Talk:United States/Archive 50

Archive 45

←

Archive 48

Archive 49

Archive 50

Archive 51

Archive 52

→

Archive 55

Reader feedback: The math is wrong on the pop...

68.47.12.152 posted this comment on 27 April 2013 (view all feedback).

The math is wrong on the population density. Using the given #s, should be 83 per sq mile, not 88.

How should the population density be calculated? Pseudonymous Rex (talk) 16:56, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

When you calculate the density by total area, yes, it comes out to ~83. When you do it by land area alone, however, it comes out to ~88. Do we need to specify that the density is only of the land area, or can most readers assume it to be so? --Golbez (talk) 17:05, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

If the population density is figured using only land area, it should say that. Pseudonymous Rex (talk) 18:22, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

...or perhaps it should be figured using total area, and it should say that, then. Pseudonymous Rex (talk) 20:24, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Muslim terroism

Any objections to adding a section on Muslim terrorism in the United States? Here is source: Islamic Terror Attacks on American Soil Cmguy777 (talk) 03:06, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

That is not an acceptable source. TFD (talk) 03:45, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

That, and there's no reason to dedicate any real estate in this article to the matter. Also, I can see one blatant factual error in the article that undermines premise, as I can list at least one other person killed by an American in direct "retaliation" (due to a mistaken belief that he was a Muslim) for 9/11, Balbir Singh Sodhi. --Golbez (talk) 03:52, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Why is there no reason when infact America is continually being attacked by Muslim terrorists? The largest terrorist attack to take place in the United States was caused by Muslim terrorists. I believe this issue deserves a separate section. Wikipedia needs to keep in step with the times, especially in light of the two Muslim terrorists (one suspect) attacking at the Boston Marathon. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:53, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Here is another source: The New York Post Facing terror facts Cmguy777 (talk) 04:59, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Homeland Security is now mentioned under the 'Military' section. Should the Military section be renamed "National Security" with an additional paragraph on terrorist threats, foreign and domestic? I'm not sure I can agree to any such thing as "Muslim terrorism". Muslim neighbors have lost family members to terrorists, the second generation now join the armed services. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 06:20, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Virginia Historian. I think Homeland security is best. I believe that the attacks by Muslim terrorists needs to be mentioned in the article in terms of an overall strategy to defeat the United States. This is an ongoing issue. The Muslim terrorists have not gone away. Yes. Wasn't a Muslim in the armed forces when he killed people at a Texas miltary base? We have to stop being politically correct, in my opinion. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:16, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Your second source isn't about Muslim terrorism. It's about Jihadist terrorism. Also, citation needed on an "overall strategy". Really, Americans are a far larger threat against Muslims than Muslims are a threat against Americans. --Golbez (talk) 18:05, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Jihad is defined as the religious duty of Muslims. Please do not go beyond the scope of this discussion. I am not denying that the United States attacked Iraq and waged a "shock and awe" undeclared war for eight years from 2003 to 2011, if that is what you are refering too. I am refering to Muslim terrorist attacks within the United States. As far as I know there have been no Iraqi Suni Muslim terrorist attacks within the United States. Muslim terrorist attacks started in the 1970's and have been continuing today. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:27, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Yet your second source explicitly says that the vast majority of Muslims have and want nothing to do with this. So it is not a valid source to claim "Muslim terrorism." If you would like to specify radical elements, that's fine, but you've kind of gone out of your way to avoid narrowing your very broad statement of "Muslim terrorism," as if all 1.5 billion Muslims were out to get us. (and, actually, I was primarily referring to the terror hundreds of Pakistanis experience daily when they hear the signature buzz of an American drone fly over their towns.) --Golbez (talk) 20:09, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

The terrorist attacks by extremist muslim jihadists is already mentioned in the history section of this article. There is a place on Wikipedia for content about Islamists and/or jihandists but this article IMHO is not the place. Not everything that intersects the United States needs a section on this article. We have wikilinks for a reason.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:44, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

On balance, agreed with Golbez and RCLC, a link will suffice; would like topic change from "Military' to "National security", though. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 00:01, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

The New York Post article stated the United States currently is a target by the Jihad Muslims. The Boston bombings is a demonstration of this Jihad Muslim attack. Stating Muslim terrorism is not stating that all Muslims commit or sponsor terrorism. The United States has been attacked by Muslim Jihadist since the 1970's and has not stopped since there remain Muslim Jihadist out their to attack us. As for Pakistan, their government and people harbor muslim terrorists, including Osama Bin Laden. The Pakistan Muslims are not innocent in terms of sponsoring terrorism against U.S. troops. I believe the New York Article and any reliable source that states when Muslim terrorism began and that United States and Europe is on the target list for militant muslim Jihadists. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:11, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

The Post story is an opinion piece, hence not rs for facts. TFD (talk) 01:26, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. The Boston bombings are not an opinion piece, but a very real Muslim terrorism, with body parts being exploded, over 200 injuries, and 4 deaths. Wikipedia should not be apologetic for Muslim terrorism. That is POV. The Post article states that the US and Europe are being targeted by Muslim terrorists. TFD you have a double standard. You state the US is a federal republic on concensus of opinion, then you state that the New York Post article is opinion and can't be used in the article. Can you explain this contradiction? Cmguy777 (talk) 06:37, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

See "News organizations": "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces...are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact." "Facing terror facts" is an opinion piece by a columnist, Benny Avni,[1] Neutral point of view however allows us to report consensus opinions in articles. If you disagree with these policies, then you should argue about them on the policy pages, rather than here. TFD (talk) 14:32, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

The New York Post's article is supported by the Congressional Record in 2006. The Congressional investigation stated that Europe and the United States were targets by self radicalized Jihadists. Please refer to this source: Congressional Record Cmguy777 (talk) 16:30, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

That is irrelevant. It is not the role of Wikipedia editors to fact check sources. Instead we use sources that are already fact-checked, hence the policy of using reliable sources. If you disagree with that then discuss it on the policy pages. TFD (talk) 16:43, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

