Talk:United States/Archive 48

Archive 45

Archive 46

Archive 47

Archive 48

Archive 49

Archive 50

→

Archive 55

Lead sentence

The following discussion 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.

---

An editor reverted to the lead to how it was before the lengthy DRN discussion and consensus. The change can be seen here. I have modified the lead to something closer to what was achieved at the DRN with this edit per WP:BRD, which had a consensus of a majority of editors who were involved at DRN. Although Consensus can change, there is no new consensus to support reversion to the lead sentences structure to as it was before the DRN discussion.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:49, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Please stop calling a consensus already. It was at best a simple majority among an extremely limited number of participants in that episode. older ≠ wiser 01:01, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

After the DRN, Collect put it on his "consensus" [citation needed] version for a few hours or so. I then changed it to a better but still inferior version that captured the spirit of the consensus, if not its brain-damaged wording. It stayed that way for, what, weeks? Then I undo back to the status quo and suddenly I'm the one changing consensus. Y'all had WEEKS to implement your consensus version. You chose not to. Why? Is it because perhaps the spirit matters more than the wording, despite what many editors said? (Also, stop insulting our intelligence by calling a 5-4 vote "consensus".) --Golbez (talk) 01:29, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

[insert] The count went from territory --- inclusion-to-exclusion from 1-to-4 in November 2012 to 8-to-4 in March 2013, yes it looks like some editors do have a not-WP life and are not available at every post for months on end; hard to figure, that.

• Contributing "include territories" sources, Buzity, Gwillhickers, TVH, challenged. Contributing "exclude territories" sources, Mendaliv, TFD, Golbez, challenged. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:01, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

The final vote was 5-4, I don't know where you're getting your numbers, but I reviewed them yesterday. Three people voted for the status quo, 5 people for the new version, and one person voted for both stating that the status quo was their first preference. I'm not necessarily saying this means stay at the status quo, obviously more reasonable (i.e. never mentioning Sparrow ever again) discussion is worthwhile, but to call a 5-4 vote consensus makes so little sense as to question the good faith of the people making the assertion. I even concede this: The 'territories part of country' argument did have more support. But the DRN was poorly run, and we were forced through a primary voting system into a general election, whereupon one side won 5-4. That is not consensus, that is a bad job obsessing over how worst to word the article. You don't get to force us into an A vs B vote, and then claim that B has consensus because it had more people BEFORE the vote. No. Anyway, the original sin was obsessing over the wording before we had a settlement on the substance; if you people don't understand the difference then maybe Wikipedia really is becoming a lost cause of rule lawyering and nitpicking.) --Golbez (talk) 13:33, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Um -- so two editors ceased to exist from the DRN numbers? Um -- I don't think so. At this point, those opposed to inclusion are using tendentious arguments, miscounting editors, using criteria for counting which are not found in WP:CONSENSUS, ignoring WP:CONSENSUS and evincing very uncollegial behaviour. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:39, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Again: If you want to have a true consensus gathering, that's fine. But being forced into voting for specific proposals, nearly all of which are horrible (and yet inexplicably gain support), is not a consensus building mechanism. Sorry, but if I'm forced to vote, then I take the vote on its face - it was a 5-4 vote. A vote is not a consensus building mechanism, ever. That's why when we vote on Wikipedia they're "!votes." Because the vote comment (note how people dislike it when someone votes on an AFD without giving a reason) is what works to convince others of their viewpoint. We were specifically told not to do this. Thus, the vote was not a consensus building mechanism. Please come back when you understand what consensus means without having to type it in capital letters repeatedly. --Golbez (talk) 14:13, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

This is close to beating a dead horse, but you (Collect) might want to double-check your numbers. Golbez pretty accurately summarized the final vote tally at DRN [1]. If you don't count my second choice vote, the count is 5-4. If you do count both my votes, the count is 6-4 (or perhaps more accurately 5.5-4. older ≠ wiser 15:02, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I append the exact relevant part of the DRN archives. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:20, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

What you appended is the initial round. NO ONE (other than you) claims that initial round represents any sort of consensus. older ≠ wiser 15:47, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

The sources support excluding the territories. TFD (talk) 03:53, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

There are no sources supporting "excluding" five modern era organized territories, only secondary government and scholarly sources "including" them.

Experienced editors of good will may know how to call a fact check which I am assured is available here at WP, but no "exclude territory editor" has helped me find a way to resolve a fact dispute when I asked before. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:46, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

A third-party book cannot annex an island to a country. Simple as that. Only the country itself can state whether or not it claims said island. Sparrow is an irrelevant source. But you and TFD have no interest in going that route, instead obsessing over interpretations of one author's work. Could you just trade phone numbers or something so we can keep this Sparrow crap off of here? --Golbez (talk) 13:33, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

[insert] That the country itself can say what it claims, is why Congressional organic acts --- to "include" the territories --- are interpreted by three government agencies, State, GAO and Homeland for reference. These are supported by scholarly sources in direct quotes, not editor pov-pushing primary court citations unrelated to secondary sources. Likewise to avoid editor-driven synthesis from flawed tertiary digests --- which in this discussion have been shown to represent 1905 as 2005, misreport "affirmed" as "reversed", confuse mayors with governors, and omit territorial representation since 1985. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 00:36, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

You continue to say that organic acts incorporate territories which is false and not supported by any sources. If you believe the insular cases have been "reversed", please cite the case. TFD (talk) 00:57, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

WP:CONSENSUS does not say "count editors by who adds more sources" and I would note that I, indeed, did add NWT-related sources, as well as SCOTUS sources in the discussions - meaning your "count" is abysmally useless. We use "consensus of editors" and not "only count editors I want to count" and by any normal rational consideration of the policy as written, we have one - to include territories. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:39, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

You made the argument which was refuted in the insular cases that because the NWT were part of the U.S., so are the insular territories. TFD (talk) 13:52, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Was there a consensus that the territories are part of the country? Yes. I freely concede this, and you will note that the version that was present for several weeks had that. Was there a consensus to use that horrible wording you so strenuously defend? Hell no. THAT was gained through a 5-4 vote. Period. If you think 5-4 is a consensus, well, you're welcome to your delusions, but they have no place in public. I have no problem with you saying that more people wanted it, but to call it consensus is simply false and you're using that as a hammer to force us to go along with it.

ps: I undid my version as kind of an exercise: Would you then revert me by saying it had consensus? But it didn't! You yourself say that my version had no consensus, so why did you let it remain for weeks? Are you perhaps conceding that your wording didn't have consensus, only the spirit? Holy shit! Maybe I was right all along! Thanks, Collect, for admitting that. Now maybe we can get on to the real problem: Figuring out how best to word this "territories may be part of the country" idea in a wording that doesn't make people's eyes bleed. --Golbez (talk) 14:13, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

9) The United States of America is a nation state governed by a federal constitutional republic, consisting of fifty states and a federal district as well as several territories. It is commonly called the United States (US, USA, U.S. or U.S.A.) and colloquially as America, The territories have differing degrees of autonomy.

1. Collect (talk) 17:27, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
2. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:26, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
3. Gwillhickers (talk) 20:40, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
4. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 20:45, 8 March 2013 (UTC). Tho 5 in "local autonomy" are not "direct federal control" by Interior and NASA.
5. First choice. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 02:17, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
6. This one seems ideal, (although I'd leave out the varying punctuation in the parenth). Some of the others to this effect are fine too. Shadowjams (talk) 10:39, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
7. This seems OK, though I'd prefer that the "commonly called" portion appear earlier so as not to separate the statement about territorial autonomy -- my intent with my original proposal was to emphasize by juxtaposition that their autonomy was from the governing republic. older ≠ wiser 12:26, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Damn sure looks like 7 supports. Your mileage appears to vary greatly from what is in the DRN archives. Collect (talk) 15:20, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

For the sake accuracy for anyone who might actually be interested that did not have to endure the ordeal, the text quoted by Collect above is from an interim stage of the DRN process. Extensive discussion continued after this stage and there was a subsequent "final" round. It is quite misleading to take something from this early stage and represent that as consensus. older ≠ wiser 15:51, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps we should take this to WP:RFM.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:37, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

RFM could just be a re-run of DRN. This discussion is unproductive because editors present the same arguments. To go forward I would like to see a proposed sentence with one (only one) academic secondary source that supports it. Then we can determine if the dispute is RS, NPOV, or OR, and post to the appropriate noticeboard to gain wider input. TFD (talk) 18:22, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

RFM could be useful if it were handled strictly and ably, unlike the DRN was. I feel like we're at RFC levels at this point, approaching RFAR. Also, TFD, you're still doing it wrong. Don't obsess over the sourcing or the sentence. Find the spirit. --Golbez (talk) 20:50, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

RFM is supposed to be the "final" step in dispute resolution. Certain steps have not been taken - posting to noticeboards and project pages, which, unlike DRN and RFM, invite other editors. It is better to post there before an RfC. Of course we cannot post to a noticeboard unless we have sources, since they are required to determine if a statement is reliably sourced, is not original research and is neutral. Obviously the correct approach is to look for mainstream sources and report what they say. But we have done that and editors who wish to report different facts should point to acceptable sources, otherwise differences can never be resolved. And RFAR is for editor behavior, not content disputes. TFD (talk) 22:01, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, and an editor reigniting old arguments that everyone agreed were settled, or an editor forcing edits claiming that consensus exists despite a slim 5-4 vote, are editor behavior issues. I look forward to the next step in dispute resolution, hopefully it will be run by someone who will ban any mention of Sparrow. --Golbez (talk) 22:17, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

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

Where do 3 nations in 'free association' go?

The following discussion 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.

---

Should the introduction sentence include the three sovereign nations in free association with the US? Or in later discussion. They are Federated States of Micronesia (FSM) 1982 for 15-years, Republic of Marshal Is. (RMI) 1983 for 15-years and Republic of Palau, approved by Congress in 1986, and endorsed by the UN later that year. The Republic of Palau opted for a longer 50-year Compact ratified in Palau in 1994.

Stanley O. Roth, Asst. Secy Dept. of State, House International Relations Committee testimony October 1998. From 1947 to 1978 apart of the UN Trust Territory of Pacific Islands , the people of the Northern Mariana Islands opted for an association making them U.S. citizens, then in “1986, the N. Mariana Is. became a Commonwealth in political union with the US”. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:03, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

The associated states should definitely not be in the introductory sentence, let alone anywhere in the lead. They're a sentence in foreign relations, if anything. CMD (talk) 01:28, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

While I have split feelings about including them in the lede, I wouldn't go so far as to limit their coverage to one sentence, "if anything" -- esp since topics like Popular media are given an entire section where producers, actors and singers are given one or more sentences. If the people of Micronesia, etc have become US citizens, the article should cover it with as many sentences as needed, in summary form of course. They certainly deserve more coverage than Hollywood, actors and television viewing. In fact, if the USA page has become , as one editor put it, an "already crowded article", the Popular media 'section' (!) should be wrapped up with a few sentences and linked to the appropriate pages already well dedicated (1, 2, 3) to those topics. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:12, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Popular media is at least about something in the US (although you wouldn't find me opposing attempts to slim this article down). Micronesia doesn't allow dual citizenship, so it's unlikely many are also US citizens. CMD (talk) 16:39, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely not in the lede. It makes sense to include them in foreign relations, but that's it. --Golbez (talk) 16:48, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

I would add it to the sentence that says the U.S. has territories. Also add that the U.S. leases a bay at Guantanamo. The lead may be long enough that this information can be provided there, but it is not necessary to include in the lead. TFD (talk) 01:01, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Why? --Golbez (talk) 12:49, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

In the article New Zealand, the only other country that has associated states, in the lead we combine the two associated states with the dependencies, which together form the Realm of New Zealand. They were non-self governing territories/unincorporated territories that have now entered into free association with the U.S. For immigration purposes, their citizens can live in the U.S. and vice versa, the U.S. is responsible for their defence and they participate in a number of federal programs. The relationship is similar to that between the U.S. and the commonwealths, which according to the U.S. are also contracts between sovereign nations in free association. TFD (talk) 16:11, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Except Palau, Micronesia, and the Marshall Islands are unambiguously independent UN-member nations, whereas the Cook Islands and Niue are a bit lower on that scale (usually excluded from lists of independent nations; not UN members) and thus merit a mention. The US's relationship to its associated states is different from New Zealand's to its'. --Golbez (talk) 18:14, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

The Cook Islands and Niue are recognized as independant states and have the same status under international law, viz., associated states. You can read about the Cook Island's status here. The NZ legislature has no authority to legislate for these states and they are able to enter into treaties on their own. The U.S. says that Puerto Rico is also an associated state, that Puerto Rico accepts U.S. jurisdiction over some areas and that they would not change Puerto Rico's constitution unilaterally. TFD (talk) 23:39, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

The Cook Islands and Niue have independent political personalities, but as that very source you use states "the status of self-government in free association is distinct from...independence". That's not the same as UN members with independent citizenship. I think this is somewhat tangential, the US relationship with its associated states is unique, so other situations aren't exactly comparable. I think that as they're independent, with a relationship governed by bilateral agreements, they should be dealt with in foreign relations. CMD (talk) 00:08, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

See "associated state" in International Law: A Dictionary on pp. 38 ff. The status of Palau and the Cook islands recognized to be the same.[2] One could say that Palau is not independent of the U.S. since the U.S. is solely responsible for its national defence, it is obligated to allow American citizens to live and work there and participates in federal programs and its citizens are U.S. nationals. Full membership in the U.N. does not affect the status of a state, although it may confirm it. That "free association is distinct from...independence" is a good reason to mention these states with the territories. I do not know why Palau choses to have U.N. membership and Palau does not. I imagine it is so that they can vote with the U.S. - all three associated states were members of the Coalition of the Willing. TFD (talk) 03:56, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

For one thing, a citizen of the Cook Islands is a citizen of New Zealand. the same does not apply to Palau. Therefore, no, they are not the same, despite what one source says. Secondly, Wikipedia does not treat Niue and the Cook Islands as independent nations (see List of sovereign states), whereas it does treat Palau etc. as independent nations. --Golbez (talk) 04:05, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Although they are not U.S. citizens, they are U.S. nationals with the right to live in the U.S., and Americans have the right to live there, while New Zealanders have no right to live or work in the Cook Islands. New Zealand law does not have "non-citizen nationals." The list of sovereign states includes both the U.S. and NZ associated states but lists them separately under UN member states and non-member states. The NZ associated states are the only two non-member states whose sovereignty is undisputed. There is no bar to them joining if they wish to do so. Both the US and NZ affiliated states were removed from the list of non-self governing territories for the same reason - change of status to an associated state. The US associated states have FEMA, National Weather Service, the Post Office, the FAA, the FCC and Congress is now considering restoring Medicaid. Of course the association is free - either may cancel the arrangement. But technically the same is true of commonwealths such as Puerto Rico. It is not just one source that explains the status of free association, see for example Associated statehood in international law.[3] TFD (talk) 05:40, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Citation needed on people in Palau etc. being U.S. nationals, as I find nothing on Wikipedia or Google backing that up. In fact, this government source says "Citizens of the FSM, the RMI, and Palau are not citizens or nationals of the United States." [4] Also, Palau has its own government and executive; Niue has the Queen of New Zealand, represented by the Governor-General of New Zealand. Not Queen of Niue; it's subject to another country's head of state. Generally, when you're independent, you don't have another country's head of state and head of government, pre-Commonwealth Elizabeth notwithstanding. So, to answer your earlier question: US:Palau is not near equal to NZ:Niue. In fact, you admitted it above, in your first sentence, so your source is already right out. --Golbez (talk) 08:06, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

I must have misread the source on Palau etc. However under the Compact Americans have the right to work there and vice versa and the islanders are eligible to volunteer for the US military. The executive of the Cook islands (CI) is the CI cabinet. The de facto head of state is the Queen's Representative who is selected by the CI Prime Minister but appointed by the Queen through the NZ viceroy. The wording probably mentions HM in right of NZ because the CI constitution is an act of the NZ parliament, just as the NZ constitution was an act of the UK parliament. The New Zealand Constitution Act says its head of state is the "Sovereign in Right of New Zealand", so that is the legal title of the Queen for NZ legislation. NZ has no authority to legislate for CI following its change of status to associated state, and executive authority is exercised by a cabinet responsible to the legislature, not by the GG. Niue's situtation is the same except it does not have its own Queen's Representative. Incidentally, before the nations of the Commonwealth established citizenship legislation in 1947, there was no distinction in nationality between people living in any of the various Commonwealth countries, although Canada, Australia etc. were clearly independent countries.

In any event, I do not think it unreasonable to mention former territories with current territories, especially when they maintain an association with the U.S.. e.g., "the U.S. also has several overseas territories and several former territories maintain associated status with he U.S."

TFD (talk) 10:10, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

That qualifies as one of the absolute silliest proposals ever made on this entire topic. Is there a real source which makes that statement, or is it just presh SYNTH now? Collect (talk) 12:26, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

I was replying to Golbez who questioned whether the associated states of the US were in the same category as the associated states as New Zealand. The source provided above, International Law: A Dictionary, pp. 38 ff., explains associated statehood and which nations are included.[5] If you would like sources for any statement I made please ask. Otherwise your comments are uncollegial and unconstructive. TFD (talk) 12:43, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Your claim as made was and is SYNTH and is not made by any reliable source. That you find this to be "uncollegial" is nicely snarky, and of no benefit here. BTW, a large number of "former territories of the US" are now "states". Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:36, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

My claim is that the Marshall Islands, the Federated States of Micronesia, and Palau were unincorporated territory of the U.S. and are now associated states. That is backed up by the source provided, hence not synthesis. Can you please explain specifically your disagreement rather than just hurl vague insults. FYI - no unincorporated territory has ever become a state (although PR may become a state), but what relevance does your comment have? TFD (talk) 13:50, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

More unsourced factoids, now mixed with some evidentiary, so it’s better? All U.S. territory acquired after that ceded at 1783 Treaty of Paris was “unincorporated” until it was made a part of the Union by a population of 5,000 under the “legacy of Northwest Territory”. Not TFD unsourced ‘no unincorporated territory has every become a state’. ALL populated territories have become states but the five acquired in the 1890s. Listing “all former territories” is silly as Collect points out. New Zealand has one non-self-governing territory. The U.N. Non-self-governing territories List viewed March 20, 2013 now includes four administrators: UK has ten, US three, France one, New Zealand one.

