April 6, 2016."

TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:56, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

While Lousiana has the civil code which does not contain the right of trial by jury, the right is available in Lousiana because it is guaranteed under the U.S. constitution. The U.S. constitution applies in full to the entire U.S. - no exceptions. Palmyra is indeed considered part of the U.S. despite not having a permanent population. TFD (talk) 14:58, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

More irrelevant disruption to the draft of an RfC. More unsourced POV pushing, TFD: "The U.S. constitution applies in full to the entire U.S. - no exceptions." -- after noting the exception of Louisiana. In the US federal system, variations are permitted under judicial review, and the territories are now under the protection of civilian federal district courts. US islanders are not the Insular Case "aliens", or lawless "savages" outside the constitution as implied by repeated references to anachronistic Court citations. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:38, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Louisiana is not an exception. The Constitution does not mandate common law, it does mandate jury trials. Louisiana does not have common law, but it does have jury trials. Can you note any section of the U.S. constitution that does not apply to Louisiana? TFD (talk) 13:05, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

More disruption to the RfC wording section, but to give you the courtesy of a reply: You have not found a source to support your contention that the U.S. national jurisdiction, constitutional framework and geographical extent cannot extend to those places where all provisions of the constitution do not apply. Part of participation in a mediation process is that you must read the agreed to sources for the mediation. These agreed upon sources contradict your unsourced, illogical and irrelevant POV pushing. The territories are both judicially “unincorporated” and they officially belong to the US. It seems that even at this late date, you refuse to actively participate in the minimum requirement for good faith editing in the mediation process. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 18:38, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So much POV pushing half-truth...I hope Sunray collapses this section. Please note there are jury trials in territories for criminal cases, as you can see in the Jury Service Information for the US District Court for the District of Puerto Rico [185]. Juries are not yet called for civil cases, as under the Code Napoleon, nor are they uniform in the states for civil cases. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 06:46, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please provide a source saying that the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which protects the right of trial by jury does not extend to Louisiana. TFD (talk) 07:35, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Louisiana and territorial criminal trial by jury does not impact the geographic extent of US national jurisdiction as sourced. The variations among the US federal system are under the protection of federal district courts. Sources were agreed upon fifteen weeks ago. TFD has since failed to find any others relevant to the discussion. There is no coherent objection to the RfC proposal from TFD. Sunray can collapse this sidebar discussion and we can await comment from other editors who are participating in the mediation process in the RfC section as it relates to crafting an RfC. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:21, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See Duncan v. Louisiana (Supreme Court of the United States, 1968): the U.S. constitution provides the right of jury trials everywhere in the U.S., including Louisiana, D.C. and incorporated territories.[186] Now can you please provide a source that says it does not. TFD (talk) 16:09, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You wish unitary absolutes where there are none in a federal system, so you fall into false dichotomies. Were you to have brought up the primary source fifteen weeks ago, it would have again been explained to you that judicial questions of constitutional status are not applicable to geographic extent of the US national jurisdiction and the territories within the constitutional framework of the US. The US Constitution is acknowledged as the supreme law of the U.S. territories and all of its fundamental provisions. Additional provisions have been lawfully extended as Congress expands their Organic Acts making them organically a part of the US in a political sense, from an international perspective, for the general reader.

Judicially territories (not states) remain judicially "unincorporated" for discriminatory tariffs, but you acceded to removal of the territorial descriptor, "unincorporated territories within the constitutional framework of the US" by your previous silence in this mediation when it was amended out of the drafts. Did you want to reintroduce the phrase in the settlement section? Or is this again mere disruption. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:40, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it is semantics. You say "Judicially territories (not states) remain judicially "unincorporated...."" If the courts say they are not incorporated that is a significant opinion and we should not say they are incorporated without qualification. TFD (talk) 14:39, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, we do not wish to address an arcane judicial term of art in the lede sentence. The territories are politically incorporated, within the constitutional framework of the US under fundamental and additional provisions of the Constitution by the supervision of civilian federal district courts --- and they are also ambiguously judicially “unincorporated” for the discriminatory tariffs permitted since 1901 by the Insular Cases -- a century-old jurisprudence which has been incrementally gutted by Congress over the 20th century.

Raising issues of arcane constitutional status concerning the domestic territories in an international sense, which are foreign in a domestic sense, would raise unnecessary and irrelevant controversy over their constitutional status which is not germane to the understanding of general readers. They, from an international perspective, would like to know the geographical extent of the US national jurisdiction, the places within the framework of the US Constitution --- including those populations of “native-born” Americans who are US citizens and nationals with sole allegiance to the US Government and duly represented in the federal republic at Congress as US territories. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 02:56, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Once the RFC is concluded, will that be a consensus that applies to list articles? Robert McClenon (talk) 15:35, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes a conclusive RfC will establish the consensus for the article. Sunray (talk) 19:37, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In order to be consistent, we would have to modify hundreds of articles. The "Citizenship Clause" for example would have to point out that it only applies to most parts of the U.S. Alternatively, we could say, per Sparrox, it applies to the entire U.S., but the U.S. Supreme Court and INA still do not accept it. TFD (talk) 14:26, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are not hundreds of articles to be modified, there is no source to support the US territories are “external” to the United States constitutional framework. That is your unsourced POV pushing. When Golbez tried to name two such articles, they were easily extended to include the territories based on existing sources in the articles referenced. Your concern is narrow judicial holding addressing territorial status for discriminatory tariffs.

Since this is a controlling interest of yours, when you can find an article that you would like to add a footnote concerning your arcane judicial term of art, of course you are welcome to add the contribution. Just as long as other editors consider it relevant to the general reader at the subsidiary article level you are writing for; it is just not germane for a summary article introduction for an international readership. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:18, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I will not list all of them, but mentioned one, the Citizenship clause. Similarly procedural rights in the Bill of Rights, such as right to grand jury indictments and jury trials would not apply to the entire U.S. Articles on the territories and the insular cases of course would all have to be changed to reflect the new view. TFD (talk) 22:43, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As I say, your concern for the 1.5% exception among native-born Americans is a footnote for the general reader in the articles which interest you --- to make the arcane contribution noting an exception of place. The esoteric consideration does not apply to islander persons of US citizenship (99%) or to islander persons of US national status (1%) when they move from a territory into a state. The mediation language for the current day 21st century has no impact on the historical treatment of the Insular Case articles whatsoever, they are irrelevant to one another. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:00, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the U.S. constitution does not apply in full to territories that are not part of the U.S. But why does the 14th amendment not extend to Kingman Reef? You must explain that in both articles. TFD (talk) 07:18, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The US Constitution does not apply at all to places which are not under its authority, but the Constitutions of Puerto Rico, Northern Mariana Islands and American Samoa stipulate it is the supreme law of the land. US Virgin Islands and Guam are governed by Organic Acts which are under its Territorial Clause. The US constitution is administered in a federal system of civilian federal district courts, which you may disagree with, but that fringe POV is irrelevant to the US country article.

You must rather explain how uninhabited palm trees are not mere possessions of the federal republic, but in your view those palm trees are somehow constitutionally superior to Insular Case “alien races” of islanders, US citizens who are represented in Congressional Districts by US territorial Members of Congress. Judicially "incorporated" Palmyra Atoll, outside of any Congressional District, is referred to as a “judicial anomaly” in the literature, and its arcane judicial logic has brought you to an absurdity.

Esoteric and picayune considerations of unpopulated Kingman's Reef adjudications do not belong in the lede of a country article, they are footnotes in the Kingman's Reef article, were an editor to take the interest. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:12, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See "Does the United States Constitution Apply in Full to Palmyra?", p. 45, from the General Accounting Office.[187] Apparently it does. It also applies to Liberty Island, home of the Statue of Liberty, even though no on lives there. It also applies in part to Puerto Rico, Guantanamo Bay, Bagram Airfield and anywhere else the U.S.. has authority. Incidentally, the constitution of Canada was an act of the British parliament.[188] That does not mean the UK and U.S. are neighbours. TFD (talk) 14:00, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good footnote material concerning uninhabited possessions in the subsidiary articles. Please remember to note your source says (p.45n), that while Palmyra’s designation as “incorporated” is a “designation [which] is not legally authoritative", --- it is so listed in the CIAs World Fact Book in the 1996 edition . There is just no issue on the atoll to decide the matter because there are no persons on which the constitution can act. This whole distraction is fanciful speculation were anyone ever to arrive there, which is irrelevant in this context of an encyclopedia's country article lede sentence intended for the general reader. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 01:46, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think that a baby with no American parents born in Palymyra would be a U.S. citizen. Why or why not? TFD (talk) 06:18, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The point of your source is that there is no one there on Palmyra, and until there is, the courts have yet to decide. My personal opinion has no weight, nor does yours. You of course are referring to the cottage industry for Chinese women who travel to Guam to birth their children, Guam being politically a part of the US in a geographical sense, and so claim US citizenship for them before immediately returning to China. This is being handled administratively by prosecuting the hotel owner/travel agency for illegal trafficking isn't it? How does this arcane minutiae speculating on a hypothetical question impact the general understanding by our international readership of a nation of 320 million in the first sentence of a country article? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:39, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Time to cease discussion of matters pertaining to the mediation—we're done. Would participants we able to confine further remarks to "next steps" in the section below? We are now dealing, solely with the mechanics of the RfC. Sunray (talk) 17:11, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Question, do we need to have an RfC to implement the consensus formed here per WP:BOLD, while at the same time creating a RfC?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:55, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Next steps

Would any participants be willing to assist with the presentation and discussion of the RfC on the article talk page? Are there other follow-up actions that participants would agree to take? Sunray (talk) 05:30, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would ask: "Should the article say x are "part of the United States" or "territories of the United States." I have prepared reasons for the second view which should be presented. There should also be a similar section supporting the first view. Also, we need to be clear on which territories are part of the U.S. Is it four, five or all? Does it also include areas under the control of the U.S. that are technically parts of other countries? TFD (talk) 14:20, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The RfC will not be presenting two points of view: only the consensus decision of this mediation. You will be welcome to present your own position. Sunray (talk) 20:28, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The RfC should mention the current wording. It is helpful when a suggestion is made to change the wording of any article that it mentions what it was before. TFD (talk) 21:51, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I like the idea of economically identifying the additional language, notes and sources by placing them in italics. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 02:19, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is not adding language, it is changing language. Have the courage of your convictions and allow readers to understand the changes you recommend. TFD (talk) 06:11, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have taken this opportunity to show you the courtesy of italicizing the additional language in the proposal to show changes.

Done Please note that editor contributions are incorporated whenever they are relevant, without resorting to personal attacks.

Were you to revisit the proposal for RfC above, you would see an itemized list of the US Government territories and possessions that it reports to the UN Human Rights Committee and to Congress, which answers your previous question as to the scope of the US national jurisdiction in a geographic sense as understood by the political branches of federal government, the executive and the legislative -- this is the subject of the mediation here. This is other than the judicial term of art "unincorporated" for internal discriminatory tariffs, --- Congress having extended fundamental and other provisions of the Constitution to the territories and set up federal district courts to protect the US inhabitants there, providing organic law for elective self governance and territorial representation in Congress. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:18, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Italicizing is not clear that those are the new words and does not explain that the territories are already mentioned in the lead. I thought anyway that you thought the various territories were not part of the U.S. Most of your arguments that the "major territories" were incorporated do not apply to the smaller territories - congressional delegates, citizenship, postal delivery, etc. TFD (talk) 15:20, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Italicizing may indeed not bring out the new words well enough but underlining them most probably would. Cheers. -The Gnome (talk) 07:17, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sunray has asked for assistance with the presentation and discussion of the RfC on the article page, I hope my draft RfC and notifications suggestions above are satisfactory for the presentation; I am willing to assist in the discussion at the article talk page.

TFD misstates my position and that of the agreed upon mediation 8-1, which references the US extent including territories and possessions in a geographical sense, the national jurisdiction and the elements of its constitutional framework as sourced for the general reader. “Incorporation” doctrine is an judicial term of art, internal to the US, which the mediation has not adopted in the first sentence for an international readership of a country article. Discussion of highly technical subjects should be relegated to ancillary articles, they should not be broached in summary article introductions, but linked as appropriate in the body of the article for fuller exploration. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 00:42, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think one of the usual ways the form of the RfC is created is have a subpage of the mediation, where there is a usual wiki editing (policed by the mediator is anything gets out of hand) and Discuss here - and then a final sign off. But maybe you just want that in a separate section on this page. Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:12, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What does "in a geographical sense" mean? If you want to say that the U.S. is 50 states, D.C. and in a geographical sense other places it might make sense although I do not know what it means. TFD (talk) 06:44, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

TFD, my friend, as The Gnome provided in his preliminary statement, 8 U.S Code § 1101(a)(38) provides the following: "The term “United States”, except as otherwise specifically herein provided, when used in a geographical sense, means the continental United States, Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, Guam, the Virgin Islands of the United States, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands.” Presidential proclamation of national jurisdiction and the GAO US Insular Areas report cited in Issue 1. above provides for American Samoa and the rest, in a "geographic sense". Good faith requires that editors read the sources of others. In the RfC you may offer alternative language in good order. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:08, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It will be important to have separate sections for a) source and b) source commentary apart from the general discussion so that editors can quickly reference discussion sections. Discussion sections might be further pre-formatted as c) discussion of the geographical extent and d) discussion of internal judicial status. The administrator might have to relocate postings which are initially misplaced as we see happen in this section and others of this mediation. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:08, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why would use a source (INA) that excludes American Samoa and the uninhabited territories? What was the point of all your arguments about congressional delegates, birthright citizenship and postal delivery? TFD (talk) 07:56, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

TFD: US citizens represented by territorial Members of Congress and possessions are constitutionally within the federal republic as sourced in the mediation language. It's an improvement over two years ago in the debate to include the once "alien races" who are now US citizens, improvement being the point of collaborative editing in the mediation process. There remains no modern source to geographically exclude territories in the US as a federal republic. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:10, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I understand your arguments that territories represented in Congress are part of the U.S., but the claim now is that all territories are part of the U.S., making your earlier arguments redundant. TFD (talk) 18:24, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Depends on the purpose of the language, I suppose. I like the dual presentation of the Congressional Quarterly publication best, the five major insular territories are judicially, internally “unincorporated” for discriminatory internal tariffs, foreign in a domestic sense, — but "officially a part of US territory" from an international perspective, domestic in a foreign sense. A distinction way too obscure for an intro sentence.