The situation may be relevant enough to merit a set of nationally funded, real-time observation cameras to be temporarily put in place at each olympics-sanctioned marathon (all NYC bridges are already covered).--- According to the NYC chief of police on the upcoming New York City marathon as aired on Charlie Rose. But it does not seem to me that the subject should be treated in the 'sports' subsection of 'culture'. Rather as Golbez and RightCowLeftCoast say, it merits a link in Military/national security to a more expansive article on terrorism, foreign and domestic. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:03, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure how we would word a link without affording it undue importance. And TVH, I'm not accusing you of anything here, but I checked my edits above and I don't see myself endorsing a link of any type. Where did I do that? I could be missing it and I don't remember every edit I make but I'm not seeing it. --Golbez (talk) 13:35, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

[insert] (a) One editor said domestic terrorism did not merit a separate section in the US country article, to that I agree. (b) Another said a possible way of accommodating CmGuy777s interest in US domestic terrorism for this article might be referenced in a link, to that I agree. Or (c) alternatively 'See also" - ? - It seems to me significant and meaningful, but it does NOT rise to the wp:significance level as a part of the US cultural and political landscape as terrorism in Northern Ireland during the "troubled times". You seem to be in a 'take no prisoners' mode, I've seen better from you. You can figure out how to edit collegially. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 20:05, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

OK, not sure how that's a response to my request for you to justify me saying that I said it merited a link, but, okay? Welcome back, I guess? As for collegial, you can learn to provide a source of me saying something when I don't recall doing it (and, I point out, going out of my way to indicate I could be wrong and giving you the chance to back it up), because when I ask for it and you avoid providing it and insult me at the same time, it comes across as you avoiding being caught in a lie, and that is very uncollegial. --Golbez (talk) 03:51, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

[insert] begin Dft.2. (a) One editor Golbez said domestic terrorism did not merit a separate section in the US country article, to that I agree. (b) Another Rightcowleftcoast said a possible way of accommodating CmGuy777s interest in US domestic terrorism for this article might be referenced in a link, to that I agree. Or (c) alternatively 'See also" - ? end.Drft.2 --- I gotta work on writing to my audience. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:08, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Golbez. There was a recent Frontline television article on Global Terrorism and how the United States set up secret sites around the country to monitor terrorist activity. There is controversy on how effective these anti terrorist networks are since obviously this did not stop the Boston Bombings. However, the CIA and FBI and the Department of Defense are actively keeping track of terrorist activities within the United States. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:17, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

That's nice. What does that have to do with this discussion? --Golbez (talk) 03:47, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

The sights were set up by the Department of Defense 911 to counteract Muslim terrism. That means the U.S. is keeping track of Muslim terrorist cells. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:41, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

See, you didn't specify "Muslim" in your previous paragraph, so it seemed to have no bearing on this discussion. And of course they're keeping track of terrorist cells, Muslim or otherwise. There's no point being made here. --Golbez (talk) 12:44, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Desourcing the lead

Per WP:LEAD, emphasis mine: "The verifiability policy advises that material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and quotations, should be supported by an inline citation. Because the lead will usually repeat information that is in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material. Leads are usually written at a greater level of generality than the body, and information in the lead section of non-controversial subjects is less likely to be challenged and less likely to require a source."

Our lead is extremely oversourced. For example, we do not need two citations that the country is a federal republic in the first sentence. First of all, this should be wholly uncontroversial, and second of all, it is not immediate enough in scope that it requires sourcing outside of the government section. That manifest destiny existed is uncontroversial. That the Civil War ended slavery is uncontroversial. Most of the sources in the lead could easily be removed and/or moved to the article text where they belong, if they aren't there already. I would like input from others before I go on a drastic pruning. --Golbez (talk) 16:22, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

The reason for the sourcing in the lead is due to WP:CITELEAD, due to the contention that has occurred over the past couple months over the lead, this is the reason for the need for citations. I understand that it does make it appear a little more cluttered.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:55, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

We have a dispute resolution with eight editors accepting some form of "including territories" across three venues over six months, versus three who have not at some time accepted the sources provided to include territories as a part of the US.

Unsourced editors persist in pushing a POV to exclude territories from the US --- contrary to reliable documentation by secondary government and scholarly sources to include territories by nationality, geographically, politically and constitutionally in the US.

The source in the agreed to introductory statement, that is, the US includes "50 states, a federal district and territories" must be maintained per WP policy since it is challenged. Any one of the four facets would be sufficient for the introductory paragraph describing the geographic extent of the US, but unsourced resistance continues. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 00:05, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Everything isn't about you, champ. I'm not talking about things that we're arguing about or that are controversial; I'm suggesting removing/moving to the body of the article sources for things like "The Civil War happened!" Stop trying to make everything about your pet cause; it's tiresome and immature. --Golbez (talk) 00:18, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Is the United States a Federal Republic? The Constitution states that the United States is a union of people. "We the people in order to form a more perfect union." Does the Constitution state that the United States is a Federal Republic? Cmguy777 (talk) 00:51, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

No it does not. But it is the consensus opinion, that it is both a federation and a republic. TFD (talk) 01:12, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Since the Constitution is the legal document that authorizes the United States, should not that have precedence over consensus of opinion? Cmguy777 (talk) 05:59, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

No. It is apparent from a basic reading of the constitution what they are describing. TFD (talk) 06:18, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

The term federal and republic have been used after the Constitution was written. I agree that there is a concensus of opinion that the US is a federal republic. However, why not put the constitutional definition into the article that the US is a Union of the People? Cmguy777 (talk) 06:42, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

The aim is to make an easy to understand lead using common terms as much as possible, and using wording which can achieve a WP:CONSENSUS. "Union of the People" is not a term normally used anywhere at all, and is not the "definition" in the US Constitution (nor even found in it), making it a non-starter. Collect (talk) 06:59, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

It is a union of states (i.e., a federation), not people. TFD (talk) 14:09, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Here are the sources I think can be absolutely unambiguously removed from the intro (I won't use numbers because I suspect a source will be removed from the lede in a few hours):