One cannot TFD unsourced say, [states in free association] are not independent, because Decolonization webpage viewed March 20, 2013 ref. Gen. Assy. Res. 1541 (XV) of 1961, There are three ways in which a Non-Self-Governing Territory can exercise self-determination and full measure self-government: ** by free association in a free, informed democratic process; ** by integrating with “complete equality between the peoples” of Territory and State; ** or by becoming independent. One cannot say, TFD unsourced ---, Full U.S. citizenship and democratic acceptance of constitution, congress and federal courts in "a U.S. territory is irrelevant to population status". Independence is NOT required for self-determination.

One cannot TFD unsourced --- confuse U.S. territories and independent states in Free Association. "Under the Covenant of 1976, establishing a Commonwealth in political union with the US ILM 651 (1976) the Northern Mariana Islands have a status similar to that of Puerto Rico but without a congressional delegate." [tvh note -- the neverending liability of tertiary sources misleading us--: since accepting two-year terms vice four-years, N. Marianas has NOW a territorial Member of Congress] …"The former self-governing territory of Guam has also achieved the status of a Commonwealth in union with the US." See International Law: A Dictionary on pp. 38 ff. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:29, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but All U.S. territory acquired after that ceded at 1783 Treaty of Paris was “unincorporated” until it was made a part of the Union by a population of 5,000 under the “legacy of Northwest Territory”. is unsupported by any reference. So far as I can tell it it purely speculative synthesis. older ≠ wiser 14:51, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, that would be Sparrow in Levinson and Sparrow, p. 232-233, I think the entire citation may slip outside the online preview. Of course I have a source, I am trained in history.

You still have no source, so far as YOU can tell --- without reading or contributing sources -- all is purely speculative, and the only recourse is wp:personal. Did you mean to collegially request my source in the pursuit of writing a better article? You may try to ask your question again. The dream of a sourced online encyclopedia written collegially lives on. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 15:10, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

No, I (and others) are rather tired by your persistent efforts to promote a novel theory of U.S. territoriality. While there may be some justice behind such a view, until it is widely accepted by mainstream sources, the most we can report is that there are disagreement as to precisely what status the territories have. older ≠ wiser 15:32, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

[insert] You and others without sources resist sourced contributions. "Widely accepted by mainstream sources" is not a source; you have no source to support your POV push for feudal imperialism in the modern era. It certainly does not apply today for the US territories of ** mutual negotiation between Congress and territorial legislature, followed by ** local population free and voluntary acceptance of US constitution, congress and ** autonomous local government with a path to full US citizenship by birth or naturalization. The modern country-article should not be the place to Right-great-wrongs over a century old; the article should describe the living. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:16, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

It has been repeatedly observed that you cherry-pick out-of-context quotes and then misinterpret and misrepresent your supposed sources -- to the degree that NOTHING you say can be trusted without independent verificiation. Can you find a SINGLE source that EXPLICITLY supports your claims without requiring you to post a wall-of-text interpretation and commentary? older ≠ wiser 11:35, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

[insert] Some have confused late 1800s monarchy expanding empire by conquest with late 1900s democracy expanding empire by consent --- but I have not. All I post is cited and directly quoted, mostly linked, easily verified. Is it time for a fact-check? You have no source, no direct quotes, only wp:personal attacks. Your accusations are never supported and never counter-sourced. Could this be wp:bully? I post 3 or fewer paragraphs under 1” deep on most browsers, how do you see a “wall-of-text”? And here, I thought I was doing better.

Not only states, territories can be in a federal republic. Populations under jurisdiction without citizenship are not included, but with preparation for statehood --- including rights, citizenship, self-government and Member of Congress, “At present, the U.S. includes the Caribbean and Pacific territories, the District of Columbia, and, of course, the fifty states.” as Sparrow says in Levinson and Sparrow, 2005, p.232. There are multiple secondary government and scholarly sources with direct quotes available here at Talk. Welcome. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:09, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

arbitrary edit break

The people who have "confused late 1800s monarchy" with the U.S. are Sparrow and Meinig who use the seemingly oxymoron "democratic empire." The "empire" was not expanded "by consent", according to them, but by conquest and treaties with European empires. And of course Sparrow says that territories cannot be part of republic. Whether or not that is true, territories outside the U.S. are not part of the republic. Why do you think they use the term "empire" in the first place? TFD (talk) 12:30, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

You misreported Sparrow's "can" as "cannot". Sparrow says "the US at present includes" the territories p.232. "The US is not a nation of states [only]. "The territories followed a sequential process of development ... to a third phase in preparation for statehood ... republican government." p.232-3, “they CAN be reconciled with the notion of a federal nation-state” p.240, quoting Riker: "the essential institutions of federalism, are, of course, ** a government of the federation, and ** a set of governments of the member units. Both rule over the same territory, each makes some decisions independently of the other." p.241 this as is practiced in the US territories "at present" p.232.

An “empire” refers to polities made up of dissimilar peoples, not only coercive, but also democratic, Jefferson's "Empire of Liberty" is ubiquitous in American usage . Regardless of origin of acquisition, the UN now requires “self-determination” of colonial peoples by free, voluntary democratic choice including “integrating” with the administering nation-state. That “integration” in the case of the US federal republic now includes island populations in organized US territories. By both UN resolution and US constitutional practice, it requires basic human rights (not statehood), citizenship and autonomous (self-elective) governance and participation in “national councils”, which scholars Lawson and Sloane show to be Members of Congress in the US federal republic for territories. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:46, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

That is pure sophistry. Sparrow never refers to the "Empire of Liberty" and clearly it was not the U.S. position to extend liberty to the Philippines. Sparrow never says that the American empire is a federal republic. He writes, "Americans think of the United States as having a liberal, federal republic.... The existence of Puerto Rico belies all three commonplaces." And you are misrepresenting the U.N. resolutions. TFD (talk) 17:23, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Not sophistry, history. "Empire of Liberty", Jefferson's characterization of the Louisiana Purchase, is the shared historical context at the U. Texas forum on the "Louisiana Purchase and American Expansion 1803-1898". The “legacy of Northwest Territory” --- Jefferson was the lead of three crafting the measure in the Articles Congress --- was the standard for incorporating territories and their populations into the Union "in perpetuity", citizenship in voluntary association with their government. That is the standard Sparrow uses to condemn USG failure to offer voluntary citizenship to resident island populations by 1905. Jefferson's 1805 “Empire of Liberty” --- is the standard of judgment on the 1905 past, not the UN of 2005. You either misunderstood me, or the timeline.

Sparrow never says American empire is a federal republic., but he shows three phases of territory from ** acquisition, to ** organization, to ** inclusion in the federal republic at their preparation for statehood --- “the legacy” of Northwest Territory. In the modern era, the USG subscribes to the UN charter. Clearly the Philippines is now independent, that IS the modern USG position one-hundred years since. The Insular Cases provided for that independence, as Congress would --- in time --- determine. ** Though forum participants noted “justice delayed is justice denied” --- another expression oft used as “Empire of Liberty” in American scholarship. Europeans snark we are an impatient lot. ** I would not offer the Lawson and Sloane interpretation of UN resolutions if you had not introduced them to me. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:03, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Sparrow calls the U.S. a "democratic empire", not the "Empire of Liberty". The first term refers to a democratic country and its colonies, such as the UK or French empires. And I just provided a source where Sparrow says the U.S. is not a federal republic. TFD (talk) 16:57, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Sparrow refers to the territories outside 1783 as not in the federal republic, but "at present, the US includes" five organized territories in the Pacific and Caribbean. The US is internationally recognized as a democracy equivalent to UK and France. There is no contrary source. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:06, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Sparrow said that territories can never be part of the republic, unless they become states. No nation, including the U.S. and the territorial governments recognize the territories as part of the U.S. TFD (talk) 12:54, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Wrong. Sparrow says at 1783, territories not a part of the republic came to be a part of it before statehood continentally, and noting the "legacy" disjunction of 1905, "belied" for non-Spanish citizens not made US citizens in the acquired islands. Now, the US at present includes the five organized territories.

The USG includes the five organized territories in secondary government sources interpreting statutes at State, GAO and Homeland, as well as scholarly sources from Lawson-Sloane, and Levinson-Sparrow. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 00:10, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

You have provided no sources whatsoever for your individual belief that "organic acts" incorporate territories. In fact they organize territories, while incorporation acts incorporate them. Two different concepts, hence Palmyra is an "unorganized incorporated territory", while American Samoa is an "organized unincorporated territory" under U.S. law. Again you are misrepresenting Sparrow and I suggest you read the chapter. Anyway this is a diversion from the discussion thread which is about the associated states. TFD (talk) 00:49, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

You have no source for your wp:madeup “incorporation” Act of Congress. That thing never happened, though you stipulate there HAVE been incorporated US territories before statehood. Territories by “organic acts” may be ** unincorporated, ruled by appointed governors as a royal colony, or ** incorporated, with citizens, self-government and an elected territorial Member of Congress. These are cited by US Code section above, citizenship is "on the same basis" as that in states, scholars Lawson and Sloane have found it "virtually equivalent".

The phrase is a judicial one, The Court at Rassmussen said Alaska was a part of the US because citizenship was granted WITHOUT its organic act expressly using “incorporated” – though statehood was delayed 85 years (Levinson-Sparrow 2005 Preface).

TFD initiated this diversion, to impose a willful ignorance on Sparrow --- regarding Jefferson’s “Empire of Liberty” --- found in ** Freehling in Levinson-Sparrow 2005, p.81, and ** Onuf in Levinson-Sparrow 2005, p.53. TFDs assumption is that the co-editor of a peer reviewed academic publication had not read his own co-authored chapter 2 and chapter 3, as though he were a careless unsourced WP editor. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:03, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

That territories can only be incorporated into the U.S. by act of Congress was settled in the insular cases. While the Rassmussen case considered the extension of citizenship to be evidence of the intention to incorporate Alaska and Hawaii, the test was changed in Downes v. Bidwell. That a writer of another article had referred to the empire of liberty in passing is not evidence that when Sparrow referred to Heinig's democratic empire in one of his articles he meant Jefferson's concept. TFD (talk) 16:29, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Congress incorporates by voluntary citizenship in the legacy of Northwest Territory, referenced in Sparrow in 2005, and Downes in 1901. Downes was 1901, Rassmussen was 1905, more chronologically challenged assertion on your part, illogically mixing sequence and spinning in self-made eddies of causality confusion. You must be using those unreliable tertiary sources carelessly again.

Your rhetorical launch is misplaced. That a British citizen says "the Queen" in 2005, may not be your evidence that "Queen Elizabeth II of England" is meant, in a charming nihilist sort of way. But you must not assume an American scholar here or abroad would be unaware of Jefferson's influence in US history, politics and law. Not "passing reference" for chapter titles #2, #6, and in seven chapters TJ territorial thought is discussed by name. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 15:33, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Wrong, Sparrow does not say the Treaty of Paris (1783) made the Northwest Territory "unincorporated." In fact the second article of the treaty says, "And that all Disputes which might arise in future on the subject of the Boundaries of the said United States may be prevented, it is hereby agreed and declared, that the following are and shall be their Boundaries...." It includes the Northwest Territory.

Sorry I quoted the wrong case. It was decided in Balzac v. Porto Rico 1922 that the extension of citizernship did not incorporate Puerto Rico. Nor for that matter does setting up local government, although no one except yourself has made that argument.

I don't know the significance of your reference to the Queen whom you anachronistically refer to as the queen "of England." By "passing reference", I was referring to Jefferson's essay, the "Empire of Liberty." Your conclusion that Sparrow was referring to that and not to Meinig's "democratic empire" theory is flat wrong. Of course Jefferson is important to the history of U.S. expansion, but he is know for much more important documents than this essay.

TFD (talk) 17:26, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

All disputes that might arise in the future is exactly the insight I needed to show 1814 Treaty of Ghent guaranteed Canadian borders by the boundary commissions. Where were you when I needed you? ** But here, more chronological confusion. Sparrow says Louisiana Territory with France was NOT in the 1783 Treaty with Britain. You wrongly claim "all continental territory" was incorporated in US history, BOTH 1783 Treaty and 1803 Treaty; but incorporation at constitutional ratification was NOT the Louisiana case --- do read the US history directly quoted from Downes at the post above.

There is no Jefferson Essay, but his “Empire of Liberty” understanding and precedent-setting --- incorporating alien populations into the US federal republic by voluntary citizenship --- deeply influences subsequent Congressional organic acts, federal jurisprudence and US scholarship. ** Setting up local [republican] government is not my idea, it is found in the Northwest Territory, applied by Jefferson to the Louisiana Territory, and thereafter for all subsequent territories organized by Congress, see Downes trace of the US history. Until Congress followed that legacy, the overseas acquisitions would not be incorporated, but now that they are in that legacy, they are incorporated. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:03, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

arbitrary edit break

TVH, Sparrow does not say that incorporation of the Northwest Territory occured when the territorial government was organized. It may be that you are confusing the concept of unincorporated territory (a territory that is not part of the United States) with unincorporated area (a territory that is part of a state but does not have its own municipal administration). The equivalent expression used in Sparrow and other sources for the second term is "unorganized". You wrote earlier "Organic acts by Congress turn places made "unincorporated" by Courts into "incorporated" parts of the United States." (09:39, 21 January 2013) No, they are incorporated by acts of incorporation or by explicit intention to incorporate in the treaties under which they are acquired. TFD (talk) 20:24, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

No, there is a chronology in US territory acquired to statehood: ** possession with military occupation by treaty or conquest, then ** organized territory with presidentially appointed governor, military or civilian, then ** iteratively --- to the extent and on a time schedule determined by congress --- incorporated territory into the with elements of fundamental constitutional protections, elective government on a path to statehood. You have confused the unjust delay of half a century with the possibility Congress has now invoked the "legacy of Northwest Territory" for islanders today (Sparrow) including full citizenship and "virtual equivalence to states" in constitutional rights and republican government (Lawson and Sloane).

Are there any "acts of incorporation" ever made for a territory by Congress in 200 years? I just assumed it was wp:madeup to dismiss the Organic Acts of history which do not use the word "incorporate". Our SOURCES have shown the term "incorporation" for territory is "judicial fiat" WITHOUT statutory support. Is there now a counter-source? Congress in US constitutional practice expressly incorporates the populations of territories by citizenship with their consent, as happens in a republic. In the U. Chicago Law Review we see Vignarajah, one of Mendaliv’s SOURCES, Political roots of judicial legitimacy, p.796 “Territories can be either incorporated or unincorporated; organized or unorganized. The determination of their status depends on the will of Congress.” Congress, the elected representatives of US citizens in a federal republic. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:03, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

That chronology is completely your original research. You've created your own criteria for what you think makes a territory incorporated, and match the current territories to that. What our sources have shown is that the Insular cases are still law, and no source has said anything to the contrary. As that source says, determination of status depends on congress. Congress has never declared one of these territories incorporated. CMD (talk) 09:48, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

The Insular Cases say only that acquired territories are not states for tax purposes (not me, Vignarajah), that is good law for US historical description for two hundred years, although Congress can change it under the Territories Clause. ** Congress has never declared any territory ever "incorporated", that is a term of judicial fiat without statutory precedence. The Court declared Alaska "incorporated" in Rassmussen because Congress intended "incorporation" when it made US citizens there. That is not my criteria, it is in an Insular Case. ** The chronology is not mine, it is Sparrows, a scholar cited extensively in Vignarajah's U. Chicago Law Review article. You will not read.

"The political development of the continental territories largely followed the legacy of the Northwest Ordinance, passed under the Articles of Confederation. For one, the territories followed a sequential process of development: a district phase; a second phase of territorial government (with 5,000 residents), and a third phase in preparation for statehood (with 60,000 eligible residents, a written constitution, and a republican government). Congress had to approve of each transition in the sequence. ... admitted on an 'equal footing basis' [tvh note: a phrase used in each modern era territory organic act] ... "The citizens were citizens of the United States, then, although not the citizens of any particular state." p.232-233. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:45, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

TVH, as you correctly quoted, there are three ways in which a non-self governing territory can exercise self-determination: free association, integration and independence. The three associated states of the U.S. have chosen the first option. Collect's comparison with other former territories is inapt. The U.S. does not have sole responsibility for the security of Cuba, does not deliver government programs there, the Cuban government does not encourage its citizens to join the U.S. military (or vice versa) and Cubans and Americans are not free to travel to each other's countries and work there. The sole reason to exclude the relationship would be materiality, but if the U.S. did have such an arrangement with a larger country, such as Cuba, it would be material. TFD (talk) 17:13, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Huh? The US does not have an owned territory in Cuba - we have a leasehold there only. Thus the issue of being "responsible for the security of Cuba" or "delivering government programs in Cuba" is irrelevant utterly. Moreover the history of US territories (NWT etc.) in the past is quite relevant as to acts of Congress etc. Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:21, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

I was referring to Cuba, not the U.S. base. Cuba and Philippines are both countries once governed by the U.S. The point is that a relationship between the U.S. and the associated states continues, which distinguishes them from former territories, protectorates, etc., that went to full independence. Among other things, the U.S. Post Office does not pick up the mail in Havana. TFD (talk) 18:00, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Nice try - but I never mentioned Cuba otherwise When you decide to cast aspersions on other editors, and you do not even represent accurately what they have written, it is possible that others may cease to give any of your positions any credence. BTW, "picking up mail" is not a requirement or attribute of sovereignty in any way at all - the US, and a number of other countries, had a post office in China, and several countries had post offices in Morocco, inter alia. I think you should read up on the UPU history a bit. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:29, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Associated states remain sovereign - there is no question about that. The discussion thread is about whether or not we should mention them. There is a relationship ("association") between the U.S. and its associated states that does not exist with the countries of the world with which the U.S. is not in association. You did not mention Cuba - I read TVH's comment "Listing “all former territories” is silly as Collect points out." (14:29, 31 March 2013) I assumed you had made that comment but apparently not. I would not list all former territories either. TFD (talk) 18:49, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

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

Sparrow's USA

The following discussion 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.