My discussion stands as a description of the federal republic for 4.5 millions of “native-born” Americans before we addressed the uninhabited atolls of palm trees that others include within the US in a geographical sense. The mediation language makes the inclusion of islanders necessary but not sufficient for the entire geographical reach of the US. I guess admitting the sourced contributions of other editors is just a part of the collegial process at WP. I guess you could consider the first two years of discussion as half-a-loaf from their perspective. I take it you agree to the mediation proposal as sourced? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 06:16, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can Sunray or Alanscottwalker collaborate in setting up the RfC subpage here? I do not mean to delay matters by replying to my friend TFD. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:10, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think Sunray has to set-up the subpage, if that his how they want to handle it - the subpage allows focus on just the RfC wording itself, as opposed to buried in the back and forth. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:59, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've not heard of setting up an RfC as a subpage of a mediation page. My understanding was that it would be on the article page. However, if it makes more sense to have it as a subpage, we can certainly do that. We should try to get a good cross-section of the WP community to comment, but the main focus, imo, should be on getting consensus among article editors. Thoughts? Sunray (talk) 15:56, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I had assumed that the RFC would be on Talk: United States. If it is decided to have it be on a mediation subpage, then Talk: United States, which is very well watched, should link to it. I am willing to help set up the RFC, but I think that the mediator and other editors have that under control. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:17, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We have a failure to communicate - I am talking about a separate page to contain just the draft of the RfC (to be edited by mediation participants wiki-style) (and although it could then serve as a dedicated page for the RfC by moving the entire page, that is not what I was thinking about, nor suggesting). Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:21, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure it qualifies as a failure to communicate. :) I evidently misunderstood what you were proposing. I do agree that it would be a good idea to prepare the RfC as participants would like to see it on the article talk page. We could do that in a new section below. I think that all the components are above, so it is just a matter of putting it together, along with a brief summary of the reason for the RfC. I would be willing to draft the summary if others are willing to put the rest of the question together. Sunray (talk) 21:38, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Summary US territory chart

Below is the result of some collaboration with Alanscottwalker. All errors and omissions are mine.

Mediation US territory discussion
United States District/Territory	Geographically, US national jurisdiction	US Citizens/Nationals	Estimated population	In Congress (Member of Congress)	Local self governance	US Constitution supreme law	US District Court	Presidential vote
District of Columbia	Done	Done 1801 US citizenship	658,000	Done 1971: Norton	Done 1975	Done Congressional Organic Act	Done Fed'l Dist Crt - DC	Done 1961 Constitutional Amendment
American Samoa	Done	Done 1904 US nationals	57,000 (≈ 1% territorial population)	Done 1981; Amata	Done 1978	Done Territorial Constitution	Fed'l appointed High Ct; DC or Hi	citizenship under litigation at Supreme Court
Guam	Done	Done 1950 US citizenship	159,000	Done 1973; Bordallo	Done 1972	Done Congressional Organic Act	Done Terr'l Dist Crt - GU	while resident in a state
Northern Mariana Islands	Done	Done 1986 US citizenship	77,000	Done 2009; Sablan	Done 1978	Done Territorial Constitution	Done Fed'l Dist Crt - MP	while resident in a state
Puerto Rico	Done	Done 1952 US citizenship mutually agreed (1917 citizenship by Congressional fiat)	3,667,000 (≈ 90% insular territory population)	Done 1901; Pierluisi	Done 1948	Done Territorial Constitution	Done Fed'l Dist Crt - PR	while resident in a state
US Virgin Islands	Done	Done 1927 US citizenship	106,000	Done 1973; Plaskett	Done 1970	Done Congressional Organic Act	Done Terr'l Dist Crt - VI	while resident in a state
uninhabited possessions	Done	Citizenship by blood, otherwise not decided in the courts for Palmyra Atoll	n/a	n/a	n/a	Done fundamental provisions	various	n/a

Sources	]). Donald P. Haider-Markel (2008), "officially a part of” (p. 649 [189]). Earl H. Fry (2009), “U.S. federal system” (p. 297 [190]).

I would appreciate any feedback for improvements or clarification. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:18, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What does "US Constitution supreme" mean? The U.S. government must obey the law everywhere. TFD (talk) 02:51, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The places where the US Constitution is the supreme law of the land are not external to the United States. Although the USG is constrained by its law everywhere in the world as you observe, the entire world is not within the United States Government. That's non sequitur. I have added citations to clarify the modern USG relationship to the territories with reliable sources using "encompasses", "composed of", "a part of", "includes" and "federal system". This, in contradistinction to references of judicial holdings a century ago which since have been gutted by Congress, principally by once "alien races" mutually becoming US citizens.

Constitutional authority in DC is like Guam and US Virgin Islands, derived from the plenary power of Congress in the Territorial Clause, confirmed in Guam and US Virgin Islands by islander referendums. Like states, Puerto Rico, Northern Mariana Islands and American Samoa have fundamental law by internal self-determination in their territorial constitutions, referring to "political union" with the United States, --- unlike aliens to the USG of independent peoples with UN membership in compacts, such as the Freely Associated States (FAS) of Marshall Islands, Palau and Micronesia. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 04:34, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DC a territory?

Is DC a territory? We can collaboratively rely on the sourced contributions of other WP editors. See Washington, D.C.#Growth and redevelopment. Congress passed the Organic Act of 1871, which established a new "territorial government" for the whole District of Columbia. Delos Franklin Wilcox, “Great Cities in America, 1910 p.27, viewed June 2, 2025. Yes, DC is a territory. It is not a state, it is a territory petitioning for statehood. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 05:52, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The District of Columbia is not a "territory" and is virtually never referred to as such. It has a unique constitutional status (Art. I, Sec. 8, clause 17). Newyorkbrad (talk) 08:27, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Easily remedied, above. Alanscottwalker (talk) 09:50, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with the chart amendment. Modern style makes a distinction, but there is no practical difference, as in the recent quarters release commemorating DC and the territories. Before territorial self-government in 1975, DC license plates read, "DC the last colony". Modern style dictates that territories are not capitalized, as they once were, as in "the Territories".

But there is no “unique constitutional status”, “status” for DC, other than the Constitution anticipates a capital of US territory apart from the states, ceded by the states in the manner of the Northwest Territory, to be directly governed by the plenary power of Congress as are the other places of the US property, under the Territorial (Property) Clause. That is DCs constitutional status, not statehood.

The Encyclopedia Britannica, at “United States” does not include any of its non-state territories in the scope of the federal republic. Its lede is as follows: "United States, officially United States of America, ... a federal republic of 50 states.” Britannica “United States”. To include DC is to include the other territories governed directly by Congress with delegate Members of Congress. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:09, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Column for District of Columbia and United States Territories Quarters. :) Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:16, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, time to lighten up. But in 1801 the capital was called the Territory of the District of Columbia [191]. During the Civil War it was Territory of the District of Columbia [192]. In the modern era it is the official name for DC in law and legal proceedings. 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 - Medicaid - refers to “any State or Territory of the District of Columbia” and the phrase is referenced federal District Court holdings, [193] p.10. and [194] p. 18. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 19:53, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(Stage Whisper: No offense to Brad, but it sounds more than a bit like a "lawyer argument": 'yes, it is territory of the United States, but it is not United States territory, don't you see.' :-) ) Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:09, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lawyer arguments are valid in issues of constitutional law. Territories and the district come under different sections of the Constitution and they are referred to differently in most modern mainstream sources. While DC is similar to a territory, there is at least one difference - it cannot become a state without a constitutional amendment. TFD (talk) 02:25, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Again, the name of the place is formally "Territory of the District of Columbia" in every era of US history. It is given that name because it is substantively a territory with a territorial government directly under the control of Congress. Quibbling about judicial minutia is not relevant to the general reader.

It is argued that DC cannot become a state without a constitutional amendment. It is also argued that as property of the Congress, it need not. See Question Six on DC statehood at DC Vote. Politically, Democrats wish to expedite statehood, Republicans wish to impede it with various arguments, constitutional and otherwise.

I simply point out that although the style sheet of the Washington Post requires the general use of the term “District of Columbia”, DC has a territorial government and is also formally, throughout history and in law, the “Territory of the District of Columbia” as sourced, because it inarguably has a non-state territorial government. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:04, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Lawyer arguments are valid in issues of constitutional law." To the extent the objection matters, at all, it has already been addressed by the change in the chart, above. But TFD's statement shows those arguments are entirely irrelevant, here, as we are not writing constitutional law. As a matter of fact, that 68.3 mi² district is in the territory of the United States, regardless of whatever lawyers may wish to argue about. Whether an Act of Congress; simultaneous Acts of Congress and the Maryland legislature; or amendment somehow matters to whether any of those 68 some square miles become a state, at some point in the future, is wholly irrelevant to the fact that it is in the territory of the United States. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:53, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Territory has both a legal and a general definition. In the second sense, all the areas under the jurisdiction of the United States, including the 50 states are territories of the United States. TFD (talk) 14:12, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We use common sense, as we are not writing law. All agree that that 68.3 miles is United States' own territory. That fact is unaffected by states also being in United States' territory. We discuss these things in the article as subdivisions of the United States that have an area in square miles (km) and a population - so they have to be included. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:05, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Constitution provides for the Congress to establish territories in two ways, that does not mean there are not two kinds of territories, the federal district and others. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:39, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Table use

What is the thinking about how this table would be used? Sunray (talk) 18:26, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Summary info is part of drafting the RfC. In the Muhammed RfC, the participants drafted summary info, abortion also, etc. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:36, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think it will be very useful. I appreciate the work that has gone into it. Sunray (talk) 00:01, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Constitutional status

What does "US Constitution supreme law" mean? What does it have to do with whether a territory or district is part of the US? Why ignore the standard "US Constitution applies in full/in part?" TFD (talk) 01:55, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There was consensus that we are not using the incorporated/unincorporated status in defining the United States Territory that are to be listed in the lead paragraph. Why are we repeating this debate now? We have achieved consensus on this already. Is TFD making the argument that consensus has changed?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:34, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"US Constitutional law supreme" over US citizens means the places are not external to the US. The unsourced standard of “US Constitution applies in full/in part” is not relevant to the general reader in the introductory lede sentence of a country article as established in the mediation consensus language. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:54, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Should we consider introducing somewhere the term "undetermined" (or "not fully determined") as regards the status of certain lands? The status in every field (political, judicial, legislative) is debated and it seems there are strong points to be made from every side, all properly backed up. It's possible that otherwise we might be crossing into OR territory - no pun intended. -The Gnome (talk) 10:22, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, the observation that territorial constitutional status is ambiguous, foreign in a domestic sense and domestic in a foreign sense, is well established in the mediation. They are both judicially “unincorporated” for discriminatory internal tariffs and within the US constitutional “framework”, “a part of" the US in the CQ source, "composed of", “encompassed", and “included" in others.

No source says they are external to the US in the modern era with citizenship, self-governance, territorial Members of Congress and constitutional rule under the protection of federal district courts versus earlier military governors, presidentially appointed legislatures and military courts over "alien races".

Settling on the geographic sense of US national jurisdiction for the general reader, the consensus at 8-1 is to defer discussing the “not fully determined” nature of those lands gaining constitutional provisions by Congress under the protection of federal district courts, to a place outside the introductory lede sentence. Hence the general description of the geographical sense of the US national jurisdiction. The "judicially 'unincorporated' status" is explored in the subsidiary articles linked. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:54, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As long as the ambiguity is presented in the introduction, I find quite reasonable the position to "defer discussing the 'not fully determined' nature of those lands gaining constitutional provisions by Congress under the protection of federal district courts, to a place outside the introductory lede sentence." -The Gnome (talk) 12:09, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We should also have fields for incorporated/unincorporated and organized/unorganized. TFD (talk) 15:36, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What does "unincorporated" mean? Not the common sense meaning, but in an esoteric judicial term of art, "not-a-part-of-the-US-for-discriminatory-internal-taxes" on commodities of "alien races" from a century ago. Indeed, it is so NOT the common sense of the meaning that the legal scholars Lawson and Sloane explain that Puerto Rico is politically "incorporated" as the modern judiciary understands that term of art in the 21st century by sequential Acts of Congress. That interpretation is upheld in federal District Court and Appellate Court, unchallenged for five years. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 19:09, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. And around we go again. The U.S. government recognizes only "incorporated" and "unincorporated". Any qualification or hedging has no official meaning. Yes, we can mention that various scholars argue such and such a point, but in the end that means nothing until there are binding court decisions or acts of Congress. older ≠ wiser 19:46, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lawson and Sloane use the "esoteric judicial term of art" and argue that Puerto Rico meets it and therefore it is a-part-of-the-US for all purposes, including internal taxes and and the US government's discrimination is illegal. Incidentally, the use of the term incorporate to mean make part of is not esoteric but is frequently used. Try a Google news search for "incorporated into."[195] TFD (talk) 01:49, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Google term searches have not been accepted in the mediation as wp:rs for constitutional law. More disruptive nonsense, you have been shown to misconstrue Lawson and Sloane here before, you do again. They do not argue Puerto Rico is unincorporated, they argue that, by a sequence of Acts of Congress, it is made politically "incorporated" on p. 1175 [196], while pointing out a constitutional argument can be made against the internal taxation regime. Again, there is no sourced challenge to the District Court holding that Puerto Rico is politically incorporated as a state for over five years p. 26 [197]. Judicially "unincorporated" applies to a narrow scope, an internal tariff which is irrelevant to the territories in a geographical sense for the general international reader. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 04:22, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am merely pointing out that your unsourced statement that the term incorporated as used in legal writing is obscure is wrong. I agree with you that Lawson and Sloane argue that Puerto Rico is incorporated. While they accept an argument has been made that Puerto Rico is unincorporated, they say that argument is wrong and therefore the internal tax regime is illegal. The Uniformity Clause says, "all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States...." Since, they argue, Puerto Rico has been incorporated into the U.S., it is illegal for Congress to set a separate tax rate. TFD (talk) 14:46, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The use of the term "unincorporated" to mean a judicial license for discriminatory internal tariffs a century ago is absolutely esoteric. That is the way you intend to use it, given your irrelevant catalogue of references. A recent four-part legal seminar at Harvard found on online at [198] noted most Constitutional law texts do not include reference to the Insular Territories at all; it's just not seen as relevant to modern legal training in the mainstream, it is, as I say, little known, rarified, of no relevance to the general reader.