• It is one of the world's most ethnically diverse and multicultural nations, the product of large-scale immigration from many countries.[13] (This can absolutely be backed up by the demographics section)
• Driven by the doctrine of manifest destiny, the United States embarked on a vigorous expansion across North America throughout the 19th century.[16] (Don't think anyone disputes this)
• This involved displacing native tribes, acquiring new territories, and gradually admitting new states.[16] (This is objectively true, though perhaps the sourcing is for the wording of "displacing"?)
• The American Civil War ended legalized slavery in the United States.[17] (Absolutely no dispute.)
• By the end of the nineteenth century, the United States extended into the Pacific Ocean,[18] and its economy was the world's largest.[19] (18 definitely needs no source. 19 might be necessary but it would be nice if it could be moved to the History section.)
• The United States is a developed country and has the world's largest national economy, with an estimated 2012 GDP of $15.6 trillion – 19% of global GDP at purchasing-power parity, as of 2011.[6][20][21] (Why do we have three sources for a simple number that should be handled in the Economy section?)
• The per capita GDP of the U.S. was the world's sixth-highest as of 2010,[6] (Same, this is a simple figure that could be handled in the Economy section.)
• although America's wealth inequality was also ranked highest among OECD countries by the World Bank.[22] (Same, though now we're getting into "what? I don't believe that!" territory that makes people want immediate sourcing)
• The economy is fueled by an abundance of natural resources, a well-developed infrastructure,[23] and high productivity;[24] and while its economy is considered post-industrial it continues to be one of the world's largest manufacturers.[25] (Three sources for one sentence that should be handled in Economy)
• The country accounts for 39% of global military spending,[26] (Not terribly controversial, should be moved to Military)

So of the above sources (Any I didn't mention I think either should be there, or are not as cut and dry), some have no reason to exist at all (the Civil War one), and some (the source, not the statement) should be moved to their appropriate section (or, if the information in that section is already properly sourced, removing the source from the intro entirely). If no one complains about the above, I'll start trimming them tomorrow. --Golbez (talk) 13:59, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

[insert] Agree with Golbez administrative project to remove intro citations for commonly known events, such as the American Civil War, which has its own subject title on Wikipedia. Less blue-out. The difficulty arises is that substantive textual editing sometimes occurs, whether intentionally or not, then replacing the omitted phrase leads to misunderstanding and charges of edit war. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:18, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Actually the Civil War is one of the defining points for the US - establishing that the federal govermnet was sovereign over the individual states. Collect (talk) 14:28, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

What does your statement have to do with removing a source in the intro on "The American Civil War ended legalized slavery in the United States."? --Golbez (talk) 18:27, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

No, it did not. Individual states have no right to leave the union, then again the federal government has no right to remove them from the union either. TFD (talk) 14:47, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

The sovereignty of the federal government over the individual states was established in Article 6, Clause 2 of the US Constitution. It can be argued that the Civil War reinforced this or tested this, but it did not establish it. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 18:18, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

No it does not. TFD (talk) 18:21, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

You give no sources, but I know where that is written down so that another might read such an idea. St. George Tucker, an important Virginian jurist in the 17th century wrote "Tucker's Blackstone", free online. His interpretation is clearly explicated and applied to US constitutional practice by Jefferson Davis in his "Short History of the Confederate States of America", free online. However, in this world of how things are today, the legal thought of the Virginians George Wythe and Thomas Jefferson have carried the day, and that is what should be used for this article.

By persuasion and jurisprudence, by votes then by arms, now again by votes, the United States is a government of the people in a federal republic. The people of the nation are sovereign, those people live in States subject to Congress and the US Constitution with self-government in states and territories, made by Congress of territory granted by kings, purchased, and conquered, from existing States ceding territory and dividing themselves, as the sovereign American people decide. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:00, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Could you please explain what your comments have to do with OuroborosCobra's statement, "The sovereignty of the federal government over the individual states was established in Article 6, Clause 2 of the US Constitution." TFD (talk) 16:22, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Ugh, you people have no self control. Why do I even bother. Nothing can ever get accomplished around here because every single section devolves into fighting about an argument from another section. Stop falling for it and it will stop happening. Look at how I responded to Collect's non-sequitur - not with asking him to back it up, not responding to it as if it had substance, but to shut it down by asking how it was at all relevant. Stop spoiling legitimate discussions with your petty, worthless arguments, all of you. Gain some self control and stop taking the bait. --Golbez (talk) 16:24, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I believe that to state the United States is a Federal Republic requires a source for the lede, specifically since the Constitution, the founding and active document of the United States, states the United States is a Union of the People. In other words the Federal Republic derives power from the People. "We the People" should not be casually dismissed from the lede of the article. Maybe one could state the United States is the People's republic. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:18, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

It is [nearly, apparently] uncontroversial. Why does it need a source in the intro when it can get a source in the appropriate Government section? Sources in the intro are only for controversial statements, statements that aren't sourced in the article (which is the sign of a bad intro to begin with), or for BLP statements. 99% of people coming in are not going to challenge that it is a federal republic, therefore it does not need a source in the lede. --Golbez (talk) 16:41, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

A republic, unlike a monarchy, is a "union of the people." And the constitution recognizes states, which must have "republican" forms of government. The constitution btw only provides for representation from states and and states' approval is required to amend the constitution. TFD (talk) 16:50, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Then why didn't the founders state that the United States was a Republic in Constitution? This is why a source is needed in the lede that the United States is a Republic. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:14, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

It does sort of, just like TFD says. States are required to have a republican form of government, in the republic of the United States. It is federal in that national and state governments have spheres of authority assigned to them. With the Civil War and the 14th Amendment, State governments are now restricted by the same constitutional provisions which used to only apply to the national Federal big-gummit.

So either the Constitution replacing the Articles (my choice), or the 14th Amendment, is the end of "States Rights" -- states as independent actors apart from the American people as a nation. But there is still a "dual citizenship" in the nation and in the state, --- so, like Golbez says --- characterizing the US as a federal republic is UNcontroversial --- to the extent its polities have republican forms of self-government.