---

Much of the discussion about the definition of the U.S. has centered on Sparrow's article about the American "empire". The were differences about how to interpret it, however here is a link to a book review where he outlines his view in great detail. They are consistent with my reading of his article about the American empire.

In the review, he says that although Americans think of the U.S. as a federal republic, it is not federal and not a republic, because it includes territories. It is not even constitutional because the Constitution does not permit territories, and it is undemocratic. Puerto Rico is however an "unicorporated territory", and the status of territories was determined by the insular cases. Puerto Ricans do not have the same rights as other American citizens and are not represented in Congress. (Note that is the opinion provided in the source, not necessarily my own opinion.)

We have therefore secondary sources making different claims: most say that the U.S. is a republic that has territories, Sparrow says it is an empire that includes territories. Combining the two to say it is a republic that includes territories is synthesis and I would welcome comments about how we resolve the conflicting sources before asking for input at the OR noticeboard.

TFD (talk) 15:14, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand why we're giving so much prominence to Sparrow. Are they a uniquely qualified or esteemed scholar when it comes to republics or the United States? --Golbez (talk) 15:42, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

TheVirginiaHistorian wrote above, "Sparrow, the political scientist lead, noted historical context can inform the earlier mistaken view in the field of political science, that the federal republic was solely the states without territories. "The U.S. has always been more than states." Correcting errors of narrow-scope in the fields was the point of constitutional historians and political scientists talking to one another, and the book." (10:15, 19 March 2013)[6] My personal view is that Sparrow was expressing a minority view. However, if his view is the accepted orthodoxy, then we should represent his analysis accurately - the U.S. is neither a constitutional nor a federal republic, nor is it a republic or democracy, but an empire and Puerto Rico is a colony. TFD (talk) 00:36, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

You make that statement as though those were all mutually exclusive concepts. --Jayron32 01:07, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, could you explain that. TFD (talk) 01:27, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Sure, you seem to be saying that we need to pick between the U.S. being a republic and an empire. I was saying that I don't see those as mutually exclusive concepts, that is noting the organization of the U.S. government is republican in nature does not preclude the behavior of the U.S. with regard to its foreign policy being imperialistic in nature. The statement that you seem to be making is that the U.S. "neither a constitutional nor a federal republic, nor is it a republic or democracy, but an empire" would imply that it couldn't be all of those. --Jayron32 01:41, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

The United States could refer to the republic which has colonies or an empire including a republic and its colonies. To put it logically, EITHER US=republic OR US=republic+colonies. Being a republic does not exclude it from having colonies, but it excludes colonies from being part of the U.S. In the same sense, Britain was an empire, but the colonies were not part of the United Kingdom, while they were part of the British Empire. But in that case we do not confuse terminology. We do not say that the British Empire was a kingdom or that Canada was part of the United Kingdom. The confusion is that the term U.S. can have two meanings, while we distinguish between the U.K. and the British Empire, we do not have separate words for the American republic and the American empire. But we should not say that facts about the republic, which is limited to the 50 states + DC applies to the empire, or vice versa. Even the term empire is confusing, because it is used today to refer to areas where the U.S. has great influence, such as South America, rather than to areas where it has formal jurisdiction. TFD (talk) 02:03, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

The solution to this is to find widely used, reliable sources which are intended for wide consumption, such as other popular encyclopedia, almanacs, and history texts, and not focus on the works of a singular historian. His works may be reliable and noteworthy (or not, I make no statements one way or the other), but that's irrelevant. Wikipedia is meant to represent mainstream scholarship, so we need to find what mainstream scholarship says, and reflect that. That a notable historian makes a case that mainstream scholarship is wrong is not relevant to what we say in the lead paragraph. His points may be compelling and salient, but ultimately what the lead paragraph needs to say is what the preponderance of widely used sources say. It's quite easy to cherry pick the statements of any number of well respected historians to make any statement one wants to; that level of detail may be useful for any number of contexts, but the lead paragraph of an overview article on the United States isn't necessarily it. Wikipedia should say what other sources like Wikipedia say already: which is to say what do other widely used texts of the encyclopedia/almanac/textbook variety have to say on the subject? --Jayron32 02:20, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

The solution is to write a sourced online encyclopedia with secondary government and scholarly sources. This section continues is the TFD pattern of misrepresenting past now superseded ideas as present. Here Sparrow describes others at Duke in a 2002 book review, TFD misrepresents THAT as his 2005 essay (Levinson and Sparrow). Sparrow’s view of the Duke U. Press anthology was that it saw Puerto Rico as a colony, but some of the contributors disagreed with one another, and that these essays could well spur further work.” “Foreign in a Domestic Sense” is reported to have had a theme throughout, that modern territories had not the same status as states.

Then when Sparrow wrote a paper for the University of Texas forum anthology of 2005, Sparrow contributes his political science in an historical context, with the forum's multidisciplinary focus: "The U.S. has always been more than states." Territories can be a part of a federal republic when they are incorporated prior to statehood by congressional “legacy of the Northwest Territory”. His takeaway by 2005, "At present, the United States includes the Caribbean and Pacific territories, the District of Columbia and, of course, the fifty states." (Sparrow in Levinson and Sparrow, 2005, p.232). Louisiana Purchase and American expansion, 1803-1898

— Preceding unsigned comment added by TheVirginiaHistorian (talk • contribs) 10:36, 29 March 2013

This talk page would be vastly improved if we never quoted Sparrow again. I don't understand why y'all are obsessed with this singular source. --Golbez (talk) 12:50, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, we shouldn't be obsessed with any single source of this type. These sorts of debates and disagreements go on all the time in academia among respected experts. The issue is that those debates (which may have a place in the text of some Wikipedia articles) aren't really useful in deciding the text of the article lead at this article, which is basically the most basic of all overviews. As such, it should be styled like, and largely mimic, the format, style, and information of other similar sources to Wikipedia. When we replicate the academic debate presented above in the text of the lead of this article, we do the reader a disservice. Which is why I think we should avoid using any single, highly specialized academic source in this context isn't a good idea. It isn't just Sparrow specifically, in the context of this specific article, especially the lead, we shouldn't be relying on such sources. In other contexts at Wikipedia, sure. But for this case, we should be using sources that match the scope, depth, and format of Wikipedia as closely as possible. --Jayron32 15:34, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

I think the problem is that we are confusing reliability with weight. Sparrow's writings are definited rs, but that does not mean that his opinions enjoy consensus support. He indeed says that Puerto Rico is a colony its residents enjoying fewer rights than people in the 50 states. I do not see though how that makes it part of the U.S., and think we need a source that says his argument enjoys consensus. TFD (talk) 06:20, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Why Sparrow? Because Mendaliv gave us Vignarajah in the U. of Chicago Law Review, Roots, a SOURCE which uses both my sources, Toruella in U. Penn. International Law Review and Levinson and Sparrow in his survey of “the literature”, and Vignarajah additionally cites Sparrow repeatedly to give political analysis in US historical perspective. That is sourced reference to the weight of Sparrow's scholarship in peer-reviewed law journals of the modern era, from contributions of two disagreed editors.

Territories have fewer rights and privileges than states UNTIL they are states --- this is not new-found discrimination, it is US constitutional practice for 200 years. But their populations CAN have equal citizenship in the federal republic. TFD sources Lawson and Sloane show "regardless of the theoretical implications of Insular Cases", territorial populations of the modern era DO HAVE constitutional rights and privileges "virtually equivalent to the states". Sparrow describing Duke conference papers in 2002 is NOT Sparrow writing his own U. Texas paper in 2005. In any case, writing of 2005 supersedes that of 2002; TFD remains chronologically challenged. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:56, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

When a territory is incorporated into the U.S., its citizens become U.S. citizens and enjoy the same rights as other Americans. TFD (talk) 20:50, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes. Distinguish between people and places. The territorial people have fundamental protections, full citizenship, self-governance with Member of Congress. A Law Review article shows the people of a territory today have rights "essentially the same" as people in states.

US incorporates a territory before statehood without state-only constitutional elements and tax regimes. With modern era territories "virtually equivalent to" statehood, lacking certain state-only privileges such as presidential electors does not disqualify in the eyes of scholars Lawson and Sloane (2005).

You have been denying the antecedent, 1. If a territory is a state, then it is incorporated into the federal republic. 2. A territory is not a state. 3. Therefore, a territory is not incorporated into the federal republic., a non sequitur (logic). TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:47, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

No-one has been denying the antecedent, as not a single person has denied the possibility of incorporated territories. In fact, Washington D.C. has been noted as incorporated by many editors here, contrary to your claim. Misrepresenting your opponents arguments does not help advance yours. CMD (talk) 09:53, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Someone has denied incorporation for the five cases under discussion. US territories belong to it … “that doesn't make them a part of the US”. -- CMD 2 November 2012. It is not correct to say, “the US is governed by a federal (constitutional) republic”-- CMD 15 March 2013. Congress is the first branch of government, the expression of all “natural born Americans” including states, DC, MP, GM, AS, PR and VI (US Census). Since 1985, except when sitting as the House of [State] Representatives, DC and all five territories have Members of Congress (alphabetically among states at US Representative locator) with “the same powers as other members of the House” (House explained) in appointments, all floor debate and voting in committee, caucus, conference, and Committee of the Whole.

DC residents have fundamental rights, full citizenship and territorial MoC just as the five organized territories. They do have lesser federal Article I courts with two-year term judges, while the five organized territories have superior federal Article III courts with life appointments. The US territories are incorporated, DC is LIKEWISE incorporated, its municipal government is more often rechartered by Congress UNLIKE the territories with governors defined throughout US Code as "states". Only those disputing modern era "territory included” status imagine constitutionally lesser-than DC to be excluded from the federal republic, and I am not one of those; you do misrepresent me. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:23, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

No-one denied them by denying the antecedent, so your point is irrelevant, and I'm not even sure what your quotes are trying to prove. As for the rest of your legal argument, none of it notes incorporation bar along your own definition of what determines incorporation, and none of it in any way shows any sort of misrepresentation by me. CMD (talk) 10:12, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

CMD said "not a single person" has denied possible incorporation of the territories under discussion. I just showed again "territories-are-not-states-in-the-republic" is not an obstacle to "territories-are-a-part-of-the-US-republic". Since "not a single person objects" to that characterization of the five territories under discussion, --- Are you prepared to say the five territories under discussion are a part of the US federal republic? If not, why not? Have you any sources to contribute to the discussion? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:02, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

You keep showing the same point, and it remains completely irrelevant. Just because a territory can be a part of the country, doesn't mean it is part of the country. Nowhere did I say that "not a single person objects" to the characterisation of the territories as incorporated - people obviously do. Sources have been provided. You've not been able to provide any evidence the insular cases no longer apply, while Mendaliv provided sources noting that the Insular cases remain good law, something you've also been unable to counter. Your arguments about what makes a territory incorporated or not are not convincing compared to the legal decision that they aren't. CMD (talk) 11:23, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

insert “sources have been provided” is not a source, you have no source; there are none to say modern era organized territories are NOT a part of the US. ** USG says in secondary sources interpreting congressional statute, at State, GAO, and Homeland in Welcome, a guide p.7, “The US now consists of 50 states, the District, the territories of Guam, Am. Samoa, and the U.S. Virgin Is., ... the N. Mariana Is. and Puerto Rico.” Only the wp:fringe says we MUST automatically dismiss USG self-descriptions. ** Strawman the Insular Cases show territories are not states, still good law for unequal tax regimes (Vignarajah), that is stipulated by me at least, Insular Cases cannot be your high horse, step off the dead one.

What is at issue is whether a living population in the modern era can participate in a federal republic by free, voluntary democratic choice in the modern era, regardless of the mode of territorial acquisition. Referenda in Gibraltar and Falklands might be recognized in UK administration, because the living choose Britain constitutional practice, not Spanish or Argentine. But it may not apply in those places under investigation as UN non-self-governing territories, from shortcomings in the UK constitution refusing territorial Members of Parliament, not relevant to the five US territories with locally elected Members of Congress. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 17:07, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Wrong. They remain on the list because the U.K. has not provided tthem with any of the options available according to their right of self-determination. Maintaining colonial status is not self-determination. It is further complicated by the fact that both areas are claimed by other countries, who deny that current residents are lawfully there. TFD (talk) 18:00, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

[insert] The British surely provide uniform governance for its territories, fundamental rights and citizenship, along with local self-government, asserted by TFD earlier for British Virgin Islands --- also on the UN Non-self-governing list. Only the last requirement is not yet met for one option of self-determination, territorial integration into the UK as are England, Scotland and Wales, achievable with Members of Parliament comparable to territorial Members of Congress. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:06, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Allowing the British overseas territories non-voting members of parliament would not fulfil the requirements of the U.N. nor incorporate them into the U.K., both because it would not provide full voting equality and because the inhabitants must choose their nations become part of the U.K. TFD (talk) 17:20, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

The US territories populations have chosen to become a part of the US as full citizens in local self-government "equivalent" to that of states. In US constitutional practice, territories have all the rights and privileges of states when admitted to statehood. The UN standard for self-determination is "participation in national councils", which scholars Lawson and Sloane identify as territory Member of Congress with floor debate privileges. Distinguish between people and places for a federal republic versus the unitary realm of a monarchy. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:41, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

You are just repeating statements that are wrong and not supported by your source. TFD (talk) 00:56, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

You have no counter-source to the direct quote cited and linked to Sparrow and Sloane, only unsupported editor contradiction. Your endless citation to Insular Cases either refer to ** the irrelevant territories-are-not-states for revenues collection, rulings still in force, or to ** delay of incorporation based on islander "capacities" in citizenship, juries, elections and legislatures --- delay Court-justified until Congress "expressly" makes them US citizens as those in states, the legacy of the Northwest Territory as recounted in Downes (1901) and Sparrow (2005).

The 'good law' of Insular Cases rulings is that territories are not under the Uniformity Clause for states. The subject under discussion is territorial incorporation of citizens into the US federal republic. That once Court-justified delay has been superseded by statute. No source today says the living islanders in the modern era territories --- guaranteed fundamental rights, practiced in self-government as US citizens, and with a Member of Congress in the national legislature --- are today incompetent to self-determination within the US federal republic. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:40, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

arbitrary edit break

The issue at hand is not some abstract political ideal about federal republics and democracy, it's simply whether or not a few territories are part of the United States or not. Your constant stream of text about what makes a federal republic and its determination by citizenship and referendums doesn't help with discussion on this point. As for the supposed shortcoming of the UK that aren't relevant to the US territories, I note some US territories are included on that list. The UK territories remain on due to pressure from countries such as Argentina. They're free to seek independence, or possibly some new status, if they wish, as shown by the recent Falklands referendum. I don't think the UK even bothers to attend most decolonisation meetings now. CMD (talk) 21:23, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

[insert] The issue is not an abstract ideal, it’s whether five territories are a part of the US, a federal republic. as found in government secondary sources from State, GAO and Homeland. 1. First, a territory in a federal republic can be a part of the country, territories need not be states, law and tax regimes need not be uniform for territories as with states, as found in the Insular Cases (Vignarajah), stipulated on both sides. 2. The five territories have basic human rights with autonomous government and Member of Congress (Lawson and Sloane) in the legacy of the Northwest Territory (Sparrow) is stipulated on both sides. 3. The five territories have republican government consistent with and larger than continental territories “incorporated” in the US prior to statehood (Levinson and Sparrow) is asserted and unargued. 4. Therefore, the five territories under discussion are a part of the US as confirmed by secondary government and scholarly sources. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:35, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Territories of course can be part of U.S., but the five organized territories are not. There is no requirement that a territory be part of the U.S. before incorporation. Canada was offered statehood in the Articles of Confederation even though it was part of the British Empire. TFD (talk) 11:29, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Canada had the same status as every other British North American colony at war, NH to GA, during the American Revolution until the March 1781 Maryland ratification made the Articles in effect. Bermuda, principal market for Washington’s wheat and a principle Atlantic gun-running center for the colonies, also declined. The pamphlets pre-printed in French for the US 1812 invasion of Canada "You are conquered into Liberty". are em-bar-ras-sing. The "voluntary" acquisition of Texas populations went only marginally better, with additional Mexican-Plains Indian Wars bills-come-due in blood and treasure 1845-1885 or so. Don't want to go there anymore, been there, done that.

In any case, Sparrow is describing how acquisitions west of the Mississippi R. that were once outside the federal republic of 1783 Treaty became territories “in preparation for statehood”. --- The five territories under discussion acquired before the modern era, before consent of their populations, which --- the relevant point --- has been secured since 1950s by locally elected legislature and referendum, admitted citizenship and Member of Congress.

Free, voluntary and democratic procedure is a requirement for a territory to be “integrated” into the US nation-state in the “self-determination” sense of the UN. ** Territory freely petitioning Congress, --- for the American people, congressional organic law, and local democracy accepting the constitution, congress and citizenship --- is the procedure required to be a part of the US federal republic in that nation-state's "constitutional practice". TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 17:54, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

The continental territories became part of the U.S. when they were annexed not when territorial assemblies were established. As has been explained to you, you are misrepresenting your source. Note that the U.N. did not exist at the time, there was no right to self-determination, so whether or not the U.N. would have recognized incorporation into the U.S. is irrelevant. TFD (talk) 19:26, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

You partially restate only one of Sparrow’s three phases, which you insist on truncating to narrow the discussion by reductio ad absurdum. Largely following the Northwest Territory, Phase I. The continental territories were a part of the US ["as districts"] when annexed by petition, treaty or conquest. Phase II. The "territories are organized" with presidentially appointed governor, military or civilian. (Sparrow notes 12 states without this phase.) But as John Marshall said, US territory was never meant to be "merely possessions". Phase III. The populations "in preparation for statehood" are made a part of the Union, in mutual consent by democratic means with citizenship and republican government. These THREE phases are "the legacy of the Northwest Territory", then and now. US territories acquired one hundred years ago overseas were denied the "legacy of Northwest Territory", then.