Interesting reasoning on your part, do Lawson and Sloane make the argument ...and Lawson and Sloane say, "therefore" ..., or do they observe an argument can be made and YOU conclude therefore they must be saying...? Is this your own tangential OR again, now attributed to others?

You have shown a determined lack of understanding regarding the modern US federal system; Congress allows considerable latitude for internal self-governance of territorial peoples "within the framework" of the modern US Constitutional system. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 00:37, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The judges clearly used the term unincorporated to mean not part of. As a result the Uniformity Clause did not apply. Thanks for providing me with 20 hours of YouTube viewing, but could you indicate where in it it supports your statement about the insular cases. Can you name any constitutional law texts that do not mention the insular cases? TFD (talk) 02:22, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

“The judges clearly used the term “unincorporated” to mean not a part of” for the narrowly constrained purpose of an internal tariff. Insular territories were to be seen as foreign in a domestic sense, and domestic in a foreign sense, territories of the United States. The Court explicitly explained the US could constitutionally acquire territories. Your statement, "The territories are external to the US" is OR, unsupported by any source using the term "external".

Discussing their general world view approach similar to “separate but equal” education, they noted that "alien races” unfamiliar with American republican forms of governance in their “savage” state could not automatically become citizens, self-govern or serve in Congress without later Congressional approval. And now Congress has given its approval, the Insular Cases are an anachronism of the Jim Crow judicial era.

The Harvard Law professor introducing the series mentioned that the Insular Cases are obscure, not taught in law schools and that she had not included them in her own constitutional law text. It’s in the first ten minutes. A federal judge proposes a boycott of US goods by all Puerto Rico and mainland Puerto Ricans until the USG confers all rights of statehood; the Tea Party worked. The Independentistas are reminded to their face that they cannot win elections with 5% of the vote, and independence means losing US citizenship as with the Philipines, despite the example of Denmark. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:35, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@The Four Deuces: Edit conflict! Thank you for removing another non sequitur. Territorial citizens are not slaves until statehood. They are not property before the law, but native born Americans in self-governing territories with constitutional protections under the supervision of civilian federal district courts. They no longer are under military governors and military courts as at the time of the Insular Cases when they were labelled “alien races” of “savages". I find it offensive that you believe their status cannot be changed by Congress in any respect until statehood, and changes are sourced and explained here by a 8-1 consensus of editors. See Alanscottwalker's taking offense at your misconstruing the mediation below wp:context matters.

As found in a US District Court, the Congress by sequential acts of legislation in the 20th century, has “in fact” politically “incorporated" Puerto Rico in the case of Medicaid (not internal sugar tariffs) p. 26 [199], unchallenged for five years. Puerto Rico for various purposes is treated “as a state” as a matter of law, including citizenship under its Commonwealth territorial status 48 U.S. Code § 737 - Privileges and immunities. Consequently legal scholars find Puerto Rico politically “incorporated” for many purposes as understood in modern jurisprudence p.1175 [200] -- just not for internal sugar tariffs from one hundred years ago, a vary narrow, rarified and obscure element of constitutional law, suitable for footnotes only. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 15:29, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have listened to the first hour of the video, will watch the rest later and suggest you and all the other editors in this mediation do the same, as it clearly explains the law as it is interpreted and disputes over its interpretation. The moderator, who is dean of law at Harvard, indeed says she did not include the insular cases in her book. The fact is that status of overseas possessions is generally ignored. But the speakers agree that the decisions of the insular cases are accepted by the U.S. government, even while some argue they should have been decided differently or that given the evolution of the territories they have become incorporated.

I don't know why you keep flogging the racist angle. No doubt the judges were racist. America has a racist history that stretches from slavery to the present day. Is it fair that residents of the territories are treated differently? No. Are they treated differently? Yes. If you disagree with the law, then work to change it, but don't pretend the law is something different from what it is.

TFD (talk) 16:29, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As you will learn in the Harvard symposium, the Courts have held that territorial discrimination is by place, not by race. The law, as you would have it, [201] makes Puerto Rican US citizens, of full privileges and immunities to residents, as a state (generally in the insular territories by 1988). But territories are discriminated by place relative to states in other respects, in the same ways as they have throughout history, as Congress determines in each historical era, as it does in this one. No vote for president is a hot button at the symposium.

State privileges are attained only with statehood. Different treatment is inherent in the territorial status experienced by DC as well, but you would inconsistently include their US citizens as Americans and exclude the insular territorial populations. This for some unsourced reason which is somehow connected to a fetish with the anachronistic Insular Cases. Racist they may be as sourced, but I do not believe you to be a racist. But your attachment to them for the 21st century remains unsourced and unexplained.

You pretend insular populations are incompetent to be citizens when that is the way it is in the modern, post WWII era; they are not aliens, "external" to the US. They have agreed to US citizenship and to the Constitution as the law of their land, mutually with Congress, by referendum in an expression of their internal self-determination. Though the Insular Cases once barred citizenship, as law of the land that judicial doctrine of “un-incorporation” is gutted by successive Congressional action p. 26 [202], leaving the remnant of an internal discriminatory tariff regime for footnotes. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 19:12, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I did not say insular populations are incompetent to become citizens, merely that the Constitution does not provide them with citizenship. Nor did I say they are "aliens" - under common law they are nationals and the extension by Congress of birthright citizenship to four of the unincorporated territories makes them citizens. And I have provided ample sources that the incorporation doctrine of the insular cases remains accepted, as have all the sources you have provided. TFD (talk) 20:52, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You cavil and quibble at constitutional esoterica to the point of irrelevance. Insular populations which owe “permanent allegiance” to the United States as citizens (99%) and nationals (1%) include the populations of all five major territories, as sourced in the State Department Foreign Affairs Manual (FAM). They are not to be excluded from the lede introductory sentence of the country article based on unsourced original research and mis-referenced case law of the Insular Case "incorporation doctrine" in this context.

Acts of Congress are the the supreme law of the land in the US federal system, as well as the constitution and treaties, --- see Constitution Article VI. Congress has overthrown the judicial “incorporation doctrine” withholding citizenship to insular populations, the case law is no longer in effect, islander citizenship is established. The Courts generally concede political questions to Congress, including those related to DC and the insular territories. The Insular Cases said they would.

You tacitly stipulate 1901 "alien race" status under military rule at every reference to those cases. Their incorporation doctrine withholding citizenship and national status to the “savages” of the Insular Cases does not "remain accepted”, --- only the internal tariff remains. As indeed islander populations are not aliens, so they are not external to the US in geographic extent, as you sometimes imply. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 00:45, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Draft RfC

Here's an introduction for your consideration.

A mediation has been held to consider the question: "What should the definition be for the United States?" The mediation was the culmination of a long-running (since, at least, March 2013) issue of whether the United States should be defined as the 50 states and the District of Columbia, or as the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and five territories. This issue affects the infobox and the information for the United States in lists of countries. It was agreed from the outset that the statement in the lede sentence of the article would have a footnote to explain the legal and juridical aspects of U.S. territories.

The mediation has been successful and the participants reached consensus on the issues. The participants were: [list those active]

My thinking was that a short preamble would be best to set it up and then ask the RfC question. What do participants think? Sunray (talk) 14:59, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agree - Robert McClenon (talk) 21:38, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It sounds good, but what about the other territories? I thought we just voted to include them. TFD (talk) 01:51, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agree - It may be that the possessions can be left in the footnote, along with a comment on the ambiguous constitutional status of the insular territories, as sourced. a) The two mediation statement sources both enumerate the inhabited territories, DC and the insular territories together in the first, while the five insular territories are the only topic in the second, and b) the first source notes “possessions” generally, the second source enumerates them. --- We know from the first source that DC and the insular territories are within the constitutional framework of the current US internationally, and from the second that the insular territories are judicially “unincorporated” in 1901. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 05:01, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment wording of RfC above does not match the following which has consensus
The United States of America (USA), commonly referred to as the United States (U.S.) or America, is a federal republic composed of 50 states, a federal district, five major territories and various possessions.

--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:47, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that is the consensus. TFD (talk) 07:31, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@The Four Deuces: am I correct in the understanding that although this is the consensus language, that it is not a phrase which you agree with?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:17, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if I was not clear. I agree with you that the consensus version includes "and various possessions", while Sunray's version does not. TFD (talk) 02:13, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This was I believe, as well, the consensus. We cannot walk away from it when going to RfC. -The Gnome (talk) 18:44, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. At this time, is it appropriate to mention something to the effect in the RfC footnote as @The Gnome: suggests, relative to the uncertain constitutional status of the insular territories, in the spirit of @Alanscottwalker:'s settlement idea?

The consensus language includes territories and possessions in the “federal republic” as encompassed, included, as the common sense meaning of the “United States” as geographical extent, national jurisdiction, and modern constitutional framework. That’s what the two RfC references attest, reflecting the preponderance of sources .

On the other hand, that perspective for the general reader does not apply in the narrow circumstance of the Insular Cases establishing domestic internal tariffs a century ago, where the judicial term “unincorporated” applies to this day for that limited, rarified purpose. What neutral or balanced wording could be adopted in the note regarding their constitutional status for a sourced sentence following the listing of places? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 01:37, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you think the constitutional status of the insular territories is uncertain, could you please explain why we should state that it is certain. And we need to explain at least in other articles why the Uniformity Clause only means uniformity in part of the U.S. Lawson and Sloane say that the clause does apply in the territories and the U.S. government is in violation of the Constitution. Why not say that? TFD (talk) 06:33, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, I thought it was the consensus of this mediation, that the status of a territory being incorporated or unincorporated had no bearing on whether it was mentioned or not in the sentence which has consensus. Am I correct in my statement?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:45, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it was the consensus that all territories of the U.S. are part of the U.S. Sunray's summary says that only five of them are. The wording for example says that American Samoa is part of the U.S., while the uninhabited territories are not. We need to decide which territories to include before the RfC. TFD (talk) 07:41, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@RightCowLeftCoast: You are correct, the judicial "incorporation doctrine" has no bearing on the sentence of this mediation. The sentence does not imply certainty of internal constitutional status, only US geographic extent, national jurisdiction and modern constitutional framework from an international perspective. Internal constitutional status is not relevant except as a footnote.

@The Four Deuces: You are correct, the draft introduction will be amended to include possessions before the RfC per TFD, TVH, RCLC and The Gnome as I understand it. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:53, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would again suggest, we go back to the process I am familiar with from other mediation - a Draft RfC wiki edit fest to get something most everyone is comfortable with - with the mediator resolving and/or controlling the process of resolution for any disputes the editors cannot resolve on their own. I have never set out to "define the United States" for all ways and in all things, that approach offends WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. I have focused on a LEAD for an article that discusses multiple "subdivisions". So, I think the prior suggestion: "Over the course of four months, eight editors and a mediator consulted on the scope of the United States to determine a sourced lead sentence for the United States article, with an eye to resolving how the total area of the United States should be reported in the Infobox" is better - although certainly that can also be improved by wiki editing and wiki editing gets us to the beginning of the end quicker. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:00, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I like Alanscottwalker's re-write of the introduction. Logically then, we present the consensus version of the lead and the RfC question. I've done a screen shot of how it would look with the RfC template included.

Image of proposed RfC

Here's an editable version, minus the RfC template. Sunray (talk) 01:20, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation update Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/United States

Over the course of four months, eight editors and a mediator consulted on the scope of the United States to determine a sourced lede sentence for the United States article, with an eye to resolving how the total area of the United States should be reported in the Infobox. The mediation has been successful and the participants reached consensus on the issues and have a proposed a new lede sentence for the article which is to be accompanied by a note. It has been agreed by the participants and the mediator that the proposed lede and accompanying note would be presented to article editors and members of the WP community as a Request for comment. [Signed by mediator ~~or a participant?~~]

RfC:Do you agree with the following lead sentence and accompanying note for the United States article?

"The United States of America (USA), commonly referred to as the United States (U.S.) or America, is a federal republic composed of 50 states, a federal district, five major territories and various possessions. [n]

"Note: The federal district is Washington DC. The five major territories are American Samoa, Guam, Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, and U.S. Virgin Islands. The nine smaller island areas without permanent populations are Baker Island, Howland Island, Jarvis Island, Johnston Atoll, Kingman Reef, Midway Atoll, Palmyra Atoll, Wake Island, and Navassa Island. U.S. sovereignty over Serranilla Bank and Bajo Nuevo (Petrel Island) is disputed. See U.S. State Department, Common Core Document to U.N. Committee on Human Rights, December 30, 2011, Item 22, 27, 80.— and U.S. General Accounting Office Report, U.S. Insular Areas: application of the U.S. Constitution, November 1997, p. 1, 6, 39n. Both viewed April 6, 2016."

Please indicate whether you support or oppose the above lede and note and your reason(s). The discussion will be moderated by Sunray and [co-facilitator] Comments and questions are welcome in the section below.