How is Cmguy77 correct? The people are sovereign, they are the authority for the Constitution. ** The people in the states may call a national convention without Congress. ** The people in Congress may call a national convention, or an amendment process by the people in the states, which at 3/4 ratification, takes effect without further endorsement by President, Congress or the Supreme Court; -- but the courts then sort out how the amendment is to interact with previously passed constitutional amendments in each Circuit. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:00, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

TheVirniniaHistorian is correct. The People decide on making amendments to the Constitution. The People can hold a constitutional convention at any moment in time if the The People of each state agree to hold a Constitutional convention. The word state is interestingly mentioned in the Constitution. The "federal" part of the government is refered to as "Congress". The President is elected by an electorial college even today. There are only current 538 electors that elect the President. That does not sound like much of a Republic when only 538 people choose who will be President. When Bush was elected in 2000, the Supreme Court put him in office with a 5:4 decision. The President in a sense is not part of the Republican system. He is seperate. The Supreme Court is really out of the Republican system. They hold the office for life and are appointed. Congress, itself, could be considered a Republican form of government, but not the President nor the Supreme Court. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:27, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

See Webster's definition of republic.[2] The U.S. conforms with the first definition in every way. It also meets Webster's definition of a federation.[3] Where are you getting your definitions? TFD (talk) 16:47, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate the Webster's definition of a republic The Four Deuces. My reference source is the U.S. constitution. The United States Congress is a Republic since the people can directly vote for officials both Senate and Representatives. Contary to popular opinion, the President is not elected by the people. That is a myth. The President is elected by the electoral college or electors. That falls outside the definition of a Republic. Yes. The President is not a "Monarch" and can be impeached. The Supreme Court is not part of a Republic, even by Webster's definition. The Supreme Court is not elected and has a life time tenor in office. I agree with you in part that the United States is a Republic, but not completely. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:05, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

There is nothing in the definition of a republic that requires direct election of presidents or judges. Of course the courts are part of the country under the definition. And the U.S. constitution does not call Congress a republic. Are these ideas you have developed on your own or is there a website devoted to them? TFD (talk) 19:32, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Republic discussion continued

TFD, I am agreeing with you that Congress is a Republic. My reference source is the U.S. Constitution. I am not making this up on my own. Webster's second definition B states: "a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law". Neither the President nor the Supreme Court is elected by the body of citizens. Currently only 538 electors vote for the President. That is not the People. Of course the Supreme Court is not elected, rather life time tenor. In terms of electing the President the supreme power resides not in the People, but the electors. Presidential campaigns are not planned on the popular vote, rather how to obtain a majority of the 538 electorial votes. The Supreme Court is appointed by the President, not elected by the People. I would state that the United States is a modified Republic where the President is elected by Electorial College, rather then the people, and the Supreme Court is appointed by the President, and approved by the Senate for a life time tenor. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:54, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

[insert] 'Here is a source (2007) on the Electoral College: Encyclopedia of American Political Parties and Elections, page 136. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:34, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

[insert] The source says some would have direct election for president as James Wilson in the Constitutional Convention, but he was outvoted there. The living PEOPLE in each state are represented in the Electoral College based on the state population, NOT manipulated registration, not restricted voter turnout, not inflated numbers from Chicago/Cook County IL tombstones. What is your point? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 20:53, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

The United States is a republic based in the people voting in states, making it a federal republic. Each state government must be have republican forms of governance. All three branches are derived from the authority of the people.

Congress is the First Branch, closest to the PEOPLE. In the House, elected directly by the people by the broadest possible electorate, without religious test when states still had religious test for state officers. The American people once allowed their elected state legislatures to chose Senators, but the American people took that away from all State legislatures for direct election of US Senators in Constitutional Amendment.

The Executive is the Second Branch, second closest elected by the PEOPLE in the states (a) by their elected state legislators electing presidential electors, or (b) by their direct election of presidential electors (b-1) by statewide or (b-2) by statewide and congressional district (once in a dozen States, now Nebraska and Maine).

The Judiciary is the Third Branch, furthest from the people, but derived from the PEOPLE by appointment from their chief magistrate elected by a simple majority from the Electoral College, and confirmed by their elective representatives in states from two-thirds of their elected representatives in the Senate.

All three branches are derived from the consent of the governed. TFD's characterization of the US as a "federal republic" is correct. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 20:30, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate the civics lesson TheVirginiaHistorian, but the political reality is that the People do not vote for the President nor the Supreme Court Justices. The Presidential elections are derived from swing states. In the last election (2012) these swing states were dominated by each candidate, particularly Ohio and Florida. The People can't overturn any Supreme court decision, except through an amendment to the Constitution. I suppose that the Amendment process could be a potential validation for calling the United States a Republic. In my view, however, the current condition of the United States is not a complete Republic. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:53, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

[insert] The outcome of the civics lesson is that the US is a republic. You do not like the outcomes of the federal system electing a president from results in some states voting for the same party in a predictable pattern. But that pattern must be left for the people to decide in their political parties. You would bring about direct election of president as a democratic feature in the republic, but that does not alter the republican nature of the nation-state, it is governed by laws of Congress in a scheme of representation.

If you would like the diversity of the nation more uncertainly expressed in presidential elections, the answer for your state is the District Plan of presidential electors. In 2008, Obama won the Omaha City electoral vote, McCain took out-state districts and the state at-large electoral vote for a outcome of 1-4 in Nebraska.

Without state apportionment by population, the most important element in an election is turnout, dead or alive. The greatest turnouts are in the port cities, so I guess I should be for that, Virginia’s Hampton Roads has more shipping than New York or Chicago. But without state electoral or congressional district communities, organization in that narrow geographic and economic interest will determine the president versus your swing states. Longshoremen and teachers versus farm co-ops and the NRA? I think I prefer the American political party system with both trying to forge a national consensus for election day victory across the entire continent versus which is for more docks and deeper navigation channels --- as a political reality. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:55, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

How about adding this to the lede: "The People have the power to amend the U.S. Constitution." Cmguy777 (talk) 21:02, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

To the lede? Why? How is this remotely important enough that it belongs outside of the government section? --Golbez (talk) 03:52, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Wow. Once we identify the US as a "federal republic", we do not have to say it can self-change its constitutions. It is in the nature of a federal republic to change its constitutions by the living people, since it is not restrained by the dead hand of the past, tradition, common law, what-have-you. That is the point of describing the US federal republic as it is today, 50 states, DC and the self-governing territories. --- Thank you, Golbez, for taking this article project on. Your critique in 'a review of the historical sections' below here at Talk is a good place to start a broader discussion. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:07, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

"DC and the self-governing territories" play no role in amending the constitution. TFD (talk) 08:16, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

You have agreed territories which are not states have been and can be in the US federal republic before becoming states. Amending the Constitution requires in part, 2/3 of the House. DC and territory Members have full debate privileges on the floor and voting privileges in their committees. They play the role of territory delegations in amending the constitution.