The discussion here concerns the status of five modern era territories, now. They are organized according to historical US constitutional practice, including mutual consent of the American people in Congress and the territorial populations in self-elected legislature and referendum. Lawson and Sloane have explained citizens in territories today, regardless of theoretical considerations of the Insular Cases regarding citizenship, achieve constitutional status the same as those in states, now. This makes the five organized territories and the people in them a part of the US federal republic.TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:02, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

As the sources say, the continental territories became part of the US when annexed by treaties, which were acts of Congress explicitly incorporating the territories, or by other acts of incorporation by Congress, not by the organic acts or admission to statehood. However we are discussing the insular territories which did not become part of the U.S. when annexed. That distinction was settled in the insular cases. TFD (talk) 19:33, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

[insert - rewrite] The Insular Cases settle --- that the territories are not states for tax and revenue purposes, but Congress is permitted to make US citizens of populations not made Spanish citizens in the former Spanish colonies at a future date (Vignarajah in U. Chicago Law Review), which Congress has now done in the US territories (Sparrow in Levinson-Sparrow 2005). There are no "incorporation" Acts of Congress, it is a judicial term without statutory precedence. Rassumussen judicially makes Alaska "incorporated" because Congress "intended it" by making citizens --- without expressly using the judicial "incorporation" term. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:26, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Later in the insular cases (Downes v. Bidwell) it was decided that the extension of citizenship to Alaska had not incorporated the state and therefore Puerto Rico was not part of the U.S. It was determined that Alaska had been incorporated under Congressional legislation - the treaty with Russia. It is perverse that you claim the insular cases have been overturned, yet rely on a ruling from them that was overturned. TFD (talk) 00:56, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Rassmussen 1905 was not overturned at Downes in 1901. Insular Cases declared territories were not under uniformity clause as states, just at shown by Vignarajah in the U. Chicago Law Review. THAT is not overturned, territories are not states, which you and I agree to. The Court said Congress would incorporate by statute, it did not require it to be overturned. You bring up strawman “overturned”, that Court’s Plessy v. Ferguson case was overturned.

I say Insular Cases that held alien populations --- not citizens of Spain, Germany or Denmark --- were in 1905 “foreign”, not “domestic” citizens of states along with scholarly source. That is SUPERSEDED by 1985 when the American people in Congress and the resident populations in territories mutually agree to citizenship, self-government and Member of Congress in the legacy of the Northwest Territory see quote from Downes below, search on “Although the treaty might stipulate”, posted 10:16, 8 April. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 18:44, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant Balzac v. Porto Rico 1922, which says, "Had Congress intended to take the important step of changing the treaty status of Porto Rico by incorporating it into the Union, it is reasonable to suppose that it would have done so by the plain declaration, and would not have left it to mere inference.... 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. This was one of the chief grounds upon which this court placed its conclusion that Alaska had been incorporated in the Union, in Rasmussen v. United States. But Alaska was a very different case from that of Porto Rico." Now please find a court case that says Rasmussen applies to Puerto Rico or an act of Congress that does so by "plain declaration." TFD (talk) 20:30, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Comparing Rassmussen and Balzac in their treatment of trial by jury. Please note as to the process of incorporation hinging on citizenship with all rights and privileges, both cases reflect the same historical narrative for a territory becoming incorporated as Sparrow’s Stage III, preparation for statehood. To paraphrase and quote [Balzac v. Porto Rico, If a trial by jury were fundamental rather than procedural, it would be imposed on non-jury systems of justice in the territories without their consent. But Congress waits until Puerto Ricans petition for it. Congress makes Puerto Ricans citizens without naturalization for now (1922). Congress will undertake incorporation deliberately, not … mere inference.

In the 1950s, on petition from the PR legislature, Congress offered and the Puerto Rican people accepted by referendum, 48 USC § 737 - Privileges and immunities "The rights, privileges, and immunities of citizens of the United States shall be respected in Puerto Rico to the same extent as though Puerto Rico were a State of the Union and subject to the provisions of paragraph 1 of section 2 of article IV of the Constitution of the United States." TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:09, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

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

Tax breakdown

I restored a recently deleted tax breakdown by burden and effective rate with updated numbers (not sure how long the original version had been here or who wrote it), and started this discussion section in case anyone had comments, questions, or problems with it. I also expanded it per TVH’s suggestion to describe and distinguish between federal income, payroll, and state/local taxes, and cited key numbers to illustrate these differences. Another editor requested that I included a mention of the top 1%, so I did. For federal burden share I used the latest CBO numbers I could find (2009, published in 2012), and for federal effective rates I used the most recent Tax Policy Center numbers (so there’d be something more recent than 2009 in the paragraph). State/local numbers are difficult to come by and therefore dicey, so I didn’t explicitly cite them, but every calculation I’ve seen shows that taxation remains at least somewhat progressive even when state/local taxes are added to the mix. Even the aggressively left wing CTJ/ITEP (CTJ is the outfit’s lobbying arm) admits that total federal/state/local taxation is “barely progressive”, and it uses a fatally flawed methodology that significantly understates high earners’ federal rate (among other criticisms) as compared to the CBO and (also liberal leaning) Tax Policy Center. The latter two groups have slightly differing methodologies but show very similar results in overlapping years. VictorD7 (talk) 19:14, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

I made some wording adjustments along the lines of the more detailed discussion about this above, which I am happy to discuss. EllenCT (talk) 21:33, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Ellen, I reverted one of the changes and explained why in the summary. As for the others, I'm not sure what your disagreement was with the "volatility" segment. I did say sales taxes were less volatile (per the source), so it looked you agreed with me before deleting it, lol. Though I don't think the volatility is as much about the type of tax per se as it is the number of people paying it, hence the phrase "broadly borne". Income taxes at both the federal and state level fall on a smaller percentage of the population than consumption taxes. States and locales tax that way for a reason. They don't have the deficit flexibility that the federal government does. As for progressivity, one segment of taxes can be "regressive" while the overall structure remains progressive. Every source...The Atlantic, Tax Foundation, even your CTJ piece...all state that overall taxation is "progressive". The truth is that federal taxation is extremely progressive, but I went with the more ambiguous "generally progressive" to describe overall taxation, and outlined how progressivity declines (but doesn't disappear) when payroll and then state/local taxes are added. The original is more streamlined, reads better, and makes a more fitting thesis statement for the paragraph, since it covers more than just income taxes. It's also more informative. Are there any credible sources that claim the US tax system isn't progressive? VictorD7 (talk) 01:41, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

You're right; sorry about my mistake deleting the volatility statement which for some reason I thought said the opposite. I've been stuck looking for good sources on total population incidence of corporate taxes, and it's getting to be a real pain because there is a lot out there, but almost all of it is theoretical primary source material, and while I can find plenty peer reviewed, I haven't been able to find a single secondary source either in news, journal articles or books, and of course the primary sources all disagree with each other. A good idea of how hard this is can be gathered by skimming pages 1812-5 of this book chapter. And this TPC report says, "a 1994 survey of economists found that 75 percent of respondents believe that corporate income taxes are 'largely passed on to consumers and workers'" and then goes on to attribute 0% to consumers. Footnote 6 on pp. 13-4 here suggests that nobody has been able to come up with an answer, but this 1948 paper is well cited and says 45.5% of corporate income tax falls on consumers. I like it because it has absurd precision instead of shameless punting. :/ EllenCT (talk) 05:07, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to restore the original wording for the beginning and end because I'd hate for the article to leave the impression that state/local regressivity might completely trump federal progressivity when we know that isn't true. Tax Foundation gives overall (federal/state/local) effective rate breakdown by quintile as 35.6%/27.7%/25%/19.5%/13% (using TPC federal and CTJ state/local). CTJ gives (low to high) 17.4%/21.2%/25.2%/28.3%/(broken down into smaller pieces, but all higher than the previous 80%), and calls overall taxation "progressive", despite significantly understating high earner federal rates compared to more reliable sources like the CBO and TPC. CTJ also shows the top 1% paying a total tax share larger than its income share, which is also true for the rest of the top quintile while the opposite is true for the lower four quintiles. This echoes work by economists like Lane Kenworthy ([7]). Like CTJ, Kenworthy's interest was in showing how much progressivity is reduced by factoring in state/local taxes, which makes my argument stronger. The debate is over how progressive total taxation is, not whether it is progressive.

As for corporate rates, the secondary sources I've seen say that most studies show investors bear the bulk of the burden, though the CBO recently changed its methodology to 75/25 owner/worker as I said. Personally I think that change is horse**** since all taxes have ripple effects and they don't make an effort to perform such analyses for the others, but oh well. As far as I know the TPC still attributes 100% of corporate taxes to owners, and its numbers still track closely with the CBO's, so it doesn't make a massive difference. I'm not sure how CTJ scores them. They seem to be off on their own planet. VictorD7 (talk) 21:44, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Some sources think that the entire corporate income tax burden falls on customers and employees, and I'm not sure that's inconsistent with the CTJ/ITEP "Who Pays" chart above. Unless we have a reliable source saying outright that the sum total of US taxes are progressive, I don't think we should say it, and even then I think such a statement is better attributed to the source in the text instead of just the ref. Retirees and homeowners on a fixed income might be very surprised to read anything suggesting that all US taxes are progressive. EllenCT (talk) 22:41, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

But that's my point. Even CTJ/ITEP outright says in its pdf prose that overall taxation is "progressive", despite its ludicrous treatment of corporate taxes. It's fair to call that one extreme end of the spectrum, with the whole debate being over how progressive taxation is, not whether it is. VictorD7 (talk) 23:09, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

That's why I thought that a bar chart would be far more meaningful than text in this case. How about including the CTJ/ITEP bar chart and a bar chart assigning corporate income tax to capital side-by-side, explaining why they differ? Would that be consistent with NPOV? EllenCT (talk) 00:01, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't think numbers as deficient as CTJ's should receive the elevated status of prominent chart display. I wouldn't even be crazy about using the Tax Foundation chart since it includes CTJ state/local numbers, though I'd certainly prefer it. Given how dicey state/local breakdowns are, I'd ultimately opt for just using a chart for federal rates, where the numbers are easier to calculate and more solid, like the great, clear, easy to understand Peterson one (or one like it). I don't think the commons currently has a good chart, so I guess someone would have to make one or get permission to use something like that. I actually set up a commons account recently but haven't had time to get around to going through that process yet. It's not like every section needs a chart though. Right now I'm more concerned about restoring the general description of US taxation as "progressive" in the text. Since even CTJ calls it "progressive", I don't see the argument against it. CBO/TPC style corporate incidence would jack up the top 1%'s total effective rate much higher than it is in the CTJ chart, but it's progressive either way. The beauty of the text is that it doesn't force the article to commit to a specific set of overall numbers. VictorD7 (talk) 03:53, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

What specific wording do you propose? Can we please still say that sales and property taxes are regressive? Should we say anything about how the very diverse opinions on the incidence of corporate income tax changes the overall incidence? I'm opposed to the idea of saying that the regressivity of sales and property taxes is less than the progressivity of income taxes, because there are large segments of the population including retirees and the poor and disabled who pay much more in sales and property tax than income tax. EllenCT (talk) 08:46, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

That's why the original text points out that some taxation is more progressive than others, but overall the system is progressive. And it's not like a poor person paying income tax too would somehow make the system more progressive. I think "generally" is a fair and suitably vague qualifier for accurately describing the overall structure without wedding ourselves to a particular set of details or implying every single person pays a higher effective rate than every person below him on the income scale (but most do, including in the top 1%). I'm fine with keeping your "regressive" addition as long as we restore the mention that said regressivity doesn't completely trump federal progressivity. Again, that appears to be true regardless of corporate incidence. Corporate incidence would hypothetically pertain to the sentence on "total" federal taxes in the middle rather than the question of whether overall taxation is progressive or not. If you have a problem with those CBO numbers maybe we can add a note on corporate incidence.VictorD7 (talk) 20:14, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Ellen, did you ever find a source that claims overall US taxation isn't progressive? VictorD7 (talk) 20:48, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

"Sole superpower"?

THe United States is no longer the sole superpower. This is a misleading blanket statement. If this refers to military power, 9 nations now possess nuclear weapons, and that number will only increase. If this refers to economic power, the recent recession smashed any possibility of that. I guess this could be referring to some kind of cultural power, but superpower generally isn't used that way. Unless someone comes out with reasons not to change this, I'm going to modify the statement. Rwenonah (talk) 22:23, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

A couple sources: Shifting Superpowers:The New and Emerging Relationship Betweeen the United States, China, and India( http://books.google.ca/books?id=t1SKkwWJnYkC&printsec=frontcover&dq=superpowers&hl=en&sa=X&ei=kf1dUbHJKer1ygGg74DACw&ved=0CFsQ6AEwBw#v=onepage&q=superpowers&f=false)

From Superpower to Beisieged Global Power:(http://books.google.ca/books?id=iaTnm48GW-cC&pg=PR19&dq=united+states+not+superpower&hl=en&sa=X&ei=YgBeUbL3IeLRyAG3h4DABg&ved=0CEsQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=united%20states%20not%20superpower&f=false)

Rwenonah (talk) 22:38, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Nuclear weapons were never the one criteria for superpower status. The UK, France and China have had nuclear weapons since the 1960s and were never deemed superpowers because they had nuclear weapons. In regards to the military, the US has the at least the same number or more aircraft carriers than all the other nations in the world combined. The US has an paralleled air force, bases all over the world. In short, it has the capability to project military power nearly anywhere in the world in short notice in an unrivaled fashion. In economic regards, the US dollar is still the global reserve currency which gives the US significant economic advantages. Despite the recession, the US economy is still the largest in the world. Soft or cultural power has always been one of criteria for superpower status so I'm not sure where you're getting that superpower isn't used that way. Studies still agree that for the time being, the US is the world's sole superpower (http://www.dni.gov/index.php/about/organization/national-intelligence-council-global-trends), so I don't see any reason why you should remove it. In any case given the amount of arguing over this article for the smallest aspects of it, I don't think you're going to be able to unilaterally remove that. Transcendence (talk) 22:42, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

The United States military is significantly outnumbered in all aspects except reserve personnel by that of China, and in all aspects except active personnel by Russia. The American external debt stands at 14,000,000,000, which I believe to be a world record. And as for that study-it was made by an American organization, and can hardly be expected to be neutral or accurate. I don't wish for unilateral removal, only acknowledgment that the United States is no longer the world's sole superpower. Rwenonah (talk) 23:37, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Absolute numbers mean do not account for the vast technological superiority the US military possesses. The debt so far has not had any observable effect on the US economy. Even the credit downgrade had no effect. I don't see your basis for saying that because the report was made the an American organization, it's not neutral or accurate, especially when the report itself is saying the US will no longer be a superpower in 20 years which is the very statement you're pushing. I can't think of one single reason why this report wouldn't be accurate purely because of its origin. With regards to neutrality, this report was created with outside expertise. I quote from the website, "NIC leadership engaged with experts in nearly 20 countries—from think tanks, banks, government offices and business groups—to solicit reviews of the report." If you're going to dismiss the report purely based on the source, and especially since the source here is reputable, then we should scrutinize your sources as well. As a first point, you don't even point out what you're citing from the sources so how do the sources even prove your point? Secondly, since we're questioning neutrality and accuracy of the sources now, what makes these sources neutral and accurate? How do you know they aren't influenced by something, political philosophy, money or something else to write those books? In anycase, for consensus sake, I'm voting against removing the statement due to the NIC report. Transcendence (talk) 00:18, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

What you think about the United States military means absolutely nothing from a practical standpoint without sources to back it up. Ditto for your economic claims. As for the report, I have no proof that it is unreliable. However, you have no proof that my sources are unreliable. And, if I may quote you "you don't even point out what you're citing from the source[s] so how do the source[s] even prove your point?" I will get some more sources. And yet again, I don't want anything unilaterally removed, only demonstration that the US is no longer the sole superpower( emphasis on sole).Rwenonah (talk) 11:27, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

You may quote me, however I already stated what I cite from my source, which is the claim that the US is still a superpower for the time being but that by 2030, may not longer be. If you're asking for the page number of that then, it's on page 8. My point still stands that you're not even citing anything from your sources, not even a specific claim the book makes. All you've given us is the book itself as a source. As currently stands, I don't see any demonstration that the US is not the sole superpower, only that there are authors that are writing on the subject. I don't even know if the books are saying that the US is not a superpower anymore or if the US is certainly going to lose superpower status in the future or if US doesn't change something, then it will lose superpower status. The bottom line is that all we have is the title of the book. This certainly doesn't satisfy WP:BURDEN. Transcendence (talk) 17:13, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Just as an aside, here's a source that asserts that even military leaders in the Chinese government say they're behind the US by 20 years with regards to military technology. I quote: "People’s Liberation Army leader General Chen Bingde said. “I can tell you that China does not have the capability to challenge the United States. As a matter of fact, the reconnaissance activities along China’s coast by U.S. military aircraft and vessels are seen in China as deterrents.”" http://defensetech.org/2011/05/19/pla-chinese-military-doesnt-compare-to-u-s-military/ Transcendence (talk) 17:27, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

And just out of curiosity, if your emphasis is indeed that the US is no longer the sole superpower, then who are the other ones and what are your sources for it? Transcendence (talk) 17:32, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Russia, as shown here:

Steven Rosefielde, Cambridge University Press, 2004

New York Times by Ronald Steel professor of international relations August 24, 2008 (Superpower Reborn)

The Globalist – June 2, 2010 cite: “An Insecure Foothold for the United States; Russia is certainly still a superpower comparable only to the United States” - http://www.theglobalist.com/StoryId.aspx?StoryId=8498

"Russia the Best of the BRICs" – AG Metal Miner News by Stuart Burns – Sept 19, 2010

"The Dangers of Nuclear Disarmament" – Project-Syndicate News by Sergei Karaganov – April 29, 2010

Netanyahu declares Russia as superpower- Russia Today News 15 Feb 2010

Venezuela's President Hugo Chavez recognizes independence of breakaway Georgia republics by Megan K. Stack. Sept 9, 2009- http://articles.latimes.com/2009/sep/11/world/fg-russia-chavez11

Washington Acknowledges Russia as a Superpower -Daniel Fried, U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs by Kommersant News May 26, 2007