Support As co-presenter (RfM mediator). Sunray (talk)
Support Alanscottwalker (talk)
Support TFD (talk) 04:48, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 06:41, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support The Gnome (talk) 08:18, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:33, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Robert McClenon (talk) 05:08, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

____________________________________

The first thing that strikes me when I look at it is whether we should all sign it as presenters or just the two presenters and then participants sign once it is posted. Sunray (talk) 01:32, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As a presenter can be seen as "running the event", I prefer to sign supporting as an RfM participant willing to participate in the discussion. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 06:41, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, per immediately above, with TheVirginiaHistorian. -The Gnome (talk) 08:18, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On balance, if there is a slight chance, "I" become the issue, let's avoid that - we are all presenting what we did (changed above). Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:34, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Very apt comments, imo. Does that make me the presenter? That would likely transfer the perception of "running the event" onto me, which could set me up as an "authority figure" to be attacked. I'm not sure that would necessarily be a bad thing, but it would weaken my perceived neutrality as a mediator. I will be asking another mediator to co-facilitate with me, which should help with that. Sunray (talk) 15:44, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@The Four Deuces: question. Are we to expect that TFD will oppose the support outcome of the RfC?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:11, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see why that is important. I have agreed to the wording of the RfC. I would also mention that excessive arguing on RfCs can prevent them from being successful. I would suggest that we have a separate section where each editor in the mediation can provide their own comments and that we agree not to comment on what each other says. I am sure we are all aware of the arguments and therefore can write complete positions without being surprised by other editors' comments. We will waste a lot of time for example if I have to reply to each TVH's comments that I think Guantanamo Bay is part of the U.S., then he again claims I think it is part of the U.S. and the process continues in repetitive fashion, making the resulting discussion unreadable. TFD (talk) 02:20, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@The Four Deuces: Please answer my question plainly. Yes or No. Will TFD oppose that the consensus language be adopted in the United States article?— Preceding unsigned comment added by RightCowLeftCoast (talk • contribs) 22:39, 16 June 2015

Summary table

One more thing: How should we present the table? It is a very cool overview of the status of the territories. Should it be presented directly below the note as part of the RfC? Sunray (talk) 15:47, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Explanatory sentence: "Below is a summary chart with links and references for use by RfC participants (it will not go in the article):" Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:56, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Should the RfC be a level 3 header underneath the level 2 header which is the mediation update? Also, perhaps Sunray can be the one who signs the update, and all participants of the mediation sign the RfC? --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:35, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. (Also agree about Sunray to be attacked. :) ) -The Gnome (talk) 22:06, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would omit the table from the wording of the RfC, although editors are free to add whatever they wish to the RfC discussion. It is original research for editors to determine whether areas are part of the U.S. based on select criteria, instead the determination must be made in reliable sources and we need to show they have done that. Also, the selection of fields is not what expert sources would choose, and we would need to show a table already published in reliable sources. "US Citizens/Nationals" for example should be "Nationality" with the possible replies being "constitutional US citizenship", "legislative US citizenship", "US non-citizen national" and "alien." Furthermore, all areas under US jurisdiction, including Guantanamo Bay should be included. TFD (talk) 22:28, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No. There is nothing original in the chart just facts. It's not even proposed that the chart be put in this, nor any article. It's no different then what was done at the RfC here. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:25, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The reliable sources used to make the chart are now noted below the chart. Is there a way to box them within the chart below the columns?

1. There are no places external to the US on the chart, there are no “aliens” in the intro lede sentence for the US country article — only US citizens in DC and 99% islanders, and nationals - 1% islanders. All else is esoterica irrelevant to the mediation scope.

2. Guantanamo Bay is leased from Cuba, it is not considered as a part of the geographical extent of the US in the sources provided. That is editor OR without sources to that effect: WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. "Despite widespread popular belief, U.S. military installations abroad and U.S. diplomatic or consular facilities abroad are not part of the United States” for citizenship purposes. See State Department 7 FAM 1110 p. 5 [203].

3. No modern sources assert US territories to be "external" to the US, foreign in an international sense; the Insular Cases from 1901 spoke of a "domestic" sense due to "alien races" unfamiliar with American republican forms of governance. They are no longer alien nor now unpracticed in American forms of self-governance after 50 years' experience through the last half of the 20th century.

4. Two USG sources from State and GAO, and six scholars show how DC and insular territories are now “encompassed”, “composed of”, “a part of”, “included”, “official” and within the “US federal system". TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:26, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly agree with #2 and #4. -The Gnome (talk) 07:32, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Of course Guantanamo Bay, like the unincorporated territories, is not part of the U.S. But if you are going to present a matrix to help readers decide which areas are part of the U.S., you should mention areas that you agree are not part of the U.S. that meet some of the criteria listed. For example, Gitmo is "Geographically, US national jurisdiction", "Citizenship by blood", "US Constitution supreme law", "US District Court (Fed'l Dist Crt - DC)", [204] "Presidential vote (in state of normal residence)." The Canal Zone also was never part of the U.S. yet was officially an unincorporated territory of the U.S. TFD (talk) 02:13, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Readers aren't deciding arbitrarily which areas are part of the US, nor are editors launching into wp:original research. We will consult the reliable sources. Editor wp:good faith requires that you read the sources and the enumerated places in them. DC and the modern insular territories are described as “encompassed”, “composed of”, “a part of”, “included”, “official” and within the US “federal system".

But Guantanamo US Naval Base, each overseas military facility in Europe or Asia, every ship at sea or airplane aloft, are not sourced in that way. "Despite widespread popular belief, U.S. military installations abroad ... are not part of the United States” for citizenship purposes. State Department 7 FAM 1110 p. 5 [205].

In your latest misapplied source, how is the constitutional status of alien inmates under military incarceration comparable to US citizens of DC and insular territories in self-governance with Members of Congress? This, like previous efforts at analysis wrapped up in constitutional minutiae, leads to nonsense. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 03:32, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The comparability is that all persons under the jurisdiction of the U.S., including prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, have the same fundamental rights. They have the right to apply for habeas corpus and other prerogative writs, even if they belong to "alien races" as you call them. The U.S. government is a government of laws not people and cannot turn off the constitution like a tap, according to the U.S. Supreme Court. Maybe someday the law will change, but that is the law today, whether or not you accept it. TFD (talk) 06:32, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The constitutional construct comparing inmates to citizens is irrelevant for the chart of US district and territories as sourced, you have no applicable sources wp:context matters. The Insular Cases a hundred years ago, in an interpretation of the Constitution, called islander populations “alien races”, — not “aliens” as foreigners before the law as are the Guantanamo inmates. You quote the Insular Cases, I do not; you misconstrue and garble again.

The Supreme law of the land is the Constitution, Acts of Congress and treaties. The Supreme Court interpretation of the Constitution in the Insular Cases which withheld citizenship from territorial populations has been superseded by Congressional Organic Acts establishing citizenship and making territories organic to the US. Accept the law as it is today. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:06, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Guantanamo Bay is not mentioned in the United States article, so it is most certainly contrary to multiple policies for discussion in the WP:LEAD. Alanscottwalker (talk)

Why do you think anyone suggested in be mentioned in the lead? I find discussions are more productive if you do not misrepresent what other writers say. TFD (talk) 02:18, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Very well. The subject here is the lede sentence of the introduction to the country article, "United States”.

The chart summarizing sources which are relevant to the subject at hand will not address U.S. diplomatic, military or consulate facilities, nor American flagged ships at sea nor airplanes aloft. None of which are recognized in the literature as “encompassed”, and “within” the US “federal system” of political entities -- despite speculation to be had in editor original research. Whereas DC and the insular territories are. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 05:54, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What does anything you say have to do about the discussion? Ships at sea? Airplanes aloft? TFD (talk) 07:00, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No one's proposing to put anything about Guantanamo Bay in the article and the article does not discuss Guantanamo Bay, so there is no reason to discuss Guantanamo Bay in the summary chart, which chart has to do with a discussion for the LEAD of the article. Alanscottwalker (talk) 07:26, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An American arrested by a U.S. Marine for slapping the U.S. ambassador inside the U.S. embassy in Ruritania finds himself or herself under U.S. Constitution and U.S. law. This, however, does not affect one way or another the status of the land on which said U.S. embassy is situated: The grounds of the embassy are considered diplomatically to belong to the U.S. but the U.S. holds no jurisdiction whatsoever on those grounds in terms of sovereignty. What TFD suggests ("...all areas under US jurisdiction, including Guantanamo Bay, should be included"), based on the fact that people are held by the U.S. gov't at Gitmo, is not correct because Gitmo in itself makes no difference as to whom Guantanamo Bay belongs in terms of sovereignty. -The Gnome (talk) 13:47, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

TFD: As with Guantanamo US Naval Base, which is not included in sources given, passengers aboard US flagged ships at sea are within your supposed criteria of US "national jurisdiction", "Citizenship by blood", "US Constitution supreme law", "US District Court". As they meet TFD criteria, they deserve an answer as to why they should not be included in the chart as well. They are addressed in State Dept. 7 FAM 1110 following the discussion excluding military installations. Please read references directly quoted in the discussion to avoid original research and misapplying sources. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:06, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Gnome, I am suggesting the exact opposite. Some editors say that being under U.S. jurisdiction incorporates a territory into the U.S. I say it does not and provide the example of Guantanamo Bay. Guantanamo Bay is no more a part of the U.S. than Puerto Rico. TFD (talk) 14:33, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

TFD: 1. No one has said that being under jurisdiction alone incorporates a territory into the US. That is your misconstruing the discussion of political entities with permanent populations within a nation.

2. Guantanamo Bay, Cuba is not a part of the US for any sourced purpose. But Congress has “in fact” evolved to politically “incorporate” Puerto Rico by a legislative sequence --as described in a District Court holding which has gone unchallenged for seven years, p.26 [206].

3. In some sources for the purposes of an internal tariff, Puerto Rico can be referred to as judicially “unincorporated” for that limited purpose. But the law of the land no longer withholds citizenship, etc. -- Congress has extended the Constitution for citizenship, etc., and it cannot be turned off as a tap as you acknowledge [207]. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 17:07, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@The Four Deuces and TheVirginiaHistorian: please do not re litigate this. There is consensus that the territories listed, from an international POV, are part of the United States (regardless of unicorporated or incorporated status). There is a consensus that Naval Station Guantanamo Bay or any other overseas United States base are not part of United States Territory for the purposes of what the United States is in the United States article. I understand that editors may still disagree with certain specifics, but the time for that has passed; we have a consensus, not a unanimous shared POV.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:19, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is what use to make of the matrix. My point is that it collects evidence in a biased way in order to persuade readers to reach one conclusion. As I mentioned, the selective evidence could equally apply to areas under U.S. jurisdiction that are not listed. TFD (talk) 20:49, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Another unsourced objection? The chart organizes the sourced data, it is biased against unfounded speculation. Provide a counter-source apart from your original research to suggest additional places "officially" within the US "federal system". TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 21:38, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If is absurd to ask for a source that says your matrix is OR. TFD (talk) 21:50, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is no OR, just a summary chart of sourced information - but even if, for the sake of argument, there were, NOR only applies to statements in the article not things on the talk page: "This policy of no original research does not apply to talk pages." So, a summary chart (matrix, as you call it), which is not proposed to go in the article cannot offend NOR. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:24, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

TFD: You have imagined the possibility of including Guantanamo Bay, Cuba [208] as officially within the US federal system, formally a part of its federal republic. Please find a source which determines it is US territory (but it is leased), under exclusive US jurisdiction (but there is a lease agreement), with a permanent US population (but it is a military facility) — those are the sourced criteria for inclusion in a nation-state. I suspect that the notion is OR to you alone. You may have narrowed your attention to the operational jurisdiction allowed to the US by the sovereign nation of Cuba; Cuba has not relinquished claim to the territory, nor does the international community admit a formal cession to the US. That would be more editor OR-imagination. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:17, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have certainly never argued with including Guantanamo Bay as officially within the U.S. As I have repeatedly said, it is no more a part of the U.S. than Puerto Rico or the other unincorporated territories. What I did say was that many of the arguments you made to included the unincorporated territories apply equally to Guantanamo Bay - U.S.. has jurisdiction, U.S. constitution applies, U.S. flag flies, U.S. federal courts supreme, U.S. post office delivers the mail, children born of U.S. citizens are U.S. citizens, U.S. citizens in Guanatanamo Bay may vote in U.S. elections. Clearly none of these attributes are sufficient to incorporate a territory into the U.S. and your insistence on using them in the matrix is to argue your case rather than accept the opinions of experts. This whole discussion anyway reminds me of Groundhog Day. You ask me a question or misrepresent what I say. I reply. You then ask me the same question and again misrepresent what I say and I reply again. You do not need to accept what I say, but there is no excuse in not understanding what I say. I certainly understand your arguments and reject them. But I never misrepresent them or ask you to repeat them, not that that stops you. TFD (talk) 18:43, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The experts are sourced as territories included, officially a part, within the US federal system. Your OR misconstrues Insular Cases a hundred years ago as applying today to withhold citizenship today; they do not. They only apply to the narrow judicial purpose of preserving a discriminatory internal tariff regime. Recapping constitutional characteristics of ships at sea, then suggesting an equivalence between inmates and insular populations does not reduce the chart to absurdity; ships at sea criteria alone, nor inmates in a military prison, as with other OR-imaginings do not meet the test of inclusion a nation-state as Puerto Rico does.

Once again you assert an equivalence in constitutional status between a) incarcerated aliens at a military facility and b) a US territory of citizens in self-governance under protection of federal courts, with Members of Congress, -- an assertion based on your unsourced misinterpretation of the chart cataloguing partial constitutional criteria which apply for ships at sea as well as well as elements of a nation-state such as Puerto Rico in the US.