Bills in the House begin from the floor and go to committee, where DC and territorial Members of Congress vote on them in substance and procedurally to report to the floor. On the floor, DC and territory Members participate in the national councils, in floor debate --- as territory delegations, but not as states. You keep saying that since territory delegations are not state delegations, they are NOT there -- nonsense -- they ARE there, not as state delegations, but as territory delegations. Which you admit, you just refuse to allow it to be written on Wikipedia. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:27, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Why is the United States a federal republic? I believe that needs to be in the lede. TFD has a signifgant view. Territories do not have representation in Congress. That is not a Republic. The President being elected by an independant electoral college is not a Republic. The Supreme Court being appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate having life time tenor is not a Republic. I believe Congress and state governments are part of the Republic. The CIA, FBI, and Pentagon are not accountable to the public. The Department of Defense has secret intelligence angencies througout the United States outside the control of the people. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:52, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Territories do not have representation in Congress. --- Wrong. At the US House website The House explained, we see DC and territory Members of Congress “possess the same powers as other members of the House, except that they may not vote when the House is meeting as the House of Representatives.”, so that includes privileges of floor debate, -- as all US territories before them -- and additionally, the modern territories have voting in House committees, in conference committees with the Senate, and in their House Party Caucus. Each makes two appointments each year to the four service academies. The Puerto Rican Congressman is on the Judiciary Committee which would be one of those considering any Constitutional Amendment.

DC and territory Members of Congress are found at the Directory of Representatives in alphabetic order at their .gov websites. (1) District’s Norton, (2) Guam’s Bordallo, (3) Northern Mariana’s Sablan, (4) Puerto Rico’s Pierluisi, (5) Samoa’s Faleomavaega, (6) Virgin Islands’ Christensen. Territories do have representation in Congress, not as states, as territories. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:44, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Cmguy777, where are you getting your definition of a republic? All the Webster's definition says is that it is not a monarchy. The president and other officials need not be directly elected. TFD (talk) 11:33, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

In my opinion Webster's dictionary is not a historical source. The definition of a Republic is very basic. If you can't vote in the House on any bills then you are not actually representing any territory or district. I keep repeating myself. Congress is a Republic. Remember, the Constitution States the People are a Union. We the People. The Constitution does not state, We the People of the Republic of the United States. Just because the U.S. in not a monarchy, even allowing the fact the Supreme Court is a life long tenor, that does not mean all of the U.S. government is a Republic. What about the CIA, the FBI, the Secret Intelligence Service of the Department of Defense. Then there is the Pentagon. None of these entities is under the power of the People. Then there is slavery. How could the United States have been a Republic when slavery was widespread? Defining a nation as a Republic is a complicated issue and I believe the definition of a Republic needs to be expanded in the lede. Part of the United States is a Republic. I believe there needs to be a reliable book source with an inclusive definition of what a Republic is. Cmguy777 (talk) 06:06, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

You need to provide a source for your definition of republic. TFD (talk) 06:28, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

@CMguy777. The definition of a republic is government of society by a scheme of representation -- that is your legislative body which makes the laws governing that society. You object to the 200-year constitutional practice which the US Congress follows, making a distinction between states and territories in the House of Representatives. Good for you, but that's not the United States as recognized and operating de facto and de jure today -- regardless of your contrary unsourced imaginings, the US in Congress today includes 50 states, DC and five organized territories of US citizens and nationals, the society represented in the US federal republic. You have their .gov websites as Members of Congress, you refuse to read them.

You object to departments of the executive and the federal courts. But they are a part of the Constitution of 1789, a legitimate government existing in today's world. In the Articles of Confederation there was no President, Supreme Court, etc., etc., all functions were a function of Congressional Committees. But most legislative, executive and judicial business in Congress of the 1780s required 2/3 membership present to do anything -- important things required unanimous vote. The regime was widely seen as unsatisfactory, then and now. Congress approved of the process to replace the Articles, each state in turn agreed to the process apart from existing state legislatures. The Constitution was ratified by the new process.

The old Congress dissolved itself, each state sent representatives elected by the new system -- without religious test for Congress from every state, while most states still had religious tests for state offices. The new Constitution was adopted unanimously by the American people within two years, versus the seven years it took for unanimous adoption of moribund Articles of Confederation -- the new Constitution being three times better than the old Articles, in the eyes of the Founding Fathers, as they voted then in history. You may say the new Constitution and its Congressional makeup of states, DC and territories is illegitimate, but you need a source. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:12, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit Break

This all depends on agreeing on the definition of what a Republic is. Does a Republic include slavery? Does a Republic include the CIA, Secret Intelligence Service of the Department of Defense, and the FBI? Is Plato's Republic a valid source for defining what a Republic is? What about corporations and lobby groups? Are they part of a Republic? Cmguy777 (talk) 15:14, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Please provide any source (with a page reference) that defines a republic. TFD (talk) 15:22, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

• Barry (2011) The American Republic: The Fourth Form Government, Chapter 5. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:10, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Here is the link. Notice it says nothing about the definition including how presidents and judges are selected, whether all people have equal rights, or any other objections you have raised. TFD (talk) 18:08, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

According to the book there are many definitions of a Republic. The book give James Madison's view of what a Republic is. Madison also believe blacks were property and 3/4 people. That does not sound like much of a Republic. Sounds like a slave empire. Today there is no slavery, but we have the CIA, FBI, Secret Intelligence of the State Department, all not under the power of the people. That is not a Republic. We have corporations who lobby and control the United States Senate and House of Representatives. They are called PAC's. In addition corporations outside the United States, including royalty, can donate to political parties in the United States. The people are not represented when the NRA has more power over Senators more then 88% of the people who supported gun screening at trade shows. That is not a Republic. I believe we are going around in circles. With that stated, I believe that Barry (2011) would be a good source for the article and replace one of the sources and keep the Onuf source. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:30, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Well we agree on one thing: We are going around in circles. Can we all please come to an agreement that there is a consensus that the U.S. is a federal republic, and that Cmguy's point of view is an outlier that doesn't warrant further effort? You having an opinion does not warrant inclusion on this page. (also, it was 3/5ths, and that was a political compromise with regard to representation and taxation that didn't square with the beliefs of the founders; a certified teacher with a BA in History would surely know that no one thought they were literally partially human.) --Golbez (talk) 21:06, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Goblez. How does the institution and protection of slavery, the CIA, the FBI, the Secret Intelligence Agency of the Defense Department fit into the category or definitions provided for a Republic? None of these issues has been addressed in this article. How do you know what Madison thought of blacks? He did state that blacks were property. Blacks did not get to Constitutionally vote after the American Civil War in 1871. Maybe you need to read the words of Ulysses S. Grant, who supported the 15th Amendment. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:23, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