Rwenonah (talk) 19:41, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Your first source isn't even a source, it's just an author, publisher and year. What is this source supposed to be? Three of your sources are people, albeit two are leaders of a nation, claiming Russia is a superpower. Does this indeed make Russia a superpower, at least by the standards required on Wikipedia? No. The rest are news articles. None of these are scholarly writings. However, you've finally shown there is legitimate dispute as to whether not the US is the sole superpower because of Russia. I think there's room for some sort editing of that statement in the article, but I don't think these sources merit anymore than something along the lines of saying that some people think Russia is also a superpower. Transcendence (talk) 21:57, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Glad to see you admit that. If an edit could be made to that effect, I would be quite satisfied. Rwenonah (talk) 22:02, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Rwenonah's source is supportive of the view that there is no longer consensus among experts that the U.S. is a superpower, although it is called that in popular writing. But the editor was referring only to the authors who had participated. Since the book was published in 2005, it should be possible to determine the impact it has had by looking at subsequent scholarship. I do not think it helpful to weigh the influence the U.S. retains, because we need sources that do that. TFD (talk) 04:03, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

China and Russia are still more regional than global powers, and will need a greatly expanded blue water fleet with many powerful aircraft carriers (among other things) before serious analysts describe them as superpowers. No nation is on par with the USA when it comes to the ability to act with military decisiveness around the world. VictorD7 (talk) 20:38, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Great opinion there. The eight sources above say otherwise. Rwenonah (talk) 21:36, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Sure....Kommersant....Russia Today....real great sources you've got there. Where's Pravda? You seem to be confusing diplomatic niceties with scholarly opinion. I haven't even found the actual Fried quote or original Kommersant story yet. Stuart Burns' flippant, off hand description in his short Metal Markets column was focusing exclusively on nuclear weapons and was neither a statement of serious geopolitical analysis nor central to his story (which essentially described Russia as economically a step above the third world). Sieff carries more weight but even he qualified his use of the term "superpower" by focusing on nuclear weapons and indicated that only the US was militarily comparable to Russia, but not necessarily that they were on par, and his opinion piece was explicitly arguing against US support for an invaded Georgia in line with his broadly anti-interventionist agenda. Hugo Chavez proclaimed that Russia was a "superpower", though he also liked speaking about the alleged stench of hellish sulfur in the air when other world leaders had recently left the room, and his propaganda service accused the US of, among other things, using secret weapons to cause devastating earthquakes in Haiti and elsewhere. He was.....prone to hyperbole. Samuel Huntington probably said it best in Foreign Affairs in 1999, and the pertinent dynamics haven't critically changed since then:

"There is now only one superpower. But that does not mean that the world is unipolar. A unipolar system would have one superpower, no significant major powers, and many minor powers......Contemporary international politics does not fit any of these three models. It is instead a strange hybrid, a uni-multipolar system with one superpower and several major powers. The settlement of key international issues requires action by the single superpower but always with some combination of other major states; the single superpower can,however, veto action on key issues by combinations of other states. The United States, of course, is the sole state with preeminence in every domain of power -- economic, military, diplomatic, ideological, technological, and cultural -- with the reach and capabilities to promote its interests in virtually every part of the world.At a second level are major regional powers that are preeminent in areas of the world without being able to extend their interests and capabilities as globally as the United States. They include the German French condominium in Europe, Russia in Eurasia, China and potentially Japan in East Asia, India in South Asia, Iran in Southwest Asia, Brazil in Latin America, and South Africa and Nigeria in Africa. At a third level are secondary regional powers whose interests often conflict with the more powerful regional states. These include Britain in relation to the German-French combination, Ukraine in relation to Russia, Japan in relation to China, South Korea in relation to Japan, Pakistan in relation to India, Saudi Arabia in relation to Iran, and Argentina in relation to Brazil."

Russian generals weren't even happy with their own military's performance recently against tiny, next door Georgia. American Thinker: Russia suffers a bloody noseCS Monitor: In Georgia, Russia saw its Army's shortcomings

"Decades of neglect, outdated technology, and an ineffective conscript system reduced the capabilities of the Russian Army." VictorD7 (talk) 00:14, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

It is too soon to say that the United States is not/no longer the "sole superpower" on Earth. It maybe the case that it will no longer be a sole superpower in a decade or two, just not yet. Please see what a google search brings up, and what can be found in books. Most of the sources that come up show that at present the United States is presently the sole superpower. There are predictions that the United States will not be the sole superpower in the not so distant future (say less than 30 years), therefore WP:CRYSTAL is applicable here.

For instance I cannot write on Wikipedia (in the article space), that the PRC has sank a United States carrier, what I can write is the PRC is developing the capabilities to enhance their anti-access/area denial capabilities with test(s) showing a capability of hitting a carrier the size of a Nimitz-class.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:22, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

These sources disagree, among many others:

US will lose global financial superpower status: German FM: The Hindu, September 25, 2008: http://www.hindu.com/thehindu/holnus/001200809252054.htm

− U.S. 'superpower' status slides in world's eyes, by Eoin Callan, Financial Post,

− 9/25/2008: http://www.financialpost.com/story.html?id=838634

− TOPWRAP 15-U.S. bailout in chaos, government seizes Washington Mutual, Sept 26, 2008, Guardian News and Media Limited,

− http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/feedarticle/7826065

− US slipping as financial superpower, Businessweek By PATRICK McGROARTY Sept. 25, 2008, http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D93DP05O0.htm

− US ‘will lose financial superpower status’, By Bertrand Benoit in Berlin

− Sept. 25 2008, FT.com, http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/1d6a4f3a-8aee-11dd-b634-0000779fd18c.html

− Germany says U.S. to lose superpower status, Xinhuanet, Sept 26, 2008,

− http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2008-09/26/content_10112504.htm

− U.S. Losing Finance Superpower Status, Germany Says (Update3), Bloomberg,

− By Leon Mangasarian, Sept. 25, 2008, http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601100&sid=ahUuZ8Z5rkDA&refer=germany

− Financial Crisis: US will lose superpower status, crows Germany; Telegraph.co.uk, by Ambrose Evans-Pritchard

− Sept 25, 2008, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financetopics/financialcrisis/3081909/Financial-Crisis-US-will-lose-superpower-status-crows-Germany.html

− Bush: ‘Our entire economy is in danger’ MSNBC by Associated Press, Sept 24, 2008, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26871338/?GT1=43001 http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26871338/?GT1=43001

− Rwenonah (talk) 22:44, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

From Superpower to Besieged Global Power, University of Georgia Press, 2010, p. xvii, says, "The editors intially sought to evaluate whether a purported American superpower...actually got its way with other actors.... What was not questioned was whether the United States was, indeed, a superpower. Conventional wisdom was accepted at face value.... Over the course of two conferences [including a gathering of international studies associations and a follow up workshop, in 2005/2006] it became increasingly evident that the notion of the United States as a superpower could not stand up to close scrutiny. It was a misleading characterization...." That seems to challenge that the view of the U.S. as a superpower enjoys consensus, and we need to establish and accurately reflect the degree of support it has. TFD (talk) 22:39, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification Rwenonah (talk) 22:44, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

With words like "will" and "to", those look like speculative future predictions, not statements of present reality. Here's some more contrary opinion on Russia, this from Senior Woodrow Wilson scholar and long time Russian analyst Murray Feshbach. Washington Post, 2008: Behind the Bluster, Russia Is Collapsing

"Predictions that Russia will again become powerful, rich and influential ignore some simply devastating problems at home that block any march to power. Sure, Russia's army could take tiny Georgia. But Putin's military is still in tatters, armed with rusting weaponry and staffed with indifferent recruits. Meanwhile, a declining population is robbing the military of a new generation of soldiers. Russia's economy is almost totally dependent on the price of oil. And, worst of all, it's facing a public health crisis that verges on the catastrophic..... That makes Moscow's announced plan to boost defense spending by close to 26 percent in 2009 -- in order to fully re-arm its military with state-of-the-art weaponry -- a dicey proposition. What the world saw in Georgia was a badly outdated arsenal, one that would take many years to replace -- even assuming the country could afford the $200 billion cost.

Something even larger is blocking Russia's march. Recent decades, most notably since the breakup of the Soviet Union in 1991, have seen an appalling deterioration in the health of the Russian population, anchoring Russia not in the forefront of developed countries but among the most backward of nations.....On the other end of the lifeline, the news isn't much better. Russia's birth rate has been declining for more than a decade, and even a recent increase in births will be limited by the fact that the number of women age 20 to 29 (those responsible for two-thirds of all babies) will drop markedly in the next four or five years to mirror the 50 percent drop in the birth rate in the late 1980s and the 1990s. And, sadly, the health of Russia's newborns is quite poor, with about 70 percent of them experiencing complications at birth."' VictorD7 (talk) 00:27, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

From Russian analyst Pavel Felgenhauer (Eurasia Daily Monitor Volume: 5 Issue: 179 September 18, 2008]): "The 27,000-strong Georgian military is a 40th the size of the Russian military of over one million....Russia emerged victorious, taking full control of the Georgian breakaway regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia; but this short war revealed serious deficiencies in the arming, training, and battle readiness of the Russian military.....The army chief, General Vladimir Boldyrev, directly commanded the joint forces that invaded Georgia from headquarters in Vladikavkaz, North Ossetia. Boldyrev announced that the fighting revealed two main deficiencies in the tank forces: bad communications and bad command systems (RIA-Novosti, September 13). The Russian military did not have a single spy drone in the sky, did not know for certain where the enemy was, and could not use precision weapons effectively. Until the Georgians retreated, Russian forces could not suppress Georgian artillery. The Russian Air Force did not manage to provide effective battlefield air support or reliable intelligence information because of Georgian anti-aircraft fire that shot down, according to Russian sources, seven bombers, including a strategic Tu-22M3 Backfire. According to the military, the Georgians used Buk-M1 anti-aircraft missiles, obtained from Ukraine (Vedomosti, September 12).....The increases in spending are substantial, but will they help refurbish the military? In 2000 when Putin came to power, defense spending was $5 billion and has grown by some 10 times since then, but the soldiers who invaded Georgia were armed exclusively with old weapons of Soviet stock, produced in the 1970s or 1980s. Fortunately for them, the Georgians were also armed mostly with the same equipment. Some Georgian weapons were partially modernized, but the Russians outnumbered and outgunned them. Experts express doubts that the increase in defense spending will result in a major modernization of the military and predict that the money may be misappropriated (Nezavisimaya Gazeta, September 15). The Russian defense industry today is in a crisis, its technology outdated, its well-trained workforce old and shrinking, and its capability to make new weapons withered away. Mikhail Dmitriev, the director of the Federal Service on arms trade, announced last month that there were many potential customers for Russian arms in Asia, Africa, and Latin America; "but our defense industry does not have reserve production capability, so they have to queue" (RIA-Novosti, August 5)." When Russian experts and leaders talk about the dire need to "modernize" their military, they're talking about trying to raise its capabilities to something resembling US or at least NATO standards. VictorD7 (talk) 00:51, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

The editors of the University of Georgia Press book do not qualify their observation that the international studies scholars determined that the U.S. is no longer a superpower. Your sources on Russia are irrelevant, and the listing of what powers the U.S. retains as an argument that it is or is not a superpower is just original research. You need to provide a source explaining what the range of expert (i.e., not Wikipedia editors) opinions is. TFD (talk) 01:05, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

My comments dealt specifically with the other editor's claim, based on a few weak, non scholarly sources, that Russia is now a superpower, and the scholarly opinions I cited are extremely relevant to that issue. Perhaps you accidentally replied to the wrong post. I haven't read (or until now commented on) the one book on US power you refer to, but from the descriptions I've seen it seems to be a partisan, anti-Bush polemic that flies in the face of most expert opinion, as has already been noted in this section. There might also be disagreement about the very definition of "superpower". VictorD7 (talk) 01:24, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

The book is not "a partisan, anti-Bush polemic that flies in the face of most expert opinion", but an academic book published by the University of Georgia Press. The book owes its initiative to the chancellor of the University of Illinois who brought together regional experts from around the world. It is the inaugural book in a joint University of Georgia Press and the university's Department of International Relations in their series "Studies in Security and International Affairs". You can find information about the various contributors by clicking here. Do you have any sources that discuss the opinions of scholars on whether or not the U.S. remains a superpower rather the leading global power? TFD (talk) 02:19, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Based on page 9-10 of Unipolarity and the Evolution of America's Cold War Alliances, this book argues that the status is contested, since at least the mid-2000s or 2008. Page 247 of Special Responsibilities: Global Problems and American Power has multiple notable, relevant, individuals speaking of the U.S. as a "sole superpower". There are many others, if I need to go on. What can be said, is that some reliable sources verify that the U.S. is still the sole superpower, while others say the status is contested. Each side should be given due weight somewhere in the article, perhaps not in the lead.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:24, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Regarding your first sentence, the two aren't mutually exclusive. Reading available Google Books segments only confirms the descriptions I mentioned earlier. The book's obsessive focus is an attack on the Bush administration and so-called "neoconservatives", complete with an argument in favor of US welfare state expansion (lol!). Back to the topic, it also concedes this:

"(the US) is the only state capable of projecting its military power around the globe. No other state or group of states, as the chapter by Patrick Morgan makes plain, can defeat the United States in a direct military clash. American economic power and technological leadership remain world class. Its $13 trillion economy dwarfs all others, with Japan a distant second global competitor at $4 trillion (except of course in automotives and electronics). China is moving up fast, but at its present rate it will need at least a generation to match the United States, whose economy will not be standing still in the meantime. American culture, informed by the creativity of its citizens in fashion, music, television, media, and movies, sets the standard for millions around the world, especially the young."

By the standards of Huntington and virtually everyone else that would qualify the US as a "superpower", so, as I said, the dispute may be one of definitions rather than facts. In what admittedly little I've read from the book, they seem to oppose the term "superpower" because they feel its prominent use has motivated US policies they don't like. They speak in terms of "relative" rather than "absolute" power, and apparently want to downgrade the US because it allegedly doesn't achieve the overly ambitious goals it sets for itself. If that's close to the mark, any edit based on this book as a source would have to include a mention of the definitional issue, and regardless, for the sake of clarity, probably at least the gist of what I quoted the authors admitting above about the USA's preeminent power and global influence. However, since most expert sources still refer to the US as not only a "superpower" but the "sole superpower", I'm not sure the FSBGP dissent warrants inclusion in the US country article, especially since the current article simply mentions in a brief, past tense line that the end of the Cold War and Soviet breakup "left the United States as the sole superpower." The article contains no mention of "superpower" after that. Is it worth blowing that well established and mostly non controversial sentence up into something much larger? The dissent might warrant inclusion in more dedicated topic articles. VictorD7 (talk) 04:18, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

The inclusion of the fact that its status as sole superpower may be in dispute is all I've really been attempting to do since the beginning. However, this is clearly quite controversial enough for it to have been discussed multiple times in the past. Perhaps we define controversial differently. You're right about taking this to to other articles,however. Rwenonah (talk) 11:47, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

As VictorD7 points out "superpower" is mentioned only in the lead and statements are not disputed. The dispute seems to be whether the term is still relevant, rather than the underlying facts. So I do not see any relevance to the lead, which is already quite lengthy. It might belong somewhere in the article. TFD (talk) 18:12, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Agree with TFD. Makes no sense to call US a sole “superpower” in the 21st century. Robert D. Kaplan’s 2012 The revenge of geography uses the term “superpower” to describe nodes of expansive geographic influence in “early-twenty-first-century”. His seven regional giants with worldwide reach are US-Canada-Mexico, Europe, Russia, China, India, Iran and former-Ottoman-empire. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:14, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

A question

So I'm curious: What does any of arguing between TVH and TFD above have to do with this article? Honestly. I can barely read any of it, but what little penetrates my brain seems to be arguing over y'alls interpretation of a single source. What bearing does this argument have on the article? Instead of wasting space and time here, could you have your discussion elsewhere and get back to us if and when agreement springs out of it that is relevant to the article? I don't see how this has to even do with the territories argument anymore, it's simply arguing over whose interpretation of a single source is incorrect.

We would all be vastly better off if you both took a back seat for a while, because you are literally accomplishing nothing. There is no word for how much effort you two are wasting in this pointless endeavor. I would very much look forward to a formal RFM/RFC process, but only if you two were not permitted to infect it with your ramblings. --Golbez (talk) 20:10, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

The discussion revolves around whether the U.S. should be defined as including territories. It began in October last year and I joined in January. Since then it went to DRN, but after a version was agreed you challenged the phrasing the "the u.s. is a country governed by a republic" (16:18, 15 March 2013) which re-opened the discussion. You then changed the wording back to the pre-DRN version (14:02, 3 April 2013)[8] You and others have suggested mediation or arbitration. It would appear that the dispute has not been resolved.

As a source, Sparrow is as good as any other. However, we need to distinguish between factual information, which is a matter of reliability and his opinions, which are a matter of weight. I do not see any factual errors in his writing, nor in any of the other reliable secondary sources that have been provided.

TFD (talk) 23:05, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

The discussion is absolutely not revolving around that. It is revolving around whether you two think Sparrow says it does. Have you noticed that 1) You two are not making any headway at all, and 2) No one else is involved in your argument? At a certain point you have to wonder why you're still having the argument here. The dispute has not been resolved, but your incessant arguing with TVH is not helping resolve it in the slightest. You two obviously will never be convinced of the other side, so instead of wasting time and space on this talk page, maybe you two should take a break and reorganize your thoughts. Put down the stick and step away from the corpse; you both have beaten it to death. --Golbez (talk) 22:08, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

In the section Talk:United States#Lead sentence above, you wrote, "Yes, and an editor reigniting old arguments that everyone agreed were settled, or an editor forcing edits claiming that consensus exists despite a slim 5-4 vote, are editor behavior issues." I notice that you, RCLC, older ≠ wiser, and Collect also commented. The lead now says the U.S. "is a federal republic[The New York Times Guide to Essential Knowledge][The Origins of the Federal Republic] consisting of fifty states and a federal district as well as several territories with differing degrees of autonomy.[The World Factbook. CIA]" Are we all agreed that reflects the sources and there is no synthesis? TFD (talk) 23:22, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

No, we are not agreed, and that doesn't matter. Your repetitive fight with TVH is absolutely preventing any valuable discussion on the matter; Other viewpoints are drowned out, or they would be subsumed by the argument. Therefore I have little motivation to try. Which is why I want you two to stop and give the rest of us a chance. --Golbez (talk) 00:22, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Three points. First, both of us are reading more deeply and carefully into our sources through discussion, sharpening our points of view. Second, although mistaken in this matter of including territories, Golbez, TFD and Mendaliv are three who are, by-and-large, well read and well intentioned. They can be sourced, reasonable and engaged, responding directly and intelligently to each turn in the discussion --- certainly for the most part, regardless of whatever way they may be mistaken at each turn.