I understand precisely what you have said. The US government of Puerto Rico is not illegitimate, regardless of your reservations about detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. They are two separate issues relative to the geographic extent of the US for the purpose of the lede sentence and the chart. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 20:02, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See Boumediene v. Bush. TFD (talk) 14:22, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It says, "Boumediene v. Bush, was a writ ... on behalf of ... [an Algerian] naturalized citizen of Bosnia and Herzegovina [a foreign national, alien to the US], held in military detention... Guantanamo Bay is not formally part of the United States, and under the terms of the 1903 lease between the United States and Cuba, Cuba retained ultimate sovereignty over the territory..." --- Which is what I said; the case reaffirms Guantanamo Bay is Cuban territory. It does not apply to the places in the chart. See Puerto Rico, it is a US territory. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:10, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I meant read the case. "Guantanamo Bay is not formally part of the United States. And under the terms of the lease between the United States and Cuba, Cuba retains “ultimate sovereignty” over the territory while the United States exercises “complete jurisdiction and control...." In every practical sense Guantanamo is not abroad; it is within the constant jurisdiction of the United States." IOW it has the exact constitutional status as any other unincorporated territory. TFD (talk) 22:41, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No reliable source suggests that there is an equivalence without distinction between a) military installations and US territories, nor b) populations of incarcerated inmates and populations of islander US citizens. You merely assert an OR of nonsensical non sequitur. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:02, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The US Supreme Court does. TFD (talk) 14:32, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why not reveal the sourced quote before now? It's been six months. It may be that your OR interpretation conflating aliens with citizens, and unclaimed with claimed territory, will not stand scrutiny. Where is the sourced quote for reference that asserts no distinctions can be made? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 23:53, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Decision on summary table

The proposal is to include the summary chart along with the RfC. Do you agree?

Agree. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 06:55, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. The Gnome (talk) 19:27, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose WP:RFC says, "Include a brief, neutral statement of or question about the issue... (their emphasis). The matrix is neither brief nor neutral. Specifically it includes fields that have nothing to do with incorporated status and ignores some jurisdictions under U.S. control, while implying that control by the U.S. is relevant. TFD (talk) 22:47, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The matrix summarizes a lot of information in a succinct manner. That seems to me to qualify it as being brief. What would make it more neutral in you opinion? Sunray (talk) 05:54, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A nation-state is not control alone. The literature shows three elements in a nation-state. 1) Territory (claimed versus unclaimed Guantanamo, Cuba), 2) permanent population (inhabitants versus transients), and 3) exclusive jurisdiction (sovereignty versus shared leasehold). TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:13, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is summarizing an argument. A neutral matrix might provide sources that claim the territories are or are not part of the U.S. If we want to keep the current matrix it should include all areas under U.S. jurisdiction. Also the phrasing for American Samoan citizenship implies that it is treated differently from any other place outside the U.S. TFD (talk) 14:49, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is summarizing the discussion. The chart should not include areas NOT claimed by the US as its territory, as they were not a part of the discussion. Below is a summary chart of sources. American Samoan nationals who are one-percent of the USGs "native-born" American insular population, owe permanent allegiance to the U.S. government, and are within its constitutional framework. What is the proposed sourced footnote? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 23:30, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agree The sourced table, which in its introductory statement will say something like 'here is summary you may refer to' is presented both briefly and neutrally. To the extent the objection is it is too brief to be neutral -- as it is only presented as summary that may (not must) be referred to, it is neutral. To the extent that the objection is it doesn't discuss military bases than that's because the proposed article language does not discuss military bases, nor does the article discuss military bases as "political divisions". -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 09:54, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral, while I see where TheVirginiaHistorian & Sunray are saying, it appears that The Four Deuces is of the opinion that the matrix is too supportive of the consensus description of the United States. Worse that happens, if it is not included in the initial RfC, is that an editor who is supportive of the consensus description can add it in the comment section of the RfC. If a different matrix is wanted by The Four Deuces, then the editor can add one to the comment section as well.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:15, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks your comments. The discussion is illuminating. I've considered TFD's comments along with those of others. TFD says that the summary table supports the consensus. He is right about that, imo. However, that is what I think our task will be in the RfC: presenting the consensus. It is my view that we will be doing so in a neutral manner. We did have a long discussion about consensus—the fact that consensus is not necessarily unanimity, but rather the consideration of all viewpoints and mitigation of concerns. The definition I like best is the one in the Wikipedia article on Consensus decision-making: "Consensus decision-making is a group decision-making process in which group members develop, and agree to support, a decision in the best interest of the whole." We talked, on this page, about what constituted a "principled objection" and I did not conclude that there was one. So we should present the consensus. I will mention that the consensus was not unanimous. Individuals will be free to express their own point of view, where that differs from the consensus. Sunray (talk) 21:15, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Source summary table

Here is an alternative look at eighteen of the thirty odd sources available, skewed to omit a dozen additional sources including US territories as within the geographic extent of the US. What do the preponderance of sources indicate?

Mediation sources summary
Scope	USG sources	Scholars	USG sources	Scholars	Almanac	Encyclopedia
US federal republic geographic extent	Pres. Proclamation [209], Pres. Exec Order [210], GAO (1997) [211], State Dept. Common Core [212], Homeland Act [213]	Tarr [214], Katz [215], Van Dyke [216]	FEMA [217], US Customs [218], Immigration serv. [219], Education [220], Soc. Sec. [221]	Sparrow [222], Haider-Markel [223], Fry [224]	Fact Book [225]	Britannica [226]
50 states (18 sources)	Done (5)	Done (3)	Done (5)	Done (3)	Done (1)	Done (1)
50 states & DC (17 sources)	Done (5)	Done (3)	Done (5)	Done (3)	Done (1)	1 omits DC & terr & poss
50 states, DC, & 5 terr. (16 sources)	Done (5) "contiguous territory", "geographical sense", "within framework", US "definition" includes territories & possessions to define the US homeland	Done (3) "encompasses", "composed", "a part of" the US	Done (5) two define “United States” with, two enumerate 5 major territories, one included 5 major territories equally as a “state” for purposes of the law	Done (3) “includes”, “officially a part of”, "US fed'l system”	1 omits insular terr & poss	1 omits DC & terr & poss
50 states, DC, terr. & poss. (8 sources)	Done (5)	Done (3)	5 USG sources omit possessions	3 omit possessions	1 omits insular terr & poss	1 omits DC & terr & poss

Mediation deliberation	The mediation consensus was arrived at not only by a numerical count of sources, but also taking into consideration geographical extent as national jurisdiction, territory formally claimed in international forums, homeland security and definitions of the "United States" found in law. The “United States" defined in a geographic sense is, "any State of the United States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, any possession…” Homeland Security Public Law 107-296 Sec.2.(16)(A). Sources describing the constitutional status of Insular Case “alien races” a century ago were not found applicable to modern territories today with “native-born” Americans obtaining their citizenship, self-governance, civilian courts and territorial Members of Congress by current law.

We might include both charts, I suppose. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 15:59, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That is much improved. I would suggest though that you rotate the chart because at present there are more rows than columns. I would point out too that I disagree with you with what some of the sources say, for example I think the GAO report, Haider-Markel and Fry consider the unincorporated territories external to the U.S. republic. Also, if Sparrow is mentioned, we should be clear that he considers Guantanamo Bay Naval Base to be part of the United States and therefore the constitution applies in full, as we are all agreed it does everywhere in the U.S.[227] TFD (talk) 02:10, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1. There are more columns (7) than rows (5) because it is wider than it is deep. The chart represents the finding of the mediation as found above, unchallenged by yourself or anyone else among a dozen editors for six months' of intense scrutiny and application during discussion.

2. The GAO report, Haider-Markel and Fry do not call the five major territories "external" to the US, rather they are "territory of the US" (GAO) "officially a part of" the US (Haider-Markel) and within the "US federal system" (Fry) -- as sourced. You just made up another unsourced objection.

3. Sparrow does not say that the US claims Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. He does not enumerate Guantanamo Bay in the five major territories which are "included" in the US as sourced p.231-232 [228]. Do you have another source from Sparrow that you are drawing from, where is it, what is the direct quote? Why wait until now, were it to be relevant to the discussion of territory claimed by the US? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 02:50, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No need to argue further. "territory of the United States" does not mean part of the United States. Monticello for example was territory of Jefferson, but not part of Jefferson. Sparrow indeed says that Guantanamo Bay Naval Station is part of the U.S. - if you use a source you should use all of it, not just the part that conforms to your opinion. But to return to the rows and columns. You present four rows. You should also present Sparrow's view that the U,S, includes Guanatamo Bay, which would make five rows. But you currently have 7 columns. That could be expanded. if we decided to discombobulate the columns that are arbitrarily stuck together. For example, you group together a presidential executive order, a GAO report, a State department report and the Homeland act, when they should be seperate. The Homeland Act btw says "The term ‘‘State’’ means any State of the United States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and any possession of the United States." Do you want to say the U.S. has 68 states? That conflicts with other articles that say every state has 2 senators and we have to explain why the "state" of Kingman Reef has none. TFD (talk)

1. You fail to provide direct quotes in verifiable sources for the view that a) territories “part of”, “within" the US, and b) the US “composed of”, “including” territories, — does not mean territories are a part of the US in a geographic sense -- as sourced. They are not "a part of" the US free trade zone in a narrow sense, they face discriminatory internal tariffs.

2. Delightful nonsensical non sequiturs again. Jefferson was a real personality -- of humanity -- with property. He was not a nation (construct) -- of territory, population and jurisdiction -- with territory it claims as the US claims its territories.

3. Government sources are grouped, scholarly sources are grouped. Sixteen support including populated territories within the US, two omit them, an almanac and an encyclopedia omitting DC. To include the capital territory is to include the others claimed by the US.

4. The term “state” means places which are not external to the United States for the purpose of the law; all citizens and nationals are treated the same under the law cited, including American Samoans. The law does not intend to establish 68 states. You misconstrue it. Read the definition of “United States” enumerating the populated territories including DC. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:55, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I explained all of this to you before. You present a definitional section of a law that says Guam is part of the U.S. and also that it is a state. You present the first part as evidence and ignore the second. But no reasonable analysis would use this as evidence. Can you please explain why you are using this definitional section to prove Guam is part of the U.S. while ignoring that it says Guam is a state. Obviously you have come to an offbeat conclusion and search for sources, when you should just present what mainstream sources say. You of course have the right to believe that Guam is the 51st state and should have 2 senators, but it is better to argue the point on blogs. TFD (talk) 06:51, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1. You misconstrue the law. Congress has not enacted law making Guam a state. It says the law applies to Guam equally as it does in a state. Here is a law which applies alike to states, DC and territories. The law refers to a “state” throughout, not “states, DC and territories" — as a matter of style.

2. The definition of “United States" in the law is, when used in a geographic sense, "any State of the United States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, any possession…” Homeland Security Public Law 107-296 Sec. 2. (16)(A).

3. You have no 21st century source which says, “Guam is external to the United States.”, — only your tortured misconstruing of century's old case law which is narrowly applicable only to internal tariffs today. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:00, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

"In this Act, the following definitions apply:

"(14) The term ‘‘State’’ means any State of the United States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and any possession of the United States.

"(16)(A) The term ‘‘United States’’, when used in a geographic sense, means any State of the United States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, any possession of the United States, and any waters within the jurisdiction of the United States."

TFD (talk) 14:49, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is this continuing back-and-forth accomplishing anything? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:26, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We discover that 1) there is no valid objection to the mediation sources, 2) no counter sources can be found to assert they are “external" to the US, 3) no further sources are forthcoming applicable to discussion of the geographic extent of the US. Let’s proceed with the RfC. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 23:54, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What do User:Sunray or User:Keithbob say is the next step? Robert McClenon (talk) 00:00, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If we use the definitional section of the Homeland Security Act, it affects the number of U.S. states. How many states do you think there are? TFD (talk) 07:21, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1. Sunray or Keithbob We do not need to delay for OR-imagination about the number of states, which remains 50. Idle speculation can also serve as disruption.

2. We use over twenty sources, the preponderance of evidence, writing for the general reader from an international perspective for a county article lede to include territories and possessions in the geographical extent of the US.

3. The Presidential Proclamation [229] may be more persuasive. All subsequent law and administration seems to follow it, calling out the "geographical extent" including possessions of the US or enumerating the five major territories.

4. There is no counter-source provided in over two years -- but an almanac's omitting territories is suggested as an unscholarly, unsigned source.

5.There is as yet no positive statement of territories as "external" to the US, only editor OR misconstruing century's old case law establishing an internal tariff regime which treats territories as foreign in a domestic sense and domestic in a foreign sense. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:45, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My only role is to assist with the implementation of the RfC once the content and format have been finalized here. SunRay has indicated on his talk page that he is off Wiki until Monday so please be patient. Best, -- — Keithbob • Talk • 13:34, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Some additional issues

Should we refer to Talk page guidelines in a note about facilitation of the RfC, as I did on this page when we began? It might be redundant, but if someone begins to run amok, it often makes it easier for a facilitator to intervene.
How long should the RfC run for? The one I've been involved with before was open for two weeks
How would you like me to determine consensus?—i.e., consensus is not unanimity, but rather consideration of all views. Should we state the method we will use to determine consensus?
I've asked for another mediator to assist. If I get one lined up soon, we could start as soon as next week.

Update: Keithbob from MedCom has offered to assist with the facilitation of the RfC Sunray (talk) 04:41, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Other thoughts or issues? Sunray (talk) 00:15, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agree to talk page guidelines pyramid, two weeks, consensus and an additional mediator as Sunray decides is apropos. Insistence on unanimity in 2013 Dispute Resolution led to a stalemate which rejected iterations of “The US is a federal republic of 50 states, DC and five territories in Congress.” supported 9 to 3 participants. Two of the 3 minority then have agreed to iterations of this year's mediation language, with a margin now 10 to 1 of participants to include insular populations of "native-born" Americans in the lede. As long as the judicial “incorporation doctrine” is not brought up, and no assertion is made relative to constitutional status of insular territories, objections have been considered. Is consensus reached numerically at a super-majority of 60% with the minority taken into account? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 06:30, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We need a ruling on the summary chart. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:08, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I've added a section just above this one for that purpose. Sunray (talk) 04:41, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey guys, sorry to disappear for a few days. As Keithbob mentioned, I was away. I didn't mention it here as I thought I would be able to keep an eye on things. That was only partly true--let's just say, I knew that you were doing o.k., but then, you always do. In any case I have more time now. So here's an update on the "additional issues," after comparing notes with Keithbob:

We don't think it will be necessary to mention talk page guidlines as part of the RfC. If there are any behavioral issues, we can point to relevant policy.
Keithbob points out that the default duration for an RfC is 30 days. That would give us lots of time.
We won't specify the decision rule. It will be according to WP:CON and consistent with the way decisions have been made here.