You appear to not know why the 3/5ths compromise existed. Also, you have provided no definition. You've mentioned a source to one but I'm not about to find this book. If you cannot find a more accessible definition of "Republic" then it's clear yours is a minority position. "Republic" is a standard enough term that it should be very, very easy to find an accessible definition of it on the web. --Golbez (talk) 23:22, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

I provided the link above, here it is again. Nothing in it supports Cmguy777's arguments. TFD (talk) 02:08, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Here is another source: Salmon (2010), The Rise and Fall of Corporate America, p. 21 Cmguy777 (talk) 04:14, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Salmon states the corporations through bribery and lobbying have taken over the U.S. government and that the U.S. government no longer serves the interests of "the People", as the Founders intended, but rather the interests of the corporations. The United States is owned and run by the corporations. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:14, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

By the way Madison believed blacks were a depraved race and that as slave property their masters would take care of them. In other words blacks did not need a government and were not counted as people. Cmguy777 (talk) 06:14, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

You are leaping to conclusions away from the sources, secondary and primary. Madison believed that slavery as practiced in the United States degraded the people enslaved; he promoted Virginia state purchase of skilled volunteers away from their owners, training for wagon makers etc., and state/national purchase of lands in Africa for sponsoring them to colonize an independent republic of African-American settlers, following the example of the British abolitionists in Sierra Leone, under the military protection of the United States.

In a recent book tour featured on CSPAN, Ralph Nader noted there were several anti-corporate impulses converging including his citizen-consumer movement, libertarians, John Birch Society and Occupy Wallstreet. The first mistake is to think corporations are people. Corporations are legal fictions, exist to allocate financial risk, not escape legal and ethical accountability (like states are legal fictions to create political communities). But the American people in Congress CAN determine what best serves their interests in the long term BECAUSE the US is a "federal republic", and when any provision or practice becomes harmful enough, long enough, to enough people, it will be amended or ended. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:22, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I gave a valid source Salmon (2010) that stated corporations own the U.S. government and the People are no longer in charge of the government, as the Founders intended. If Madison actually believed slavery was degrading to blacks, then why did he not emanciapate his own slaves? Yes. He was for colonization because America was only for white people. Madison did not include blacks to be part of the American Republic where they have voting rights and freedom to travel from state to state, choose their own employment, as white people could during Madison's times. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:37, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Considering your blatant ignorance of the reason for the 3/5ths compromise, which you continue to defend despite that reasoning being available on this very encyclopedia, I'm not sure why we should further consider your redefinition of republic. --Golbez (talk) 15:43, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Before you decry me of "blatant ignorance", please read the following by Junius P Rodriguez (2007) Slavery in the United States: A Social, Political, And Historical Encyclopedia , pages 128-129. Rodriguez discusses how the three fifths compromise created "Slave Power" that controlled congress. Washington, Jefferson, Madison, and Monroe were all Virginia Presidents. They were elected because of the electoral college representation that gave the Southerners an advantage since counting slaves 3/5 person increased the South's Representation. Woodrow Wilson, another Virginia president, was a dedicated segregationist. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:24, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it was a compromise because the South wanted every slave counted, thus giving them more power in the legislature. The north wanted them treated as property, since giving them representation simply increased their owners' political power. Which ... kind of goes counter to your earlier statement about Madison thinking they were less than human. If, according to you, Madison and all the other "Virginia Presidents" (Wilson being elected from New Jersey notwithstanding) all thought slaves were merely property and not human, shouldn't they have logically argued that they should not be apportioned at all? I know I talk a big game about keeping focused and not straying off into side arguments, but I think this is relevant - if you're so wrong about one aspect of American history, why should we think you're right about another? Also, you haven't even bothered - at least from what I see - to say what you think it should say if not "federal republic". You've simply said "federal republic" needs a source, which so far not one person agrees with you, that I see (I could be wrong; there's a lot of discussion here after all). --Golbez (talk) 16:32, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

None of which has anything to do with whether or not the U.S. is/has always been a republic. TFD (talk) 16:33, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

At least we agree that the 3/5 comprise gave them more power in the legislature. Rodriguez contends that the 3/5 compromise destablized the nation, or as you state Republic. Congress passed laws that required the capture of fugitive slaves. Congress passed a law that only whites could be citizens of the country. This has everything to do with the nation being a Republic. Slave Power dominated Congress up until the Civil War. After the Civil War Corporate America took over our Congress, the Presidency, and the Judicial system. OK. Since we are going around in circles, mentioning the "3/5 Compromise", "Slave Power", in addition to "Corporate America" would be appropriate for the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:15, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Wow, you just cannot stay on point, can you. Can we all move on now please and put this behind us? --Golbez (talk) 17:17, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

That is fine with me. Wilson's primary education was in the Jim Crow south and his historical encyclopedia viewed blacks as inferior or next to monkeys and he castigated Radical Reconstruction that gave blacks citizenship and suffrage. As President Wilson honored the Confederate heritage and instituted segregation in Washington D.C. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:40, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Cmguy agrees to put this pointless "federal republic" argument behind us. Because that's what I meant when I said that. If I'm reading you wrong, please correct, otherwise we can get on to the task of actually improving the article. --Golbez (talk) 17:47, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

We can end the discussion. You are correct. There is one humorous part of the movie Network (1976) I found on YouTube. Network: You have meddled with the primal forces of nature! It's about corporations. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:57, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Controversial

I am suggesting that the "reform" sentence include the word controversial, as it is; and if required I can list a number of reliable sources that are critical of the health care "reform". Also, only one use of controversial is used in the article, and this is about the Iraq War. There is sufficient criticism and opposition of health care "reform" that it is clearly notable, and thus could be said to be controversial (which the terms "Obamacare controversy" returns back 34.6 million hits, where the terms "Iraq War controversy" returns a smaller 26.3 million hits). --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:41, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