Third, please let it be, that no one is required to join a discussion, but no discussion is to be ended unless editors violate WP procedural policy. On the other hand, please write a bot to block any post that begins, [Personal attack of choice], “all sources say” do not include islanders. --- without a source. It’s like a pre-printed NRA Second-Amendment postcard to a Representative from the non-constituent. One admires the organizational effort at the mass mailing, but they are not worth the reading. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:08, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

I notice you have today posted to three or four old discussion threads. If there is no objection I will close them. TFD (talk) 03:03, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

The old standard was 30 days. I have no objection if the new life-span is 4-days for all discussion threads. How is that determined consistent with WP policy? Since there are stretches of 3-7 days when I do not access WP, that of course would have the effect of blocking me from discussion. Would it effect any others on at Talk:United States? I would not want to stand in the way if that is how it is done as a general rule on other WP pages with a similar number of visits. How is that properly done? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:56, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

It comes under WP:CLOSE - not archiving. I have closed the discussions, they are still there and will be archived following the standard 30 days. If you want to re-open any of the discussions, then you may set up a new thread saying it is a continuation of an old one. TFD (talk) 17:37, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

There are unsubstantiated personal attacks yet to be answered. But I suppose I have shoulders broad enough. And, it does seem as though there were a crew on this page who have side bets as to who can formulate the largest number of distinct non-sequitur types and post them unanswered. I imagine the winner in this thread must be pulling ahead, so its time to collect at closing the thread? There is no reason given to close except that I make a contribution? Very well, I guess we'll carry on in other threads. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:04, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

A world without sources

There are four questions that present themselves to us:

• Are the five inhabited territories incorporated or unincorporated?
• Are the five inhabited territories part of the United States, regardless of incorporation status?
• Does incorporation mean a territory is part of the United States?
• Does organization mean a territory is part of the United States?

These are four overlapping but distinct questions. It doesn't matter if we determine that they are incorporated if that doesn't mean they are part of the country; likewise, if we determine they are part of the country then their incorporation status is academic at best. Likewise, if we determine organization alone means they are part of the country then the incorporation argument becomes academic, but it also complicates matters with regard to American Samoa.

I want to touch on questions 1 and 3 in this post; 4 is complicated, and 2 will follow from the results of 1 and 3 I believe.

The insular cases from early in the 20th century established the incorporation dynamic. I'm going to start from square one on this as I have no interest in wading through the months of repetitive arguing, so I apologize in advance if I ask you to repeat something:

• Has this ever been overturned by a higher court?
• Has this ever been overturned by the high executive? (President, Vice President, or direct cabinet?)
• Has this ever been overturned by a law passed in Congress?

So far as I know, the answer to all three is no.

A third party source cannot change the makeup of a country. Period. No matter how many books we can find saying so, we cannot say that X is part of Y unless X says it is. The Republic of China claims the whole of its 1949 territory; this is fact. This cannot be changed by any book. Now, they control vastly less, but that does not change what they say they own. Likewise, no matter how many books you could find that say so, you can never say that Mongolia is part of the Republic of China, no matter how much they claim it. A book cannot incorporate land into a country, and a book cannot change how a country defines itself. Likewise, you might have been able to find books calling Iraq, West Berlin, Guantanamo Bay, or Okinawa an occupied colony of the United States but we would never consider saying it was part of the country.

Absent a statement from a higher court, the high executive, or Congress, the United States says that the territories are not part of the country. Also, absent a statement from those source, and in fact according to many lower sources in the government, the United States says the inhabited territories are unincorporated.

No third party source can contradict this. All they can do is elucidate it. We cannot rely upon third party analysis to contradict a first party's statement of themselves. It's like relying on third party work to call someone gay or Muslim when they say they are straight or Christian. We can make note of this analysis, but we can never portray it as a statement of fact. Likewise, we could say many sources say the territories are incorporated and/or part of the country, but absent a first party confirmation we simply cannot state it as a fact.

So please, if you have any link to an explicit overturning of the incorporation dynamic, or an explicit statement that the territories are part of the country, from the three government sources I list above, please give it.

Otherwise, as far as I'm concerned, there is no evidence that any of the territories are incorporated, or that they are part of the country.

I await your responses. --Golbez (talk) 14:58, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Nope. The primary question should be:

If a person is in a place, what national flag will they see on the capitol building?

Guam? US flag. Puerto Rico? US flag. Marianas? US flag. And so on. The parsing to a tendentious extent that "well it is not really part of the US" has gone on for far too long here to be looked at with a straight face any more at all. If an area's citizens hold US citizenship, the government is subject to courts established by Congress pursuant to the US Constitution, and the like - then trying to say anything other than it is "part of the United States" is absurd at this point. From the NorthWest Ordinance on, the concept of territories rationally being part of the US has been accepted law - and the Insular Cases are now moot as a result of government actions (yep - Acts of Congress can change the status of a territory). And the idea that a leasehold (vide Guantanamo) is a "territory", or that an area held as a result of treaty for a period of time after a war is a "territory" (The American Zone in Germany was never deemed a "territory of the US" by any source that I can find, and the status of the Ryukus was never that of a "territory of the US" but was under UN Trusteeship per the San Francisco Treaty [9] ) is similarly absurd and irrelevant to any of this. Collect (talk) 19:28, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

"If a person is in a place, what national flag will they see on the capitol building?" What makes this rule, which I've never seen before in serious scholarship, more important than my request of a statement from the government(s) in question? The history before the insular cases does not matter. The flag does not matter. What matters is what the government says, and you aren't allowed to make that up. This is very much akin to, "From his flamboyance, to his only hanging out with guys - he's obviously gay, what he says about it doesn't count." "From the flag on the building, to the citizenship laws - despite what they say, we know who really owns this island." You do not get to decide what the country says is part of itself. Only the government of that country can do that. I don't see how your question gets us any closer to that. --Golbez (talk) 19:41, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

The word you seem to lack is "sovereignty -- that is, what country is regarded as sovereign in a place. "Sovereignty" has been defined in many ways including The authority of a state to govern itself or another state. The concept of a flag over a capitol is emblematic of that specific definition. In fact a national flag is an "emblem of sovereignty" by custom and usage. I trust you are fully aware of the "emblem of sovereignty" terminology without me having to list a few hundred cites? Collect (talk) 21:18, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

One country can have sovereign power over another area - either temporarily (the Soviets raising their flag over the Reichstag) or less temporarily (Panama Canal Zone, which isn't often considered part of the U.S.) without annexing it. If one country doesn't claim another, then no matter what flag or sovereignty we're talking about, we cannot say as a fact that they are the same country. Only affirmative statement from the party involved can do that. You can say many sources say it does, but we can only say affirmatively what the entity in question says. We cannot say "The United States includes Puerto Rico" based solely on third party scholarship or some self-created rules. Only the United States can say that. I'm asking people to provide a source from the part of the United States that can overrule or clarify the insular cases to do so. Not a pamphlet, not the CIA World Factbook (though it agrees with me), not the Census Bureau, etc. High executive, congressional, or higher court, please. ... I'll take UN Ambassador as well. That seems like it'd be relevant. --Golbez (talk) 21:32, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

You appear to grossly misapprehend the meaning of "sovereignty" in international law and this seems to be where the biggest problem lies. UN Trusteeship != "sovereignty" per UN resolutions. Leasehold != "svereignty" per normal use of the English language. The Panama Canal Zone was a "leasehold" of (at first) perpetual use with an annual lease payment but not of separate sovereignty. The US Zone in Germany was under the UN and per peace treaty. The Ryukyus were a UN Trusteeship. Guantanamo is a leasehold. Would you like a course in international law as to what is, and what is not, "sovereignty"? Collect (talk) 22:45, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Fool me once, shame on you; won't be fooled again. Just like I refuse to get into a sourcing battle with TVH, I will not get into a "sovereignty" battle with you. Can a third party source annex an island into a country? If not, then do you have any sources from the government as requested saying Puerto Rico is part of the country? If not, on what basis do you say it is? --Golbez (talk) 23:21, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

If you wish to accuse me of lying - then be brave enough to say so instead of saying I "fooled" you. Right now my BS detector is at 11. Puerto Rico falls under US sovereignty under international law. Does this mean it can never be a separate nation? No. Does it mean it can never become a state? No. Does it mean anything at all other that the simple statement of fact that it is under US sovereignty? No. Now what precisely is your problem with it? Collect (talk) 23:33, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

I do apologize for claiming you tried to fool me; what I meant was, I let myself get into an argument I did not want to get in to. It was not your fault, it was mine. Contrary you what you believe, I am still trying to operate in good faith here.

My precise problem with it is that it allows third party analysis to annex land into a country. You are saying that if party X has sovereignty over party Y, that means that Y is part of X, regardless of what X says. Can a third party source annex an island into a country? If not, then do you have any sources from the government as requested saying the inhabited territories are part of the country? If not, on what basis do you say they are? A country is allowed to be completely in control of another region and still not formally annex it, just like it is allowed to be not in any control of it and still claim it. Example of the latter, obviously, is China; examples of the former include Israel, the Soviet Union under the Iron Curtain, Japan over Korea prior to annexation, and many occupying situations such as Iraq in Kuwait. --Golbez (talk) 02:17, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

You persist in grossly misapprehending what I wrote. I said absolutely nothing about "annexation" at all, and to onject claims which I did not make into this is disingenuous indeed. And use of cases which are fully and totally unrelated to what I did state is absurd and unworthy of discussion. And kindly avoid the "Israel" stuff -- there is an area under direct rbCom sanctions, and we would not wish this talk page to fall under them, I trust. Collect (talk) 11:52, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

You seems unclear on the concept of sovereignty. Collect has laid out an understandable and reasonable explanation which improves the article. We don't need and can't use primary government sources as you request. Collect has this right. Capitalismojo (talk) 02:46, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

We absolutely can and should use primary sources in appropriate circumstances; what an entity claims to be true about itself is one of those. You can use third party sources to back up or refute this, but these third party sources cannot overrule what they say. So, I ask again: Is there an appropriate primary source that explicitly states the inhabited territories to be part of the country? Once we have the answer to that then we can word things properly. --Golbez (talk) 03:31, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Response -- tvh #1. Analogy. The War of 1812 established US citizenship as a matter of mutual individual choice and national incorporation. Golbez would make citizenship in a federal republic as sexual preference in a monarchy. Since sexuality is not universally regarded as a choice, I categorically deny the analogy. Citizenship for free adults without criminal conviction is voluntary --- whether or not sexual orientation is a choice for Golbez. The analogy fails. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:09, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Response tvh #2. Sources. Primary sources are best used when supporting reliable secondary sources. They are satisfactory when no scholarship can be found. The quality of WP is not based on its editors alone, but on its sourced contributions. Tertiary sources are reluctantly used in the absence of secondary sources and when no direct quotes from primary sources can be found on the subject.

If reliable scholars, Chinese maintain PRC boundaries A-extent, and European show B-extent, then the narrative must account for both. The government’s published assertion in a country-article might take precedence in the narrative --- secondary taking precedence over primary, primary over tertiary --- then qualified in turn by the Chinese and European references. In any event, The de facto government’s representation of its geographical extent should not be summarily excluded. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:22, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

But when it comes to what a country considers to be officially part of itself, de jure means more than de facto. We need a de jure statement from an appropriate government source, as requested; until then, the best your sources can do is let you put "Many sources say Puerto Rico is part of the country" in the article, rather than "Puerto Rico is part of the country." The analogy absolutely does not fail - third party sources cannot confer an opinion upon an entity which has not confirmed it. Unless we have a suitable primary source saying the territories are incorporated and/or part of the country, all you can do is note that 'sources say'. If not, then why do sources get to overrule the primary subject in this case? --Golbez (talk) 12:44, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, ‘official’ extent of the federal republic is easiest when de facto corresponds with de jure. USG suffers internationally when Britain can ‘recognize’ a de facto government and begin advancing its interests there, while the USG hamstrings itself by awaiting its determination of de jure status before recognition and advantages that flow from that on the ground.

Scholars are reliable sources for biographies so that WP articles are not solely primary-sourced puff pieces of self-advancement. Likewise, scholars are reliable sources for the extent of a country so that WP articles are not solely government primary source press-releases. Primary sources are best used to support scholarship, like it says in wp:sources and its subarticles. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:08, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

When it comes to an entity's statement about itself, all third party sources can do is repeat this or attempt to refute it. They cannot, however, change that opinion. If a country does not say it has annexed a region, then no amount of third party scholarship can make it so. All they can do is allow us to say "many sources say". All I want is hard evidence that says the government thinks these territories are part of itself. A statement from the high executive, a law or resolution passed by the Congress, a ruling by a higher court, or a statement from the UN ambassador will suffice. If these are not available then why are third party sources considered a better authority on the government than the government itself? --Golbez (talk) 13:38, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Response tvh #3. Anachronistic error. The insular cases from early in the 20th century established the incorporation dynamic. No, the incorporation dynamic was begun in the Articles Congress with the Northwest Territory, extended at the Louisiana Purchase, and complicated by judicial innovation in the Insular Cases without statutory precedence.

Insular Cases established ** territories were not states for tax and revenue purposes, and ** alien populations in acquired territories were not incorporated until Congress expressly did so incorporate persons as citizens as described in Court discussions of the US history of incorporation in a) 1783 Treaty territory, b) later acquired continental territory, and c) overseas territory. In the first sense, they are NOT overturned, in the second sense, they are superseded by statute [insert: federal statute] in all five organized territories by 1985. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:12, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

"In all five organized territories." What about in the federal government? Is there any statute since the insular cases formally saying the territories are part of the country? --Golbez (talk) 13:38, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

The territorial organic acts are federal statute. The process of incorporation hinges on citizenship with all rights and privileges in a place, not the places themselves. Thus in US history, there is no instance of an "Act incorporating territory", only organic acts providing for a path to US citizenship by naturalization or birthright. Rassmussen and Balzac both reflect the same historical narrative for a territory becoming incorporated as Bartholomew Sparrow, our scholar’s Stage III, "preparation for statehood". The 85 year wait for Alaskan statehood is now surpassed since possession, but statehood since full citizenship for Puerto Rico has been but 60 years.

To paraphrase and quote Balzac v. Porto Rico, If a trial by jury were fundamental rather than procedural, it would be imposed on non-jury systems of justice in the overseas territories without their consent. But Congress waits until Puerto Ricans petition for it. Congress makes Puerto Ricans citizens without naturalization for now (1922). Congress will undertake incorporation deliberately, not by mere inference as in Alaska.

Now (2012) Congress deliberately makes Puerto Ricans birthright citizens, jus soli a part of the US. In the 1950s, on territory legislature petition and referendum acceptance makes voluntary US citizenship, 48 USC § 737 - Privileges and immunities "The rights, privileges, and immunities of citizens of the US shall be respected in Puerto Rico to the same extent as though Puerto Rico were a State of the Union and subject to the provisions of paragraph 1 of section 2 of article IV of the Constitution of the United States." Each Congressional organic act uses comparable language for five modern era US territories. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:34, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

All of these are rules that are not exactly substantiated. My question was, is there a simple, affirmative statement from an appropriate government source. You have chosen not to answer this question so far, instead answering questions that were not asked. Are you saying that there is not a simple, affirmative statement from the requested appropriate primary sources saying the inhabited territories are part of the country? I simply want a yes or no here. If yes, please direct me to it. --Golbez (talk) 18:20, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

The Insular Cases and Sparrow substantiate the history of US territory incorporation for 200 years, that history is Not editor madeup rules. Further Lawson and Sloane assure us that the UN allows for individual nation-state constitutional practice, all the world need not conform to Great Britain. There is no counter-source. The questions asked are answered, you will not read the Insular Cases cited. There are more 'Include territory' answers from other sources, including government, but the key is to ensure a scholar gives a sourced basis for representing our understanding of the primary documents. Without scholarship, all descends to editor synthesis and original research.

• In Congress, the organized territories are included in the national councils of the American people. At the House of Representatives webpage, “currently, there are five delegates representing the District of Columbia, the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands. A resident commissioner represents Puerto Rico.”
• US Code includes organized territories as “states”, for the entire body of US statutes currently in force. 28 USC § 3002 – Definitions (14) “State” means any of the several States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas, or any territory or possession of the United States.
• Ambassadors include the territories as a part of the US. The State Dept. For. Affairs Manual Acquisition of U.S. citizenship by birth in the U.S p.3 references the primary source, the Immigration and Naturalization Act (INA), it provides that “the term ‘United States,’ when used in a geographical sense, means the continental United States, Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Virgin Islands of the US.” and November 1986, “Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands”.
• The Office of the President includes organized territories as a part of the US for statutory administration of US law for the nation regarding the environment, energy and transportation Executive Order 13423, "‘‘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."

These government primary and secondary sources are confirmed by Sparrow in a reliable scholarly source (Levinson and Sparrow 2005), Today the US includes the Pacific and Caribbean territories. There is no counter-source referring to the modern era territories other than what it says here in secondary government and scholarly sources -- organized territories are a part of the US. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 17:32, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

"The territories are included in Congress" This alone does not mean the territories are part of the country. (for example, the District of Columbia did not have representation in Congress from 1874 to 1971, yet it was unambiguously part of the country. Therefore, presence in Congress is not alone sufficient to determine whether a region is part of the country.)

"The U.S. code includes organized territories as states." It does a lot of things to simplify terminology. This does not make them states. Because they aren't states.

"Ambassadors include the territories." This alone does not make them part of the country. (for example, the Isle of Man is represented in all international matters by ambassadors of the United Kingdom, yet it is unambiguously not part of the United Kingdom. Therefore, being represented by an ambassador in foreign relations is not alone sufficient to determine whether a region is part of the country.)

"Executive Order 13423" Finally, something resembling what I requested! However this is solely a definitions clause; if I reject that for the US Code, I must reject it here. I want an affirmative statement saying they are part of the country, not that they are defined as being within the country in a geographic sense for expedience. This statement alone does not annex them into the country, nor does it overturn the insular cases. Some may see this as waffling or moving the goalposts, but I would disagree, as my statements on how the law (and apparently EOs) define things in convenient ways are nothing new.