Keithbob also commented: "I like the suggestion by one of the MedCom participants that they all agree beforehand to avoid responding to each other's statements and that they agree not to challenge or respond to the comments of other RfC participants as well. It will still be an issue but it will be less of an issue and easier for us to facilitate if we have some prior agreement to reference. They should make their initial RfC statement and then walk away and let the chips fall where they may."

I suggest that we launch the RfC next week if that's agreeable to participants. I will reply regarding the disposition of the summary table in the section above. Sunray (talk) 21:01, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Τhese are all good ideas on how to move on forward, I believe. -The Gnome (talk) 23:14, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've been working an opening statement to be under 250 words. Much of what I have to say otherwise is found in the summary discussion chart and in the summary sources chart. The idea here is to add sourced information to the lede sentence of the "United States" lede for the general reader with an international perspective. The source chart might also help, and TFD seemed to like it better. Now amended in some respects following his comments. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:49, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Collapsable boxes. Two thoughts occur. One, the two charts could be made into collapsable boxes titled "Mediation discussion summary" and "Mediation source summary" respectively. Two, at the RfC, rather than banning Mediation participants, under other editor's comments their responses could be collected into a collapsable box labelled, "comments by mediation participants", with a 250 word limit (ten lines in my browser) in each box.

Mediation participant comments (nine)

Alanscottwalker

Bkonrad (older≠wiser)

Golbez

RightCowLeftCoast

Robert McClenon

The Four Deuces (TFD)

The Gnome

TheVirginiaHistorian

Wzrd1

Off topic comments

Golbez, for instance, can be expected to repeat his claim over the last two years that admitting the sourced geographic scope of the US on the "United States" article page will require amendment to hundreds of WP articles BEFORE any such sourced statement is made at his "United States" page. The objection should be answered again using the same example of the United States federal courts map which was added -- showing federal districts for the territories. As discrepancies come to light, they can be amended by sources applicable to each subsidiary page. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 05:49, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can be expected only to react unkindly when you reiterate your obsession with me. If you will not take my word that I truly no longer care, then you won't take my word that I won't interfere, so this is useless anyway. Please leave me alone and stop invoking my name in your arguments. --Golbez (talk) 05:11, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Golbez, stop stalking me. You claimed in the Dispute Resolution that you would not interfere then. You could restore the narrative you arbitrarily removed from the Dispute Resolution two years ago as administrator; you were a minority 9-3 participants, now its 10-2. Or restore Seqqis more recent post including native born Americans in the United States, which you denied you removed.

The only “obsession" here is calling for adherence to wp:psts in the “United States” article, including sourced information from secondary scholarly sources (not tertiary or primary sources) for the geographic extent of the US. The dream of a sourced online encyclopedia lives. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:01, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually you can thank Robert; when he mentioned me the little light on my browser dinged. This has nothing to do with you, stop flattering yourself. If you cannot refrain from bringing me up then I shant refrain from responding. You will note that I have been completely silent on this since I begged to be left alone, except when I have been called out by you. I would appreciate not feeling the need to defend myself against you. Consider me irrelevant to these proceedings, please. --Golbez (talk) 16:19, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation US territory discussion
United States District/Territory	Geographically, US national jurisdiction	US Citizens/Nationals	Estimated population	In Congress (Member of Congress)	Local self governance	US Constitution supreme law	US District Court	Presidential vote
District of Columbia	Done	Done 1801 US citizenship	658,000	Done 1971: Norton	Done 1975	Done Congressional Organic Act	Done Fed'l Dist Crt - DC	Done 1961 Constitutional Amendment
American Samoa	Done	Done 1904 US nationals	57,000 (≈ 1% territorial population)	Done 1981; Amata	Done 1978	Done Territorial Constitution	Fed'l appointed High Ct; DC or Hi	citizenship under litigation at Supreme Court
Guam	Done	Done 1950 US citizenship	159,000	Done 1973; Bordallo	Done 1972	Done Congressional Organic Act	Done Terr'l Dist Crt - GU	while resident in a state
Northern Mariana Islands	Done	Done 1986 US citizenship	77,000	Done 2009; Sablan	Done 1978	Done Territorial Constitution	Done Fed'l Dist Crt - MP	while resident in a state
Puerto Rico	Done	Done 1952 US citizenship mutually agreed (1917 citizenship by Congressional fiat)	3,667,000 (≈ 90% insular territory population)	Done 1901; Pierluisi	Done 1948	Done Territorial Constitution	Done Fed'l Dist Crt - PR	while resident in a state
US Virgin Islands	Done	Done 1927 US citizenship	106,000	Done 1973; Plaskett	Done 1970	Done Congressional Organic Act	Done Terr'l Dist Crt - VI	while resident in a state
uninhabited possessions	Done	Citizenship by blood, otherwise not decided in the courts for Palmyra Atoll	n/a	n/a	n/a	Done fundamental provisions	various	n/a

Mediation sources summary
Scope	USG sources	Scholars	USG sources	Scholars	Almanac	Encyclopedia
US federal republic geographic extent	Pres. Proclamation [230], Pres. Exec Order [231], GAO (1997) [232], State Dept. Common Core [233], Homeland Act [234]	Tarr [235], Katz [236], Van Dyke [237]	FEMA [238], US Customs [239], Immigration serv. [240], Education [241], Soc. Sec. [242]	Sparrow [243], Haider-Markel [244], Fry [245]	Fact Book [246]	Britannica [247]
50 states (18 sources)	Done (5)	Done (3)	Done (5)	Done (3)	Done (1)	Done (1)
50 states & DC (17 sources)	Done (5)	Done (3)	Done (5)	Done (3)	Done (1)	1 omits DC & terr & poss
50 states, DC, & 5 terr. (16 sources)	Done (5) "contiguous territory", "geographical sense", "within framework", US "definition" includes territories & possessions to define the US homeland	Done (3) "encompasses", "composed", "a part of" the US	Done (5) two define “United States” with, two enumerate 5 major territories, one included 5 major territories equally as a “state” for purposes of the law	Done (3) “includes”, “officially a part of”, "US fed'l system”	1 omits insular terr & poss	1 omits DC & terr & poss
50 states, DC, terr. & poss. (8 sources)	Done (5)	Done (3)	5 USG sources omit possessions	3 omit possessions	1 omits insular terr & poss	1 omits DC & terr & poss

Mediation sources deliberation	The mediation consensus was arrived at not only by a numerical count of sources, but also taking into consideration geographical extent as national jurisdiction, territory formally claimed internationally, homeland security and definitions of the "United States" found in law. The “United States" defined in a geographic sense is, "any State of the United States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, any possession…” Homeland Security Public Law 107-296 Sec.2.(16)(A), Presidential Proclamation of national jurisdiction [248], US State Department Common Core report to United Nations Human Rights Committee [249]

TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 06:41, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This looks fine for people involved in the mediation process or past disputes but the information could overwhelm editors not familiar with the subject. Perhaps, having a clear piece of text directing participants to go through the material as carefully as they can before proffering an opinion would improve the quality of the RfC input. -The Gnome (talk) 11:07, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Of course editors reading the RfC would be encouraged to peruse “the material” text of the mediation for themselves. The working consensus is to include in the RfC at least the summary “Mediation US territory discussion” table with sources as noted in a separate frame. I simply combined the information which TFD wanted displayed to make a second “Mediation sources summary” table, then made them both collapsible as references for the following RfC discussion. @Sunray:?

I agree with the inclusion of the table. I'm fine with that. This is no run-of-the-mill RfC and I'd like it to be as productive as possible. Which is why, on top of everything else, I suggested having a small text asking prospective participants to wade through the material as much as they can before forming an opinion. Of course, they could ignore that advice.-The Gnome (talk) 20:37, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Gnome: I’m not sure I understand your objection to collapsing the tables. The convention to click on the “[show]” button is pretty widely recognized. The three summary boxes above show as four inches deep on my Outlook-proportioned browser. They summarize six months of discussion, which amounts to 95 frames — a wall of text as I count them — and that would be overwhelming to those not involved in the mediation process, not the summaries. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:12, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@TheVirginiaHistorian: I do not object to having the tables as they are. I'm suggesting putting up some kind of guidance to prospective participants in the RfC to study thoroughly the materials in it, including the tables. -The Gnome (talk) 20:37, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@The Gnome: I misunderstood the post. Thanks for your patience.

Suggestion: The six month's discussion is available at [link] for editors to peruse. The table of contents provides a general guide to subject matter which is recommended for background as issues arise in the RfC. Below are summary tables of the mediation discussion establishing a) how the insular territories are within the geographic extent of the US in an international sense, and b) the sources used in the RfM discussion.

-- Then the mediator (Keithbob, Sunray) might key links to the discussion subsections of the RfM related to items of RfC discussion as they arise, and provide the collapsed box for "Mediation participants comments (nine)" as illustrated above (limited to 250 words a section), at each RfC subsection of discussion.

Observation: I understand Keithbob's impulse to corral the mediator's additional imput, so the "Mediation participants comments (nine)" is my counter-proposal from an outright ban. I'm not sure Golbez will comply with a restriction in any case, and his exception can be admitted since he is the administrator for the page -- unless of course, his WP position does not entitle him to a special status among us. -- Alternatively we might take him at his word and he will not be bothered to comment on this subject again. But he was instrumental in reverting the nine to three participant Dispute Resolution to include native-born islander Americans in the lede sentence two years ago, "The US is a federal republic composed of 50 states, a federal district and five territories in Congress." TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:15, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop obsessing over me. It's unseemly. --Golbez (talk) 05:09, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Golbez is not "the administrator for the page". He is an administrator. That does not give him any special status with regard to any particular page, and he is still expected to accept consensus. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:17, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agree to have the text in the above Suggestion as a general guidance to all RfC's prospective participants. -The Gnome (talk) 11:05, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

American Samoa We discussed the application for U.S. citizenship by a Samon citizen based on the 14th amendment. The U.S. Court of Appeal decision was decided 5th June and can be read here. The court decided the 14th amendment does not apply since Samoa, like the other unincorporated territories, is not part of the U.S. TFD (talk) 00:47, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1. Another narrow purpose which does not touch upon the "geographical sense" of the US. It says, it is “impractical and anomalous” for the judiciary to impose citizenship by judicial fiat, citizenship is left to the Congress (p.1). American Samoa is "not a part" of the United States for -- the narrow judicial purpose of -- applying the Fourteenth Amendment clause (p.5). American nationals who have not petitioned for citizenship will not be “forcibly imposed” upon (p.22). This does not invalidate American Samoan US national status. It does not withdraw US citizenship from Puerto Rico, Northern Mariana Islands, US Virgin Islands or Guam. They are simply "not intended for statehood” (p.12). Territorial citizenship is "a statutory right, and not a constitutional right” (p.14).

2. You make an unsourced OR extrapolation by non sequitur (the 14th Amendment extension of “citizenship” in American Samoa is equivalent to the US in a “geographical sense” for all five major territories) from 1% of the insular population to the other 99%. The ruling does not pretend to overthrow Congressional political acts extending the Constitution to places within the national jurisdiction including the insular territories. These places are a part of the US in a “geographical sense”, as in American Samoa where its territorial Constitution acknowledges the US Constitution as supreme law of the land in American Samoa. (US geographic extent is sourced to ten USG sources and six scholars versus your unsourced OR conclusion extrapolated to "geographic extent" from primary documents which do not address the subject.)

3. The State Department inclusion of American Samoa as within the Constitutional framework of the US stands [250]. No scholarly source says American Samoa is politically “external” to the US federal system, nor does this case. It is another narrow ruling which does not touch on the "geographic extent" of the US from an international perspective for the general reader in the "US" article lede. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 04:17, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The 14th amendment says, "All persons born...in the United States...are citizens of the United States." In what way is American Samoa not part of the U.S.? TFD (talk) 07:11, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1. The Court held in narrow case law, here that “Unincorporated” territories are simply "not intended for statehood” (p.12). Territorial citizenship is "a statutory right, and not a constitutional right” (p.14). In the case of American Samoa as a practical matter, a territorial community of 55,000 will not become a state.

2. But American Samoa is a part of the US in a geographical sense internationally, within the US constitutional framework as the US government reports to the United Nations [251], and six scholars confirms as sourced. As the Insular Cases phrase it, they are foreign only "in a domestic sense"; that is, they are domestic in a foreign sense.

3. We write for the general reader in an international context for an encyclopedia country article from scholarly sources, not for a constitutional treatise by wp:or from primary sources. WP is biased towards using scholarly sources as a matter of policy wp:psts.

TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:07, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Of course the judgment is a primary source as is btw the Puerto Rico federal court judgment that you have repeatedly presented. Its significance is that Sparrow and other members of Scholars of Constitutional Law and Legal History were amicus curiae in the case and their position that the unincorporated territories are part of the U.S. was rejected. That makes it hard to argue that their position enjoys consensus. TFD (talk) 16:28, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone's contentions about "part" or "not part" were rejected by the court, including both sides of that issue. It was not relevant to the decision. The holding was that the 14th amendment is "ambiguous" and therefore the 14th amendment could not support a declaration of citizenship by "judicial fiat" (that is, by a court). Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:18, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The court said it was ambiguous whether areas under the jurisdiction of but not part of the U.S. were to be considered "in the United States" for purposes of the act. It pointed out that the English law which is the basis of citizenship in the U.S. made no similar distinction and therefore American colonists were subjects. But even if we accept the most generous view, it is that the unincorporated territories are not unambiguously part of the U.S. TFD (talk) 18:47, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No. The court explicitly said it rejected both sides contentions about "part/not part" as they did not answer the question of what the 14th amendment means. We are not writing an article on the 14th amendment, so similarly your point is irrelevant. As had been true all along these places are part of the United States article. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:48, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The geographical sense is the sense of the mediation. The ambiguity of judicial insular status “doubting citizenship” in acquired territory is made clear by subsequent Congressional action over the 20th century: 99% US citizens, 1% US nationals. “Ultimate governance remains statutorily vested with the United States government” (p.11[252]). They are “foreign in a domestic sense” and domestic in a foreign sense.