The American Civil War was pretty controversial, as were the Civil Rights Movement and American involvement in World War I. It's probably pretty safe to say that there has been political advocacy and controversy throughout America every year for the last five hundred years. I don't see any reason to include health care reform as controversial. But you are right that the Iraq War probably doesn't need to be described as controversial either. I will attempt to rewrite that paragraph. NW (Talk) 00:31, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

I strongly agree. If anything, since the new law is a major ongoing controversy, the qualifier is more warranted than it is for a past event like the US led invasion of Iraq. If the word "controversial" is dropped from both sentences then the healthcare law sentence should still have some mention that the bill's ultimate impact is disputed (similar to the sentence about the long term debt impact in the Government Finance section), since there's a claim in the text about the future impact. Or maybe the whole sentence should just be deleted until things are sorted out years from now. VictorD7 (talk) 04:59, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

I somewhat agree that PPACA (and the financial reform bill) may not necessarily be worthy for the history section. It's a pretty big case of recentism, as the health care and financial reforms were marginal reforms rather than fundamental reconstructions that warrant actual mention, like Medicare and Medicaid were. It also seems to be part of the narrative (such as it is) style of the History section, which is to list things by president rather than by a wider era. This may be why things like PPACA etc. are given so much weight, to fill in the Obama administration with something. However, I would also say that the controversy of the Iraq War is much more important than the controversy over PPACA, since the latter is a marginal reform in the health care system, whereas the former was the pre-emptive invasion of a sovereign nation that resulted in hundreds of thousands of deaths. The two are not remotely comparable; to say we need some kind of balance by saying "if one says controversial then the other has to as well!" is a false equivalence. So, my suggestion is to remove the mention of PPACA and Dodd-Frank for now, but keep the linked controversy for Iraq. --Golbez (talk) 05:43, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Dodd-Frank may not be significant reform in the long term, but it is too soon to tell how the ACA will stand up in the time of history. Who knows, perhaps by 2025, all states will have implemented the Medicaid expansion and the ACA will have roughly accomplished its goal of providing universal health insurance. We don't know well how enough how effective it will be, but both take up all three words in the article. While the Iraq War may be more important on a global narrative scale, the ACA will be far more important for the citizens of the United States than the Iraq War. The bottom line right now is that we are too embroiled in recent events to truly figure out what will be important for the Grand Narrative. Accordingly, I'm fine with keeping things as it is now.

But I see now that you have left a larger comment below, and I will reflect on it. NW (Talk) 15:59, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

The impact of Medicare and Medicaid were probably obvious when they were created; the impact of PPACA is less so. Will it be more or less important than the HMO act or EMTALA? Hard to say. At this point, probably more, but enough to warrant mention? I'm unsure. As you can see I'm waffling on whether or not to include them; I feel that their inclusion will be determined by the greater narrative we want to draw on the post-Cold War era. --Golbez (talk) 16:54, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

I strongly disagree because wars are inherently "controversial", and the Iraq War was fought on a far smaller scale (and was far less controversial) than events like WW1, WW2, the Korean War, Vietnam, etc., and yet no other war is labeled with the qualifier "controversial". I also disagree that the healthcare law is merely a "marginal" reform. It's probably the most controversial underlying issue in the US right now, and has been for a few years. The legitimate rationale for not including it would be that events are in such a state of flux. The law hasn't been fully implemented yet, vast amounts of authorized regulation has yet to be written, legal battles continue, supporters are acknowledging that various components will be different than previously advertised, and frankly there's still a chance the whole thing gets repealed in a few years. At the very least matter of fact future pronouncements in Wikipedia's voice should be avoided. VictorD7 (talk) 20:17, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Wars are inherently controversial, yes; however, the "controversial" statement in question is not about the war, but rather the grounds for it. As I gave examples before, Fort Sumter igniting the Civil War is not in question; Pearl Harbor being the catalyst for entering WW2 is not in question; and that we went in to Iraq based on certain intelligence is not in question. However, the validity of that intelligence IS questioned, and should be mentioned when the war is introduced. We can't by any means say "Intelligence that Iraq had WMDs let to the Iraq War" because that intelligence is now widely considered faulty, and to omit that fact would be a disservice to our readers. Likewise we can't simply say "The Iraq War happened" because we're doing a disservice to the reader by providing no context. --Golbez (talk) 20:45, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

I addressed those points in my other response below. Numerous other, larger wars have no mention of grounds despite said grounds being controversial, and large WMD stockpiles weren't the only reason given for the invasion. It was a essentially a resumption of hostilities after numerous cease fire violations. People can support or oppose it but its origin was no more controversial than conflicts like Vietnam, the Spanish-American War, Mexican War, and to some degree even the world wars. VictorD7 (talk) 20:53, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

That the others lack it is no justification, they should have it as well. And (we're starting to repeat ourselves in the same section) I would like to see your suggestion for the sentence introducing the Iraq War. --Golbez (talk) 20:57, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

The term controversial can be a political statement. There may be artificial controversy if lobby groups due to financial interests create controversy over any issue in order to stop or to pass legislation in Congress. For example, abortion, was and is controversial because people protested and even resorted to violence of vandalism who actually believe abortion was murder. In terms of health, I believe that finding out who lobbied against what is known "Obamacare" would be help define whether healthcare reform was in actuality controversial or was sponsored by corporations. The Tea Party is sponsored by the Koch Brothers. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:29, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Cmguy has a point, though not the one he attempted to make: Legal abortion is at least as controversial as PPACA, considering that so far, no one has been killed over PPACA, and many states are actively trying to block or undo the provisions determined in Roe v. Wade. Yet, it's not specifically mentioned at all.

But to get back on topic wrt "controversy": Wars are very important things, both domestic and in the international context. We should always explain why a country goes to war when we mention it, and not simply say "and then this war happened". To explain why we went to war in Iraq, you must mention the controversial grounds for it. (I don't think we mention anything about why we entered the Gulf War, that should be fixed.) I mean, look at other wars. That Iraq invaded and annexed Kuwait is not in question. That Pearl Harbor was bombed is not in question. That Iraq had or was actively seeking WMDs is very much in question. The grounds for the war (not necessarily the war itself, almost all wars are controversial, but the grounds for it) are controversial, and that statement and the link should remain. Perhaps a different wording, though, if you really want to get away from "controversial"? --Golbez (talk) 16:54, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

This article should not be another place that advances the current administration's policy goals per WP:POV.