I do not want to put words in your mouth, so I ask again, can you supply a source from the high executive, Congress, a higher court, or a UN Ambassador affirmatively saying the inhabited territories are part of the country? If one exists then surely it should not be hard to find. Has no president since Coolidge stated that Puerto Rico etc. is part of the United States? Has Congress never affirmed it as such? Has the UN Ambassador never mentioned something on behalf of Guam and stating it to be part of, rather than a possession of, the United States? Has a higher court stated that they are part of the country? These are not complicated matters. Yet you are suggesting that in a hundred years, none of these have happened. Absent any of these, we cannot affirmatively state the territories are part of the country. To do so would be synthesis, or allowing third party sources to overrule a first party's self-definition without qualification. Neither is acceptable.

Absent an affirmative statement as requested, the best you can say is "many sources say the territories are part of the country", rather than "the territories are part of the country." --Golbez (talk) 18:19, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

TVH, if another editor claimed that the Philippines was still an unincorporated organized territory of the United States, I could reply that that status terminated 22 October, 1946, under the Treaty of Manilla. Can you please supply the date and treaty or act of Congress that terminated Puerto Rico's status as an unincorporated organized territory. TFD (talk) 20:52, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't sure if this was a good question to ask, but it would seem to satisfy my requirements, yes, as an affirmative statement from Congress. Except that it's solely about the "unincorporated organized" status, whereas my request was more for "part of the country" status, leaving out the question of the relevance of "incorporation." That's a different, more arcane question. --Golbez (talk) 21:21, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

We have a source from the US Department of State stating in the negative for both "part of the country" and "incorporation." --OuroborosCobra (talk) 21:45, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

From your source: "United States," for nationality purposes, was expanded to add Guam; and, effective November 3, 1986, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (in addition to Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands of the United States). Persons born in these territories on or after December 24, 1952 acquire U.S. citizenship at birth on the same terms as persons born in other parts of the United States; and (2) "Outlying possessions of the United States" was restricted to American Samoa and Swains Island. b. Section 301(e) INA (formerly 301(a) Which pretty much states that United states for nationality purposes was expanded. Also note Puerto Rico comes within the definition of "United States" given in Section 101(a)(38) INA.. When you give a source, be prepared to accept all that is in the source. Your "in the negative" is simply wrong. Collect (talk) 22:47, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Collect, do you understand what "for nationality purposes" means? My understanding is that it means for nationality purposes, what do you understand it to mean. TFD (talk) 22:53, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Wow!! When in doubt revert to the old "do you understand English?" sort of argument?? I cited the precise words of the source which quite contradict the claims being made for that source. What in heck do you think "nationality" means? Is the word too abstruse? Clue: 1.The status of belonging to a particular nation.. Collect (talk) 02:07, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Possessions belong to a particular nation, while U.S. states are part of a nation. Do you think it is impossible for a territory to belong to belong to a nation without being part of that nation? We would have to re-write the whole history of colonialism. Why do you think the source added for nationality purposes? TFD (talk) 03:12, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Republics in free association are NOT a part of the US --- (1) Marshall Islands, (2) Federal States of Micronesia and (3) Republic of Palau. These independent states have not US citizens or US nationals by the soil, but are "considered foreign countries for nationality purposes” 7 FAM 1126, p.21. The State Department “Foreign Affairs Manual” gives a history of each topic, the auto search snippets do not give language lower in the documents for the current law applicable. One must read the source.TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:55, 13 April 2013 (UTC) TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:06, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Editors cannot find sources to say “modern US territories are not a part of the US”. If one such source were found, it could not eliminate the need for article language admitting the common usage in US government and the preponderance of American scholarship to "include modern territories" as a part of the US. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:55, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

We don't need to. We have no source from the relevant party that says affirmatively that they are part of it. You have to prove the positive before we can work on the negative. --Golbez (talk) 04:28, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

[insert] The affirmative of your position is incorporation by judicial fiat without statutory precedence, "The official US of A is 50 states, DC and Palmyra Atoll." But there is no secondary government or scholarly source to support your affirmative position, only editor synthesis from tertiary sources of unnamed articles without page citations, or online links where mayors and governors are confused and the branches of government are listed out of order. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:44, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

My requirement is solely about the five inhabited territories, do not change the topic. --Golbez (talk) 05:21, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

YOUR affirmative case, YOU just brought up, which is, to spell it out: The US is by judicial fiat without corresponding statute, "incorporated" as 50 states, DC and Palmyra Atoll. --- Why back away from it? Because that understanding of the "official United States of America" is,

** NOT the US de jure entire, ** NOR the US as a federal republic, ** NOT supported by 200 years of US constitutional practice, ** NOR is it contemporary usage. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:04, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Because the question at the moment is not whether Palmyra is part of the country, it's whether the five inhabited territories are. We can deal with Palmyra separately. Stop trying to change the topic. --Golbez (talk) 12:43, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

@ Golbez (i). DC was NOT unambiguously part of the domestic US federal republic, it was under direct governance by Congress, nothing passed by city council was made law until Congress made it so. Only in 1971 was DC home rule allowed DC local elections comparable to Puerto Rico. Bumper stickers read “DC the last colony”. In the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica, the US was defined “domestically” only as states. A separate section followed after for territories and DC in the same section. You cannot be making up your own US history as we go along, Where do you get these factoids that are unsubstantiated in American historiography?

The Insular Cases context of domestic US versus alien, non-citizen islanders is like DC before they were trusted with electing a Member of Congress to join national councils. Islanders would be incorporated as citizens later by Congress when they had the "capacity" and "desire" to vote, serve on juries, convene a legislature and elect a Member of Congress. The Court would not do those things, Congress would; and Congress did for five organized territories by 1986: N. Marianas, Guam, Am. Samoa, US Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico.

You ask for an "overturning" of the Court which said Congress would expressly grant privileges to people in territories, but there is none. We have sourced observation that by 1986, Congress included five territories in the US in accordance with its 200-year constitutional practice. The American people in Congress and the Territorial people in local legislature and referendum, mutually agreed to fundamental rights under the Constitution and Congress, citizenship, self-governance with a Member of Congress. But over 200 years, Congress has not created territories with privileges reserved for states.

All questions are answered by US constitutional practice. References to British Empire are irrelevant, nations may have dissimilar histories you are wrong to insist they cannot. Democratic federal republics are not monarchies, Puerto Rico is not 1607 Virginia. There is NO modern source to say “Modern era territories are not a part of the US” --- but there are more than twenty over the last 20 years to say that they ARE a part of the US, as cited, directly quoted and linked at Talk:United States and its archives. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:08, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

@ TFD. Incorporating territories in the history of the US federal republic has rewritten “the whole history of colonialism” by monarchies. As US territories are incorporated, besides fundamental rights, voluntary citizenship, and local autonomy, they are given representation in national councils by territorial Member of Congress, with floor debate.

Now in the modern era, territorial Members of Congress have privileges expanded over those of previously incorporated continental territories of the past --- expanded to voting in committees, senate conference, and House Committee of the Whole, staff funding, and military academy appointments. It makes no sense to say territories today with more privileges than those of the past have not achieved the same constitutional status as those before. Scholars demonstrate that modern territories have a constitutional status "equivalent to states", states are constitutionally incorporated. Territories have never had state-only privileges, those being reserved to states.

US Virgin Islands has a Member of Congress --- British Virgin Islands has no Member of Parliament. Colonial history is indeed rewritten with the arrival of a federal republic on history’s stage. For 200 years the United States (a) expands its territorial possessions, (b) administers them by appointed governors, (c) incorporates them in preparation for statehood, and (d) admits them states, by Congress, as described in the Insular Cases and American historiography. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:14, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

DC was unambiguously part of the United States from the moment its territory was incorporated as part of the state of Maryland. "We have sourced observation", but not a directly sourced action? So, once again: You cannot say unambiguously that the "territories are included", you can only say that "it has been observed that Congress includes the territories [in some fashion]." --Golbez (talk) 04:28, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

[insert] Virginia and Maryland ceded their incorporated territory to the national government. Re-incorporation awaited voluntary citizenship, self-government and Member of Congress.

Congress includes territories as unambiguously incorporated, but variously in the fashion of its 200 year constitutional practice, see the two starred excerpts from Downes below -- good history from an authoritative source accepted by all parties from 1901. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:02, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

That is not an affirmative first party source and thus it has no bearing on my requirement. I will not read it. Also, I would say "citation needed" on the idea of ceding land to the government as making that land no longer part of the country (yet owned by the government?), but that would get away from my goal and only encourage tangents. --Golbez (talk) 05:21, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Can you please provide the date and specific act of Congress or other action that incorporated anyone of the five territories into the U.S. TFD (talk) 14:06, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

You admit that US continental territories not in the federal republic at the constitution of 1789 became incorporated after acquisition, but before statehood, as in the Louisiana Purchase territories (Sparrow), and as discussed here at Talk:United States in the 20th century for Arizona, New Mexico, Alaska and Hawaii. Populations are incorporated by voluntary citizenship by Congressional organic acts and territory approval. There was no Congressional "Act of Incorporation" for ANY incorporated territory on the continent. You did not provide one when challenged;

Insular Cases and Sparrow show three territory stages to statehood, though statehood was much delayed for Alaska 85 years, New Mexico 60, Utah 46 and Puerto Rico now 51 years since voluntary citizenship. In US constitutional practice, there is only incorporation of people as citizens in places, and those people in territorial legislature in turn petitions for statehood. Congress can change territory boundaries up until the date of admitting a state, but it cannot revoke citizenship without due process.

You make an unsourced abstract inquiry that never was and never shall be in the US. It is in an imagination state-of-mind, independent of the the historical United States which is the subject of this article. The US is based on the contract theory of government by consent of populations. Your imaginary unsourced non-history is unhinged from the topic under discussion and the subject of an historical nation-state. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 19:51, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

"Imaginary unsourced non-history"? Sir, I am doing what I can to not insult you or your words in this section, I ask nothing less of you. --Golbez (talk) 04:28, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

[insert] Okay, you are a proven friend for over a year. What is the gentlemanly way to characterize your “history” making the people of DC prior to 1971 “unambiguously incorporated” as a part of the federal republic while they had ** no self-government, and ** no vote for representative among the American people in Congress? The people of DC were certainly under the jurisdiction of USG since Congress directly administered it in its municipal government, and each session of Congress monkeyed with its municipal code at partisan caucus whim with racial undertones. But we have agreed, Jurisdiction alone is not incorporation in a federal republic.

1970 DC had the same possession status relative to USG as Puerto Rico in 1910. The bumper stickers, DC the last colony, were no joke since Puerto Rico had by then voluntary citizenship, self government, Member of Congress, and its own constitution writing authority. Do you now assert based on DC history that Puerto Rico et al were "unambiguously incorporated" in 1910? If so, I would disagree. Historically, incorporation is not until twenty years ago for all five modern era US territories. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:38, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Because having self-government and a vote are not requirements for being part of the country. --Golbez (talk) 05:21, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

[insert] Agreed, the US territories are a part of the country with "varying degrees of autonomy" as in our lead. But additionally, territorial incorporation in the federal republic requires (1) fundamental rights, (2) voluntary citizenship, (3) self-government and (4) Member of Congress. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:46, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Good thing my question with the five inhabited territories was never about "territorial incorporation", it was about "are they part of the country." DC is irrelevant to that question, please stop trying to change the topic. --Golbez (talk) 12:43, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

[insert] The territories are included throughout the USC wherever the word “state” appears – by definition in the USC definitions section, territories are included in the US.

Your answer is “territories are not states”, therefore they are not included in the US. What kind of non-sequitur is that? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:01, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

That has not at any point been anyone in this conversation's answer, and is only ever raised when you write a long legalistic argument to argue against it. This is the second time you've summarised the opposing arguments in this very poor fashion. CMD (talk) 13:28, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

That wasn't my answer. My point was that the US code defines things in ways for expedience, and thus we cannot rely on that alone to say that the inhabited territories are part of the country. In fact, 29 USC 203 specifically defines "state" as including "territories and possessions", which presumably means possessions are distinct from territories, and generally by us have been taken to mean "not part of the country". Finally, please stop changing the topic, the question here is, is there is an affirmative statement from an appropriate government source as to whether the current inhabited territories are part of the country. Please stop dodging the question or attempting to change the subject and answer yes or no, and if yes, provide a source of this statement. --Golbez (talk) 13:37, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

[insert]

1. It is expedient in a list of all places to include sub-places equally included in the larger place, and

2. It is in-expedient to ex-clude the sub-places equally included in the larger place.

3. National codes equally apply to sub-places that are a part of the nation equally.

Therefore, expedient national codes will include by definition places equally a part of the nation. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:27, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I refuse to put words in your mouth, so I won't, so please simply answer the question: Is the answer to my question yes or no, and if yes, please provide a source. Please stop dodging the question; if you wish to engage with me in this section you must answer it. Otherwise I will be forced to assume you are no longer arguing in good faith and respond appropriately. --Golbez (talk) 16:37, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Another fine example of the mystifying logic that illustrates why this discussion will never reach any conclusion. older ≠ wiser 16:34, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Downes v. Bidwell 1901 says, "This District had been a part of the states of Maryland and Virginia. It had been subject to the Constitution, and was a part of the United States. The Constitution had attached to it irrevocably.... The mere cession of the District of Columbia to the Federal government relinquished the authority of the states, but it did not take it out of the United States.... Indeed, it would have been a fanciful construction to hold that territory which had been once a part of the United States ceased to be such by being ceded directly to the Federal government." So we have a source that explains when and how D.C. became an incorporated district, it has always been incorporated. Now please provide the legislation and date that incorporated PR. TFD (talk) 18:38, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

[insert] Downes says DC was unambiguously incorporated in 1871. Lincoln's Congresses had provided for uncompensated confiscation and emancipation of slaves owned by rebels in DC; DCs constitutional status was challenged on various grounds until 1871. Everything cannot be categorically absolute when describing nation-states of history, DC was not "always" incorporated, but it was settled law as incorporated by 1901. Even so, the issue was reasserted by council in Downes to be refuted in the case as you quoted. Thank you for the correction. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:36, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

[insert] Agreed, DC and US territories are "a part of the US" per Downes. Next paragraph following your citation, "‘Throughout the United States’, Does this term designate the whole, or any particular portion of the American empire? Certainly this question can admit but of one answer. It is the name given to our great Republic which is composed of states and territories." This insight of 1901 is confirmed by scholar Bartolomew Sparrow in 2005, Today the US includes territories in the Pacific and the Caribbean, DC and the 50 states. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:10, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Wrong. He was quoting Marshall CJ writing in 1820. In fact the whole significance of Downes v. Bidwell is that the court decided Puerto Rico was not part of the United States. TFD (talk) 07:25, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Right. Marshall is quoted by the Supreme Court approvingly as instructive here and elsewhere. The significance of Downes is that the Uniformity Clause applied to states is not applied to territories.

Further you may recall just as French commerce was free-trade in Louisiana for over ten years after US possession, so was Spanish free-trade in its former territories, another aspect of “alien” that is not racial or constitutionally unchanging. On the one hand it is limited to Congress re-imposing tariffs on French or Spanish goods, on the other hand alien is ended relative to the nation-state with citizenship of the soil the same as states, which are incorporated. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:00, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

The Uniformity Clause applies "throughout the United States' including incorporated territories but did not apply to Puerto Rico because, according to Downes, it was outside the United States. TFD (talk) 14:59, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Since the case determined that Puerto Rico was not part of the United States, your comment that it decided the territories were part of the U.S. is bizarre. Territories may or may not be part of the U.S. And no, D.C. was not incorporated in 1871. Instead, "to put at rest all doubts regarding the applicability of the Constitution to the District of Columbia, Congress...specifically extended the Constitution and laws of the United States to this District." It may have been that in 1820, when Marshall wrote the passage you quote, which was cited in Downes, the republic was composed of states and territories. The question is which territories are part of the republic and which are outside it. TFD (talk) 16:32, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

[insert] The Insular Cases determined that territories are not states under the Uniformity Clause required of States for revenues. That is not my interpretation equal to yours, that is Mendaliv's scholarly source in the University of Chicago Law Review article with that interpretation. Insular Cases are good law to distinguish territories from states for application of the Uniformity Clause in questions of revenue. They are irrelevant to determining inclusion of the modern era territories as a part of the US. Do you have another sourced interpretation of Downes?

Territories may not be a part of the US as possessions or under presidentially appointed governors, military or civilian. But when they are as territories at ratification in the Northwest Territories, the standard of Downes, then they are incorporated as were the territories at ratification. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 20:38, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

The Louisiana Territory was incorporated into the United States July 4, 1805, under "An act further providing for the Government of the district of Louisiana,” passed March 3, 1805. Also, since all the areas in the territory have since become states (I can cite the dates and legislation), there is no question that today they are incorporated into the United States. Could you please provide the date and legislation that incorporated any of the existing inhabited territories into the U.S. TFD (talk) 21:37, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

@TFD you cite no source for the territory is incorporated at treaty. WP cannot be a source for WP. We both agree to the authority of Downes v. Bidwell. It says otherwise --- in good history consistent with American historiography by scholars previously cited. Eventual statehood does not make territorial incorporation before the fact, another chronological non-sequitur error on your part.

• "Weighing the provisions just quoted, it is evident they refute the theory of incorporation arising at once from the mere force of a treaty... Mark the language. It expresses a promise: 'The inhabitants of the ceded territory shall be incorporated in the Union of the US . . . .'to be executed only 'as soon as possible according to the principles of the Federal Constitution... The clauses of the [Louisiana Purchase] treaty, fails to disclose any reference to a promise of statehood, and hence it can only be that the pledges made referred to incorporation into the US." [inhabitants in a territory may be incorporated into the US without statehood.]

• "An act was approved on October 31, 1803 (2 Stat. at L. 245, chap. 1) 'to enable the President of the US to take possession of the territories ceded by France, and for the temporary government thereof.' The provisions of this act were absolutely incompatible with the conception that the territory had been incorporated into the US by virtue of the cession... At the following session of Congress, on March 2, 1805 (2 Stat. at L. 322, chap. 23), an act was approved, “citizenship was conferred, and the territory of Orleans was incorporated into the US to fulfill the requirements of the treaty, by placing it exactly in the position which it would have occupied had it been within the boundaries of the US as a territory at the time the Constitution was framed.”