So the State Department reports to the UN Human Rights Committee that the insular territories and possessions are “within” the US constitutional framework, Presidential Proclamation extends the “national jurisdiction” to them, current law defines them in the US “in a geographical sense”. And that is the sense it is to be used in the US country introduction for the general reader. Arcane constitutional minutiae concerning the application of the Commerce Clause or the Citizenship Clause is irrelevant. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 23:28, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you keep saying using the term "in a geographical sense?" It merely means the United States proper plus whatever ocean territory and overseas possessions one wants to include.[253] See for example 26 U.S. Code § 7701 - Definitions (a)(9): "The term “United States” when used in a geographical sense includes only the States and the District of Columbia."[254]

Anyway the proposal does not say "in a geographical sense." If it did it should say "in a geographical sense in some acts but not in others."

TFD (talk) 00:12, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The mediation is about the "geographical sense" only as noted in the summary charts; it is the only consideration under which Bkonrad gives his assent.

Including US territories within the US is not only used for “tax conventions” nationally and internationally as you point out, but also generally for national jurisdiction, homeland security, environment, energy and transportation, education, social security, customs and immigration from an international perspective. You are correct, for the narrow internal purposes of the IRS specialty, the corporations are defined as US when they originate in the fifty states and DC only. This is related to esoteric application of the Commerce Clause, but irrelevant to the general reader in an international context for common usage. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:40, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

TFD: More refusal to read sources provided. “plus whatever one wants to include”. No, what is sourced as included by ten USG citations and six scholars for the scope of the US in a geographical sense. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 06:34, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Six more USG sources to maintain a preponderance of evidence appropriate for the general reader: US in a geographical sense includes territories and possessions relative to Acts of Congress titled Foreign Relations, Foreign States, Foreign Nations, National Security, Intelligence Surveillance and Trading with the Enemy. David Alan Jordan, in US Intelligence Law (2011) p.245 [255]. And F.I.C.A. purposes [256].

Another lesser wp:psts tertiary source, an almanac does not: online ereferencedesk "The United States is a nation ... consists of forty-eight contiguous states … Alaska … and Hawaii... It also holds several United States territories in the Pacific and Caribbean.[257]. The present WP text for the introduction simply mirrors this unsourced site, although at one point a second unattributed online almanac was cited omitting territories and possessions, when better reliable sources per wp:psts are available as provided in the Mediation. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 21:10, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Settlement. @The Four Deuces: are you suggesting an amendment at the end of the footnote reading, “In some acts of legislation, “geographical sense” of the United States includes a) states and DC only [n], or b) states, DC and five major territories without possessions [n].” ? I am agreeable to that. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:02, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, because a definition section of an act or contract is meant to apply to the specific act or contract. Hence the wording "for purposes of this act [or contract]." Otherwise we would also have to mention that Puerto Rico is defined in some acts, including the one you use, as a state. TFD (talk) 14:59, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I tried. No, despite your wp:fringe alarm, the Congress has not secretly made states of DC, Puerto Rico, American Samoa, etc. But the definitions in USG sources include, they don't exclude. You are forcing everything into your preconceived OR notion to exclude territories regardless of the commonly accepted meaning of the United States in a geographic sense.

The preponderance of evidence should govern, fifteen examples of USG from broad categories in an international context include the five major territories, -- for counter-sources we also found two narrow examples of internal application of the Commerce Clause for territorial tariffs (Insular Cases) and business corporations (one of two IRS citations).

We have six scholars in secondary reliable sources including the five territories which is relevant to the discussion on geographic extent, and two tertiary almanacs omitting them. The tertiaries are irrelevant in the context of wp:psts, of no bearing on the lede, not worth mentioning in the note. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 15:26, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The source you use that says Puerto Rico is part of the U.S. also says it is a state. I provided the passage above 14:49, 17 June 2015 and will not bore everyone with posting it again. Of course Puerto Rico is a state/part of the U.S. for purposes of the Homeland Security Act. But so what? TFD (talk) 22:22, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So thirty odd sources show DC and insular territories are not external to the US in a geographic sense. These sources include them by enumeration, they are neither omitted nor excluded. It is not USG sources alone such as the Homeland Security Act.

Sourced for general meaning in an international context, six scholars (not editor OR) show they are “included", "a part of”, “within”, the US, the US is “composed of” and “defined” with territories, — versus editors misconstruing law and proceedings with only narrow application for internal purposes. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:11, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But so what? I think you answered your own question: Homeland. Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:22, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Some acts say "for purposes of this act" Puerto Rico is a state, while other acts exclude it. I do not think that is evidence that Puerto Rico is a state. I like watching Homeland too, but it is not a reliable source. TFD (talk) 07:18, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Watch Homeland? What? How do you watch the Homeland law? The rest of your comment just argues for good reason to have it in the lead sentence, since the purpose of a lead is to be inclusive of the article, not exclusive. Alanscottwalker (talk) 08:13, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What Next?

User:Sunray or User:Keithbob: What is the next step in resolving this mediation? It still appears that we have consensus, with one or two editors dissenting, as to what the scope of the United States is. Am I correct that the purpose of the Request for Comments will be to get community buy-in to the mediated result as to the scope of the United States? Robert McClenon (talk) 19:21, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The mediation is pretty much resolved and will be closing as "successful" shortly. The follow-up action, post mediation, is to have an RfC. I believe that we now have all the components in place and, with luck, the RfC should be up on the article page in the next few days. Sunray (talk) 20:53, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is the purpose of the RFC to obtain community buy-in? Robert McClenon (talk) 21:07, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose will be to establish a consensus for the wording of the lede, notes and infobox. Normally this is done by article editors, but in this case we are asking for broader community input. Sunray (talk) 20:03, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

When Next?

Do we have an idea when the RFC will be published? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:29, 30 June 2015 (UTC) The discussion above seems to have run its course of utility, in that there is a consensus, and one editor disagrees with the consensus, and there continues to be discussion that restates that there is a consensus and that one editor disagrees. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:30, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We should publish the RfC based on six months of deliberation. I hope that I am not delaying the process. My friend TFD rehearses unsourced non sequiturs from previous postings and I abbreviate previous replies. The exchange seems to have run its course with TFD tacitly acknowledging a) four of five (without AS - 1%) or b) two of five (PR and MP, not 9% VI, GU, AS) as included in the US geographically and politically. Although all five are sourced to six scholars, and no published reliable source calls them “external” to the US. Some tertiary sources omit them, sources discounted for use in WP articles at wp:psts. We should proceed. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:25, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have asked you many times before. Could you please stop misrepresenting what I say. I have never "tacitly" implied that the U.S. includes anthing other than the states, the federal district and - mostly historically - any territories that Congress has chosen to incorporate. My comments about the different statuses of various territories was merely to show that you imply your rules inconsistently. And of course I have provided countless sources explaining the mainstream position. TFD (talk) 21:59, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

When you try to prove some insular territories are not included you tacitly admit some are included, see “Subcontraries” [263] . I take you as posting in good faith which is not the same as misrepresenting what you say. Judicial "incorporation" of territories was invented by fiat in 1901, then the Constitutional requirement for jury trial was not extended to Hawaii. Your unsourced OR is not mainstream, it is wp:fringe.

On the other hand, you provide endless unsourced non sequiturs and misapplied sources which explain what the Insular Cases did one hundred years ago to justify military governors and territorial legislators appointed by the US president, with military courts to rule over possessions of conquered peoples — until Congress should act.

Sources now show the Congressional acts have sequentially allowed the territories of US insular populations self governance of citizens within the constitutional framework of the US, and no reliable scholarly sources in published academic sources fail to include them within the geographic extent of the modern US. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 22:25, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

TFD “Support” for the proposed mediation on 7 June 2015 [264] once seemed to me a sign of agreement that the US federal republic is geographically and politically (not judicially for the Commerce Clause) composed of 50 states, a federal district, 5 territories and various possessions. It seems I misunderstood. I apologize for my misunderstanding, and await the RfC. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 04:36, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think all is ready. We may be able to start the RfC next week. I'm just checking Keithbob's availability. Perhaps we should assemble the draft RfC as we want it to appear on the article talk page. Would one of you be willing to do that? I will start a section for that purpose below. Sunray (talk) 20:01, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Final draft of RfC

From Sunray's screen shot with some modifications. The RfC should be to more than the one one community of Politics, government and law, it should include editors from Geography community and the United States community. I'm not sure how to include Keithbob's proposal to limit mediator participant comments or replies. I moved the collapsible box summaries into the "Mediation update" section, and referenced them in the RfC as proposed by others - TFD and The Gnome?

Mediation update Requests for mediation/United States

Over the course of six months, eight editors and a mediator consulted on the scope of the United States to determine a sourced lede sentence for the United States article, with an eye to resolving how the total area of the United States should be reported in the Infobox. The mediation has been successful and the participants reached consensus on the issues and have a proposed a new lede sentence for the article which is to be accompanied by a note. It has been agreed by the participants and the mediator that the proposed lede and accompanying note would be presented to article editors and members of the WP community as a Request for comment. It was agreed from the outset that the statement in the lede sentence of the article would have a footnote to explain the inclusion of U.S. territories, the consensus was to use the geographical sense of the United States for a general readership in an international context. Participants in the RfC are invited to survey the summary boxes below and the discussions at the link Requests for mediation/United States. (To review tables, press "show" at right.)

Mediation US territory discussion
United States District/Territory	Geographically, US national jurisdiction	US Citizens/Nationals	Estimated population	In Congress (Member of Congress)	Local self governance	US Constitution supreme law	US District Court	Presidential vote
District of Columbia	Done	Done 1801 US citizenship	658,000	Done 1971: Norton	Done 1975	Done Congressional Organic Act	Done Fed'l Dist Crt - DC	Done 1961 Constitutional Amendment
American Samoa	Done	Done 1904 US nationals	57,000 (≈ 1% territorial population)	Done 1981; Amata	Done 1978	Done Territorial Constitution	Fed'l appointed High Ct; DC or Hi	citizenship under litigation at Supreme Court
Guam	Done	Done 1950 US citizenship	159,000	Done 1973; Bordallo	Done 1972	Done Congressional Organic Act	Done Terr'l Dist Crt - GU	while resident in a state
Northern Mariana Islands	Done	Done 1986 US citizenship	77,000	Done 2009; Sablan	Done 1978	Done Territorial Constitution	Done Fed'l Dist Crt - MP	while resident in a state
Puerto Rico	Done	Done 1952 US citizenship mutually agreed (1917 citizenship by Congressional fiat)	3,667,000 (≈ 90% insular territory population)	Done 1901; Pierluisi	Done 1948	Done Territorial Constitution	Done Fed'l Dist Crt - PR	while resident in a state
US Virgin Islands	Done	Done 1927 US citizenship	106,000	Done 1973; Plaskett	Done 1970	Done Congressional Organic Act	Done Terr'l Dist Crt - VI	while resident in a state
uninhabited possessions	Done	Citizenship by blood, otherwise not decided in the courts for Palmyra Atoll	n/a	n/a	n/a	Done fundamental provisions	various	n/a

Mediation sources summary
----------- Scope ---------	----------- USG sources ---------	----------- Scholars ---------	----------- USG sources --------	----------- Scholars ---------	----------- Almanac ---------	----------- Encyclopedia ----------
US federal republic geographic extent	Pres. Proclamation [265], Pres. Exec Order [266], GAO (1997) [267], State Dept. Common Core [268], Homeland Act [269]	Tarr [270], Katz [271], Van Dyke [272]	FEMA [273], US Customs [274], Immigration serv. [275], Education [276], Soc. Sec. [277]	Sparrow [278], Haider-Markel [279], Fry [280]	Fact Book [281]	Britannica [282]
50 states (18 sources)	Done (5)	Done (3)	Done (5)	Done (3)	Done (1)	Done (1)
50 states & DC (17 sources)	Done (5)	Done (3)	Done (5)	Done (3)	Done (1)	1 omits DC & terr & poss
50 states, DC, & 5 terr. (16 sources)	Done (5) "contiguous territory", "geographical sense", "within framework", US "definition" includes territories & possessions to define the US homeland	Done (3) "encompasses", "composed", "a part of" the US	Done (5) two define “United States” with, two enumerate 5 major territories, one included 5 major territories equally as a “state” for purposes of the law	Done (3) “includes”, “officially a part of”, "US fed'l system”	1 omits insular terr & poss	1 omits DC & terr & poss
50 states, DC, terr. & poss. (8 sources)	Done (5)	Done (3)	5 USG sources omit possessions	3 omit possessions	1 omits insular terr & poss	1 omits DC & terr & poss

Mediation sources deliberation	The mediation consensus was arrived at not only by a numerical count of sources, but also taking into consideration geographical extent as national jurisdiction, territory formally claimed internationally, homeland security and definitions of the "United States" found in law, proclamation and international reports. The “United States" defined in a geographic sense is, "any State of the United States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, any possession…” Homeland Security Public Law 107-296 Sec.2.(16)(A), Presidential Proclamation of national jurisdiction [283], US State Department Common Core report to United Nations Human Rights Committee [284]

Then for the RfC itself:

RfC: Do you agree with the following a) lead sentence and accompanying note for the United States article and b) for a note for the info box area. Participants in the RfC are invited to survey the summary boxes above and the discussions at the link Requests for mediation/United States.

RfC box: An editor has requested comments from others for this discussion. Within 24 hours, this page will be added to the following list: Politics, government and law. Geography. United States.

Amended lede sentence in the introduction.