This is how it has been done in US constitutional practice for 200 years, as in the case of Louisiana Territory. ** Stage 1. Ratified Treaty brings possession Oct 20, 1803, ** Stage 2. administered by the President Oct 31, 1803, then ** Stage 3. citizenship and territorial self government had it been within the US "at the time the Constitution was framed" (Downes), the "legacy of the Northwest Territory" in preparation for statehood (Sparrow), --- makes "the territory of Orleans incorporated into the United States", Mar 2, 1805. ** First part of Louisiana Territory admitted to statehood as Louisiana Apr 30, 1812.

Incorporation of each modern territory is found following the constitutional practice of the US in the Congressional organic act for each territory with voluntary citizenship, self-government and a Member of Congress as though "it had been within the US at the time the Constitution was framed." (Downes), as previously provided for each modern territory. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:08, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

The Orleans Territory was incorporated into the United States March 2, 1805, under "An Act further providing for the government of the territory of Orleans,” (2 Stat. at L. 322, chap. 23). Could you please provide the date and legislation that incorporated any of the existing inhabited territories into the U.S. (I do not know why you think this act incorporated Orleans while "An act further providing for the Government of the district of Louisiana" passed the following day did not incorporate Lousiana.) TFD (talk) 17:01, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree that an Act of Congress can incorporate Orleans district of Louisiana Territory by further "providing for the self-government of the territory" without expressly using the word "incorporate" as found in judicial proceedings without statutory precedent in 1901 or subsequently in four additional territories admitted as states: AZ, NM, AK, HI. --- I am again saddened to read Louisiana Territory organic act is to be akin to the Northwest Ordinance, but as Mississippi Territory admitting slavery. Though if smuggled without prior domestic US ownership, the kidnapped of international slave trade were to be immediately freed as French law provided.

So we are looking for an act "providing for the Government of the Territory of [name]", a congressional organic act for each of five organized territories with the elements of the Northwest Ordinance, as Congress directs. All will not have the 1787 Articles Congress requirement for three years' residence in a state prior to territorial voting, (except French populations ** voluntarily Virginia citizens, ** electing delegates to the Virginia Assembly before territorial cession to USG). Congress grants more rights and privileges to modern era territories than to the 'incorporated' territories of history. Very well, dates to follow. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 20:08, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

“Participation in national councils” in the “legacy of the Northwest Territory” requires a non-voting territorial Member of Congress. The closest to one-stop-shopping I could find in primary sources to nail down a date for four territories included in the US federal republic is TITLE 48—TERRITORIES AND INSULAR POSSESSIONS CHAPTER 16—DELEGATES TO CONGRESS, p. 169. Subchapter I. Guam and Virgin Islands, 1972. Subchapter II. American Samoa. 1978. Subchapter III. Northern Mariana Islands. 2008.

The fifth, Puerto Rico is complicated. I rely on a scholary source for the “legacy” preparation for statehood. It could not be before 1947, when Congress provided for the popular election of Puerto Rico’s governor. R. Sam Garrett at the Congressional Research Service Political Status of Puerto Rico 2011 said, “In 1950, Congress, the President, and the people of Puerto Rico began a process that led to the Puerto Rican constitution, which is in effect today.” (p.9) The Resident Commissioner elected in a Puerto Rican constitution by consent would be dated from 1952. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 15:59, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

@ Golbez Since 18 January, you have had, U.S. Dept. of State “Foreign Affairs Manual” Vol. 7 Consular Affairs 1121.4 Laws Governing Status of Persons Born in Outlying Possessions 1121.4-2. Under the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (p.5) Under the INA (effective December 24, 1952 to present), the definition of: (1) "United States," for nationality purposes, was expanded to add Guam; and, effective November 3, 1986, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (in addition to Puerto Rico and US Virgin Islands). Persons born in these territories on or after December 24, 1952 acquire U.S. citizenship at birth on the same terms as persons born in other parts of the US; and

(2) "Outlying possessions of the United States" was restricted to American Samoa and Swains Island. U.S. citizenship could be acquired by birth in outlying possessions of parents, one of whom is a citizen of the US physically present in the US or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year at any time prior to the birth of such person. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:48, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

This is not an affirmative statement from a higher court, the Congress, the UN Ambassador, or the high executive (from the President or a cabinet member); it does not satisfy my requirements. Please answer yes or no to if such a statement exists and, if yes, supply a source. It is a definition in a law for "nationality purposes". And seeing how you earlier said the District of Columbia was not part of the country until 1971, yet people born there since even before the foundation of the nation were U.S. nationals, your argument a few hours ago was apparently that you can grant nationality to a region without it being part of the country. --Golbez (talk) 16:58, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

[insert] This is the affirmative statement you requested, the sourced, direct quotes and links from 7 FAM 1121 reiterate an affirmative statement from the Congress, not only via the INA direct link provided to Congress earlier as you requested, but --- lest you and I disagree in our unsourced interpretations of a primary source, as WP frowns on editor synthesis and original research --- we have access to a WP preferred, secondary government source.

The “Foreign Affairs Manual” is a secondary government source vetted by State Department lawyers and used by the foreign service in USG international relations everywhere in the world to interpret Congressional INA statutes. You have no counter-source, only unsourced assertions. Northern Marianas, Guam, US Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico are a part of the US; American Samoa is the last overseas territory, with resident US citizens, their children and US nationals by birthright, in self-government with Member of Congress. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 20:22, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

A very useful document, yes, but, unless I'm missing something in my quick read, one that never states that the inhabited territories are part of the country. Surely an affirmative source exists? Somewhere? Of a president, the Congress, a higher court, a UN ambassador, or a cabinet member saying affirmatively and unequivocally that the inhabited territories are part of the country? "Puerto Rico is part of our country", perhaps, from a president? If so, please supply it. If not, then, well, you should consider why one doesn't exist.

Interestingly, the document does specify one territory as having been incorporated: Guam. (7 FAM 1124.1b) This warrants further examination but does not have any bearing on the other four inhabited territories. So my request remains. --Golbez (talk) 20:51, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

[late insert]. That is an interesting observation about Guam. TITLE 48—TERRITORIES AND INSULAR POSSESSIONS, Chapter 8A - Guam, section 1421a (p. 95) explicitly contradicts this: Guam is declared to be an unincorporated territory of the United States and the capital and seat of government thereof shall be located at the city of Agana, Guam. The only other territory explicitly declared to be unincorporated in Title 48 is the Virgin Islands (section 1541(a) p. 133). older ≠ wiser 13:46, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Which is an excellent example of why I wanted to avoid the discussion being "incorporated or unincorporated", I wanted it to be "part of the country or not part of the country."

[insert] I'm not sure what you want in the President's speech, only his speech-writer puts words in his mouth. What are you asking of me? Your request is answered, five territories are a part of the US. Here's another source. "Today, the US includes the territories of Guam, American Samoa, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and the commonwealths of the Northern Mariana Islands and Puerto Rico." Welcome to the US: a guide for new immigrants 2007, p.7, 101. Published by the US Government Printing Office, Department of Homeland Security. A pamphlet it may be, but it is vetted by federal lawyers for government use among people who are lawyered up, and it beats the unsourced global references to digests of sentence fragments without article titles, editions or page numbers put forth by those who would discount it. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 06:24, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

It's quite simple: I want an affirmative statement from after the insular cases from the high executive, the Congress, a higher court, or a UN ambassador stating that the inhabited territories are part of the country. If it comes out of the president's mouth or hand, that's good enough for me. My point in specifying high cabinet is that we don't rely on pamphlets written by underlings, because those can be easily challenged with sources from other underlings like the World Factbook or what not. I don't care if it's vetted by government lawyers, obviously, considering my requirements. Government lawyers also vetted waterboarding as not being torture, so, yeah, no. This is for your protection, not mine. I want you to have the strongest possible argument before we move on with this so that it cannot be disputed. Unfortunately it's becoming more and more clear that such an affirmative statement does not exist. --Golbez (talk) 13:19, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

And there are interesting history lessons in the Insular Cases -- good law for tax and revenue discrimination in the territories, superseded in their observation islander aliens were not US citizens. Downes says, 'US territories are "a part of the US". "‘Throughout the United States’, Does this term designate the whole, or any particular portion of the American empire? Certainly this question can admit but of one answer. It is the name given to our great Republic which is composed of states and territories." This insight of 1901 is confirmed by scholar Bartolomew Sparrow in 2005, Today the US includes territories in the Pacific and the Caribbean, DC and the 50 states. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 06:46, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Unless these Downes and Sparrow people have the authority to annex land into the United States, their opinion is worthless in this situation. --Golbez (talk) 13:19, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Can you find a source that says providing a non-voting delegate for American Samoa had the effect of incorporating that territory into the United States. Does the territory in any way celebrate that event? Why does the Citizenship Clause of the U.S. constitution not apply to that territory? TFD (talk) 17:00, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Does this mean you accept this article's including into the US the N. Marianas, Guam, US Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico; if not, on what sourced grounds? Can you find a source to say the Samoan Member of Congress excludes Am. Samoa from the US? At Flag Day you can see the two-day celebration Samoans make of their unique status as a part of the US.

The incorporating effect for Samoa is as though a territory were "at ratification" according to Downes, American Samoa meets the criteria. This is never all-of-a-piece as in abstract imagination, but in sequential amendments. Member of Congress, resident US citizenship with a path for nationals to citizenship, and self-government, all meet the requirement. Do you have a source that republican government on US model excludes Samoa from the US federal republic?

Incorporated territories are not states until admitted as states in US constitutional practice. Clauses of the constitution applied to states-only do not apply to incorporated territories until they are made states. Therefore there are constitutional provisions that do not apply to incorporated territories. The islanders have not chosen US citizenship because they continue (a) property ownership by tribes in heritage regions excluding US citizens by heredity, and (b) territorial legislature is a mixed apportionment --- including tribes allocated seats apart from "one man-one vote" required under the US constitution. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 19:59, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Flag Day was held April 17, 2012 "to commemorate the 112th anniversary of the raising of the United States flag on Samoan soil", not to celebrate incorporation into the U.S., which you claim was executed by the 1978 amendment allowing their Delegate to sit in Congress.

You cannot say that the 1978 amendment fulfilled the requirement set out in the 1901 case without a reliable source that supports your conclusion. I cannot find the sentence or paragraph in the case where this rule is explained - could you please point it out.

The Citizenship Clause regarding U.S. citizenship applies to the entire United States not just states.

I chose American Samoa as an example because it provides a perfect example where the U.S. constitution does not apply in full and no legislation has been enacted to provide the same right of citizenship as has been done for the other unicorporated territories. That does not mean the other territories are incorporated.

TFD (talk) 05:02, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

[Insert] You are a treasure. If a place does not celebrate to your satisfaction, they can not be incorporated into the Union? You can party any way you want to, but don’t hold your breath. Vicksburg did not celebrate 4th of July anniversary at the surrender of their city in 1863 for a century. Was not Tennessee incorporated into the Union, 1863-1963, with or without our TFDs celebration of choice taking place? Cheers. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:14, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

You falsely claimed that American Samoa celebrated their incorporation into the U.S. TFD (talk) 11:29, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Way too harsh. You asked does Southern Marianas Samoa celebrate becoming American Samoa, a part of the US? I answer how they do. They celebrate Flag Day for two days each year, calling themselves American, a part of the US. You may say that it is false, but it is so, as careful examination of the Samoan government site provided will show. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:50, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

American Samoa did not become part of the U.S. April 17, 1900, according to Downes v. Bidwell 1901. TFD (talk) 12:02, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)You're right, a careful examination does show unincorporation. "later generations of Samoans never sought to change the unorganized, unincorporated status...If we have been left unorganized and unincorporated for 112 years, I ask you, are you happy with that? Is that a political status that you would like your children to grow up in?" CMD (talk) 12:03, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

The sources are all provided with proper citations, direct quotes and links. The US constitution applies in full to states, not territories. You astutely observe that territories are not states in some wonderment. Territories have never had state-only constitutional privileges, people there only obtain them on admission as states. Territories prepare for the event with citizenship, juries, self-government and Member of Congress. Denying that Northwest Territory legacy until the late 20th century was shameful injustice.

In the case of the Louisiana Territory, the Treaty read, 'The inhabitants of the ceded territory shall be incorporated in the Union of the US', the Court said, “citizenship was conferred, and the territory of Orleans was incorporated into the US.” Downes v. Bidwell. Later, in re Ross, 140 U.S. 453, 464 -465, 480. 18, "The inhabitants of the ceded territory . . . shall be admitted to the enjoyment of all the rights, advantages, and immunities of citizens of the United States;" This declaration … is the equivalent, as pointed out in Downes v. Bidwell, of the formula, employed from the beginning to express the purpose to incorporate acquired territory into the US… [Note 6] Here we see that the act of incorporation is on the people of the territory, not on the territory per se, by extending the privileges and immunities clause of the Constitution to them.”

Under the Immigration and Naturalization Act, persons born in Northern Marianas, Guam, US Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico “acquire US citizenship on the same terms as persons born in other parts of the US”. “Foreign Affairs Manual” Vol. 7 Consular Affairs, p.5. You say something without a source, then you say I have no source, but there is my source, and you still have none. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 06:13, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

No. "[The insular cases] held that all provisions of the Constitution apply of their own force to territory that is "incorporated" into the United States but that only "fundamental" provisions apply of their own force to unincorporated territories." (Sparrow, p. 35) Now please tell me where in Downes it says that recognizing a Delegate from a territory incorporates it into the republic or present a source that says American Samoa was incorporated in 1978. TFD (talk) 07:19, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Page 35 of the book cited (Levinson and Sparrow 2005) is in the middle of “The first incorporation debate” chapter by Gary Lawson and Guy Seidman, the same Lawson of the Lawson and Sloane article (2009) I have quoted to advantage previously. On page 36 of your reference, it says, “the doctrine of the Insular Cases simply makes no sense.” Do we really want to go there?

Lawson and Siedman (2005) explain that the Insular Cases observed In 1901 islanders "were 'alien races, differing from us in customs, religion and laws" (p.36). But they are no longer "alien" on any of these counts. The Insular Cases simply showed the case in 1901, non-citizens are aliens to the nation, not a part of it. OR (a) Did you mean to take "alien" in the Insular Cases as unchanging racial identity into the 21st century after US citizenship, customs and laws have been mirrored, internalized and practiced for half-a-century? OR (b) Did you have a religious test in mind for the former Spanish colonies once holding an official Catholic state religion a century ago? Is not religion freely chosen in each generation by US custom? Did the Insular Cases say by constitutional law no islander can change his religion evermore without "express" consent of Congress in your view?

In Downes we have “citizenship was conferred, and the territory of Orleans was incorporated into the US to fulfill the requirements of the treaty, by placing it exactly in the position which it would have occupied had it been within the boundaries of the US as a territory at the time the Constitution was framed.” Downes v. Bidwell.

Exactly as within the Northwest Territory of 1789 meant as in Samoa and four other incorporated territories with US citizens today, (a) fundamental rights but not those yet granted by Congress, (b) a population mix of citizenship and non-citizen nationals, (c) a three-branch form of government, (d) a non-voting Member of Congress. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:34, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

You said the incorporation of American Samoa into the U.S. was executed in 1978 by providing for a territorial Delegate to sit in Congress. Now please provide a source that supports your claim. TFD (talk) 14:47, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

What about the national atlas? That's a reliable source. Specifically, Guam is stated as a territory of the United States by the United States Navy.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:52, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

No one questions that Guam is a territory of the United States. The question is whether it is "unincorporated", as the atlas says, or part of the U.S., as TheVirginiaHistorian claims. TFD (talk) 00:59, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Well I think my views regarding this have been stated before, and can be found in the archive, however it is my view that "part of the United States" is ambiguous depending on the context. As we have seen in past discussions U.S. law treats territories differently in different context, and as such the definition of what is the United States also needs to ambiguous. For instance when it comes to another country attacking Puerto Rico or Guam it is an attack on the United States, however at the Olympics Puerto Rico and Guam are different competing nations.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:07, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

The IOC also gives Hong Kong its own Olympic team, and it is unambiguously part of China. On the other hand, the Isle of Man does not have its own Olympic team, which is unambiguously not part of the UK. Their rules are based on many things other than present geopolitics. --Golbez (talk) 13:24, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I am sure that an attack on one of the associated states, such as Palau, for which the U.S. has sole reponsibility for security and recruits citizens into the U.S. military, would also be seen as an attack on the U.S. Attacks on the allies, such as Canada, or violation of the Monroe doctrine would probably be seen the same way. The unincorporated territories differ from territories inside the U.S. because where the U.S. constitution uses the term "United States" it does not apply to them. It depends on how one defines the U.S. Is it a federal republic or is it the sum of all the territories under government control, i.e., the "American Empire?" TFD (talk) 05:29, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

"A part of the US" is related to US citizenship in a US organized state, district or territory. Downes v. Bidwell: “If immediately upon annexation citizens, their children, “savages or civilized” would have all rights of citizens, the consequences will be “extremely serious”. “It is doubtful if Congress would ever assent to the annexation of territory” conditional on immediate citizenship to aliens. In all these cases there is “an implied denial of the inhabitants to American citizenship until Congress by further action shall signify its assent thereto.” Therefore Puerto Rico in 1901 was unincorporated, though to be organized, and their alien children, “savages or civilized”, were NOT to be citizens UNTIL congress expressly gave them nationality in the US.

Congress expressly HAS made them so, as incorporation is of persons not places, not in possession but in preparation for statehood. That is the same standard of “incorporation” for Territories from Louisiana to Alaska. Puerto Ricans have agreed to voluntary citizenship since 1950s, established an organized US territory with self-government and elected a Member of Congress "exactly in the position" as a Northwest Territory at Constitutional ratification. Likewise with all modern era US territories, they are incorporated into the federal republic and a part of the US. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:05, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

So if it's so obviously then surely you can give me a source as requested. --Golbez (talk) 13:24, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Completed as requested. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:50, 18 April 2013 (UTC)