"The United States of America (USA), commonly referred to as the United States (U.S.) or America, is a federal republic composed of 50 states, a federal district, five major territories and various possessions. [n]

"Note: The federal district is Washington DC. The five major territories are American Samoa, Guam, Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, and U.S. Virgin Islands. The nine smaller island areas without permanent populations are Baker Island, Howland Island, Jarvis Island, Johnston Atoll, Kingman Reef, Midway Atoll, Palmyra Atoll, Wake Island, and Navassa Island. U.S. sovereignty over Serranilla Bank and Bajo Nuevo (Petrel Island) is disputed. See U.S. State Department, Common Core Document to U.N. Committee on Human Rights, December 30, 2011, Item 22, 27, 80.— and U.S. General Accounting Office Report, U.S. Insular Areas: application of the U.S. Constitution, November 1997, p. 1, 6, 39n. Both viewed April 6, 2016. -- US Legislation or regulation varies in definitions of the “United States” in four ways, preponderantly including the five major territories as a) 50 states, DC, five territories and possessions, see Homeland PL 107-296.Definitions (16)(a), b) 50 states, DC, five territories without possessions, see FEMA 44 CFR 206.1.Definitions(26), c) 50 states, DC and four territories without American Samoa, see Immigration 8 U.S. Code § 1101.Definitions (38), d) 50 states and DC alone, see IRS 26 U.S. Code § 7701.Definitions (9). Viewed July 5, 2016.”

Infobox.

add to existing area a note

3,531,905.43 sq mi [note]

Note: U.S. Census Bureau reports in its “State Area Measurements and Internal Point Coordinates” of August, 2010, “State and other areas” Total Area (land and water) as 3,805,927 Sq. Mi., 9,857,306 Sq. Km. This includes the 50 states, DC, Puerto Rico, and "Island Areas" of American Samoa, Guam, Northern Mariana Islands, and U.S. Virgin Islands. It does not include minor outlying islands.

Please indicate whether you support oppose the above a) lede and note and b) info box area footnote. Comments and questions are welcome in the section below.

Support mediation editor.

Support mediation editor. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:01, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support mediation editor.

Oppose mediation editor.

Initial Statements of 200 words

Statement by TheVirginiaHistorian

I. Insular (islander) “native-born” Americans (US Census [285]) should be included in the US country article lede sentence. Possessions are also included in a geographical sense for the general reader in an international context (politically, though not in a narrow internal judicial meaning for the Commerce Clause). The US government includes them all by definition [286] and as “contiguous zone” [287], “geographical sense” [288] and within the US constitutional “framework” (22.) [289], and three scholars use “encompasses” [290], “composed of” [291] and “a part of” [292] the US, to include them.

II. DC and the five major territories are found in wide ranging applications by USG sources [293][294], [295] [296][297], and by scholars as “included” [298], officially a part of” [299] and in the “US federal system” [300]. Since the Insular Cases Congress has enacted law making insular territories “officially” [301] “included” [302] “within” [303] the US federal system. Federal District Court, unchallenged for seven years, held that Puerto Rico is “in fact” politically incorporated (p.26 [304]), see constitutional scholar confirmation (2009 p.1175 [305]).

III. Narrow citations of legal minutia regarding application of the Commerce Clause for internal tariffs and IRS taxes are irrelevant to a discussion of the geographical extent. Conforming this page to reliable sources does not require updating all others, other articles can be updated as editors find omissions. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:12, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments and questions

Mock up submitted. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 03:04, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on final draft of RfC

Despite the Mediation weighing the preponderance of evidence, further discussion has suggested the addition of a clarifying remark at the end of the lede sentence note:

US Legislation or regulation varies in definitions of the “United States” in four ways, preponderantly including the five major territories as a) 50 states, DC, five territories and possessions, see Homeland PL 107-296.Definitions (16)(a), b) 50 states, DC, five territories without possessions, see FEMA 44 CFR 206.1.Definitions(26), c) 50 states, DC and four territories without American Samoa, see Immigration 8 U.S. Code § 1101.Definitions (38), d) 50 states and DC alone, see IRS 26 U.S. Code § 7701.Definitions (9).

Would this help to avoid future controversy? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:20, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It would, indeed. -The Gnome (talk) 09:13, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

---Comment on RfC wording. The RfC should be to more than the one one community of Politics, government and law, it should include editors from Geography community and the United States community. I'm not sure how to include Keithbob's proposal to limit mediator participant comments or replies. I moved the collapsible box summaries into the "Mediation update" section, and referenced them in the RfC as proposed by TFD and The Gnome? Then added clarifying remark on four ways US legislation and regulation varies in its definition of "United States". TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:01, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, this all looks very good. I hope to get the RfC up ~~later today~~ July 8 before noon. Sunray (talk) 20:23, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is all ready to go; I just have to hit "send," so I can be a bit more precise: I will put it up on the RfC talk page by 11:00 a.m. EDT. My eyes are a tad bleary right now and I wasn't always sure what was meant in the discussion of the signature block and comments sections of the mock-up, so please let me know if anything needs adjusting, or if it was a consensus decision and you know how to do so, by all means fix it yourself. For some reason I wasn't able to add the US WikiProject to the template (not familiar with the format for adding country projects). I can drop a note on their talk page. Sunray (talk) 07:17, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Alanscottwalker, Bkonrad, Golbez, RightCowLeftCoast, Robert McClenon, The Four Deuces, The Gnome, TheVirginiaHistorian, Wzrd1, and Keithbob: The RfC has been initiated on the article talk page Sunray (talk) 15:05, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note that TVH and The Gnome's names appear on it, without date stamp, so you all need to sign. Sunray (talk) 15:08, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am confused. Why are we !voting on a final draft of an RFC that doesn't have an RFC bot tag? What do those !votes do? Are we spending so much time developing a perfect RFC because the topic has been contentious that we don't publish a binding RFC at all? Or was there an RFC bot tag that has been pulled due either to bot malfunction or to disruptive editing? Robert McClenon (talk) 15:02, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Keithbob User:Sunray - Can one of you please explain what the status of the RFC is? I am very confused. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:03, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I now see that this isn't Talk: United States, but the mediation talk page, and the RFC should be, but isn't yet, at Talk: United States. Again, are we spending so much time developing a perfect RFC that we will never publish a binding RFC? Robert McClenon (talk) 15:19, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand your comment that the RfC is not at Talk: United States. It is there and I see that you have responded there. The discussion of the format of the RfC on this page is now closed. Sunray (talk) 18:21, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Publicizing the RFC

So far, no one but the mediation editors and one outside editor have responded. Should the RFC be publicized on various WikiProjects? Robert McClenon (talk) 21:59, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Three WikiProjects have been notified: The two referenced in the RfC header plus WikiProject United States. I'm not sure what more we might do. Any thoughts? Sunray (talk) 03:10, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is possible that the RfC is too voluminous and overly technical. There is a lot of reading. Don't forget that you folks have been working on this for months. Others may have difficulty getting up to speed. I will put a note on the article talk page encouraging others to voice their opinion. Other than that, I think we leave the RfC for an adequate amount of time and then close it. Sunray (talk) 03:15, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Requests for comment at RfC

@Amadscientist, Barrister, Seqqis, Gwillhickers, Illegitimate Barrister, Mendaliv, and Newyorkbrad: @Noleander, Wzrd1, and 66.193.25.66:

Following a successful six months Request for Mediation facilitated by Sunray, the Mediation submitted an RfC for wider community review by 1) WikiProject United States, 2) Politics, government and law, and 3) History and geography.

You are invited to add your Support/Oppose decision and comment at the RfC currently at US RfC for Lede sentence and Infobox because you posted on the subject of the geographic extent of the US at United States, at the Dispute Resolution in 2013 or at the Request for Mediation in 2015. Additional discussion has led to two alternates, both avoiding use of the words "disputed" or "administered".

The Mediation discussion summary and Mediation sources summary is found at Talk:United States#Mediation update Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/United States, and the RfC is located immediately below it. Your comments are welcomed. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:12, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Closing mediation

@Robert McClenon, TheVirginiaHistorian, Golbez, The Four Deuces, Alanscottwalker, Bkonrad, Wzrd1, Collect, The Gnome, and RightCowLeftCoast: The RfC bot removed the template for the RfC, indicating that it has been exactly 30 days since we opened it. Keithbob and I agreed that we had an adequate supermajority of editors who agreed with the proposal to declare consensus. I thought that the discussion during the RfC was stellar. Mediation participants were considerate of comments made and it was thus easy to declare consensus. So you can proceed to make the changes to the article, and, at least for now, declare that it is a consensus decision arising from a mediation and ratified by an RfC. 😀

I appreciate your participation in the mediation. It probably took more of your time than you would have thought possible. I hope you learned from it and acquired new skills along the way. A successful mediation is a beacon for other editors and proof that Wikipedia, for all its tribulations, works. I will archive this in a few days. Thank you. Sunray (talk) 06:22, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And few people would have thought that it would be such a difficult mediation about a seemingly minor issue, but obviously it was a deeply felt issue for some. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:43, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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.

[DOS-1] "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 States." ("U.S. Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual Volume 7", 7 FAM 1121.1)[1]

[Flores-2] "U.S. courts have ruled that Puerto Rico is a territory of the United States, but not part of the United States...." (Flores, Lisa Pierce, The History of Puerto Rico (2009), part of the Greenwood Histories of Modern Nations, p. xiii)[2]

[Balzac-3] "It was further settled in Downes v. Bidwell, [182 U.S. 244 (1901)], and confirmed by Dorr v. United States, [195 U.S. 138 (1904)] that neither the Philippines nor Porto Rico was territory which had . . . become a part of the United States, as distinguished from merely belonging to it . . . ." Balzac v. Porto Rico, 258 U.S. 298 (1922)[3]

[Tauber-4] "The petitioner in [Balzac] relied primarily on the Jones Act, the Organic Act of Puerto Rico, passed on March 2, 1917, to support their assertion that Puerto Rico was incorporated into the United States. The Court rejected the petitioner's argument and held that if Congress intended to change the relationship between Puerto Rico and the Union, it would do so explicitly." Tauber, Alan, "The Empire Forgotten: The Application of the Bill of Rights to U.S. Territories", 57 Case W. Res. L. Rev. 147, 165 (2006)

[5] "United States-Puerto Rico Political Status Act, H.R. 856, 105th Congress § 2(4) (1998) ("The Commonwealth [of Puerto Rico] remains an unincorporated territory and does not have the status of 'free association' with the United States as that status is defined under United States law or international practice.")" Lawson, Gary, and Sloane, Robert D. The Constitutionality of Decolonization by Associated Statehood: Puerto Rico's Legal Status Reconsidered, p. 1143

[6] "While some Warren Court justices questioned the validity of the Insular Cases, more recent decisions by the Rehnquist Court reaffirmed the continuing validity of the Insular Cases, Balzac, and, thus, the legitimacy of the Territorial Incorporation Doctrine." Soltero, Carlos R., The Supreme Court Should Overrule the Territorial Incorporation Doctrine and End One Hundred Years of Judicially Condoned Colonialism, 22 Chicano-Latino L. Rev. 1, 3-4 (2001).

[Boumediene-7] "...the Court adopted the doctrine of territorial incorporation, under which the Constitution applies in full in incorporated Territories surely destined for statehood but only in part in unincorporated Territories." Boumediene v. Bush, 553 U.S. 723 (2008)[4]

[Boumediene1-8] "We hold that petitioners [detainees in Guantanamo Bay] may invoke the fundamental procedural protections of habeas corpus." Boumediene v. Bush, 553 U.S. 723 (2008)[5]

[Tuaua-9] "The State Department's Foreign Affairs Manual ("FAM") accordingly categorizes American Samoa as an unincorporated territory and states that "the citizenship provisions of the Constitution do not apply to persons born there." 7 FAM § 1125.1(b). In accordance with INA and FAM, the State Department stamps the passports of people born in American Samoa with "Endorsement Code 09," which declares that the holder of the passport is a U.S. national but not a U.S. citizen." Tuaua v. U.S., D.C. District Court[6]

[IRS-10] "If you are a United States citizen or resident alien and are a bona fide resident of Puerto Rico during the entire tax year, you generally are not required to file a U.S. federal income tax return if your only income is from sources within Puerto Rico." IRS, "Topic 901 - Is a Person With Income From Puerto Rico Required to File a U.S. Federal Income Tax Return?"[7]

[11] For example, the definitions section of the nationality section includes four territories only,[8] the veterans affairs section includes all the territories and for some purposes the Panama Canal Zone,[9] which was ceded to Panama in 1976, while the armed forces section excludes the territories altogether.[10]

[12] "The question before us, therefore, is: Has Congress, since the Foraker Act...enacted legislation incorporating Porto Rico into the Union? Counsel for the plaintiff in error give, in their brief, an extended list of acts...which they urge as indicating a purpose to make the island a part of the United States, but they chiefly rely on,,,the Jones Act.... The act is entitled 'An act to provide a civil government for Porto Rico and for other purposes.' It does not indicate by its title that it has a purpose to incorporate the island into the Union. It does not contain any clause which declares such purpose or effect." "It is true that in the absence of other and countervailing evidence, a law of Congress or a provision in a treaty acquiring territory, declaring an intention to confer political and civil rights on the inhabitants of the new lands as American citizens, may be properly interpreted to mean an incorporation of it into the Union, as in the case of Louisiana and Alaska.... But Alaska was a very different case from that of Porto Rico." (Balzac v. Porto Rico)[11]

[Lawson-13] "...today, Puerto Rico seems to be the paradigm of an incorporated territory, as modern jurisprudence understands that legal term of art.... Under the Insular Cases, all constitutional provisions, and not only those that have been deemed "fundamental," apply to incorporated territories of their own force (ex prorio vigore).... ...it should be clear by now that serious arguments exist suggesting that the current arrangement between the United States and Puerto Rico may violate the Constitution...." Lawson, Gary, and Sloane, Robert D. The Constitutionality of Decolonization by Associated Statehood: Puerto Rico's Legal Status Reconsidered, pp. 1175, 1193[12] [Here the authors show their disagreement with current interpretation.]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]