We are not hear to say that X legislation is positive or negative, we can say that there are X for and Y against, and in a neutral way say why either are for or against, but this is also a summary article. To say that the Tea Party is funded by XYZ is irrelevant to this discussion. It's like saying that Soros and Buffet are major funders of so and such, it is irrelevant.

So if we remove controversial from Iraq War, than we should not include controversial for the "reform". If we are to include it for one thing, it opens the door to include it for everything else that can be verified that the controversy regarding the event is notable enough for mention (WEIGHT).--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:08, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Right, there's simply no equivalence here. The question over whether the Iraq War grounds can be termed controversial has nothing to do with whether PPACA can be termed controversial, except to say that allowing one conceivably opens the door for others. So, if we were to remove 'controversial' from the grounds for the Iraq War, what would you replace it with as an explanation for why the country went to war? (And yeah, I don't know where most of what Cmguy talks about comes from either) --Golbez (talk) 18:15, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

There’s currently no mention of the grounds for the US-Mexican War, Spanish-American War, WW1, Vietnam War (was the Tonkin Resolution controversial?), or first Gulf War, only Cold War context presented for the Korean War’s brief mention, and damn little explanation for WW2 intervention aside from a Pearl Harbor mention (nothing on why the US had chosen to supply the Allies). Add that there was a lot more to the stated rationale to invade Iraq than just believed WMD stockpiles (one can find them in the Congressional authorization for war, Clinton era Iraqi Liberation Act, Tony Blair’s speeches on humanitarianism, etc.), and that it was one of the proportionally smallest wars in American history, and I see no need to single its grounds out for special emphasis (though I wouldn’t necessarily oppose good wording doing so) and certainly no reason to selectively apply the word “controversial” to it. If there's a difference between that and the PPACA it's that the latter is an ongoing controversy involving a high level of future uncertainty, not a past event. VictorD7 (talk) 20:46, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

And we absolutely need to provide the grounds for all of these. We can start here. As for the woeful state of context in the other wars, I go into that in the below section on the History section in general. Before I can say whether or not the term "controversial" would remain in your version of the grounds, I'd have to see what you propose. But unlike even Vietnam, where one could say it was a hot part of the Cold War, I fail to see any concise explanation of why the Iraq War happened that doesn't include a mention of now-discredited intelligence. But that could simply be my lack of imagination, which is why I want to see what you propose. --Golbez (talk) 20:55, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

By how much do you want to blow the section up? Adding background info for all those conflicts would significantly expand article length. Even if we do that, the Iraq War probably shouldn't get more space than events like WW1 or the War of 1812, or a more in depth explanation of what the Cold War was about, so it'd be best to keep it short and vague. How about something like..."In 2003, after repeated hostilities, a US led coalition invaded Iraq, ousting Saddam Hussein's regime."...with the appropriate links? VictorD7 (talk) 21:13, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Or "...,after ceasefire violations,..."....or "...,after repeated ceasefire violations,..." or even "...,after alleged repeated ceasefire violations,..."? VictorD7 (talk) 21:28, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't need to be blown up heavily, wars just need a minimum of context. It's not enough to say a war happened, we have to provide at least a bare amount of why. As for "repeated hostilities," if that is in rationale for the Iraq War it's only really mentioned as one of about a dozen bullet points, I assume you refer to the violation of the enforcement of the no-fly zone? Because that's the only hostilities I can think of that pertain to the run up to the Iraq War. So "repeated hostilities" seems to be insufficient. We can't say it was after UN resolutions because the UN did not sign off on the war. We can't say it was due to intelligence about WMDs or terrorism without stating that intelligence has been discredited. I'm confident it's possible to do this in a single sentence, I'm just not yet sure how. (In contrast, the Vietnam War was very much a part of the Cold War, and the context for that at the moment seems sufficient, though again I think everything since the 1970s or so needs a rewrite in the History section) --Golbez (talk) 21:34, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Hostilities would arguably also include an attempt to assassinate a US president, but that's why I added the alternative, broader "cease fire violations", and I avoid stating that those are the only reasons for the war, simply that they happened with the implication that they contributed to it. For the record, many argue that the war did have UN authorization due to previously passed, standing Chapter VII (binding) resolutions, and that further resolutions were unnecessary, but I'm not sure the issue of UN approval warrants inclusion. It's mentioned in the first Gulf War sentence but not elsewhere. Only two other wars mentioned had UN approval, Korea (because the Soviets boycotted and Beijing didn't have a seat yet) and Afghanistan, and in neither case would lack of approval have stopped the war. As for the rationale, among other things it included:

- Engaging "in brutal repression of its civilian population".

- "Supporting and harboring" terrorists, from Abu Nidal to Al Qaeda affiliated Ansar al-Islam to Hussein's open and boastful subsidization of anti-Israeli terrorists.

- Iraq's failure to cooperate with weapons inspectors, from kicking them out in 1998 to Hans Blix reporting continued failure to cooperate in 2003 (though the expected large bio./chem. stock piles weren't found, the post invasion reports concluded that the regime had both the intent to resume making them once the UN was off its back and the desire to solidify its hold on power by perpetuating the belief that it already had them, to the point where even various Iraqi officers believed they did and requested the deployment of WMDs during the US invasion; Also, Iraq did possess various conventional weapons that had been prohibited by the ceasefire agreements).

- "refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;"

- Attempting to assassinate President Bush and firing on Coalition forces "on many thousands of occasions" since then.

- A desire to replace the regime with a democratic government in accordance with the 1998 Iraq Liberation Act.

- Iraq generally "threatening its neighbors" and "international peace", common refrains throughout the document.

Relations between Iraq and the US (plus allies) had collapsed even before Bush took office (complete with occasional airstrikes), and there was far less patience for Hussein's shenanigans in a post 9/11 world. Any attempt to boil it down to just WMDs would be too simplistic and probably agenda driven, and mentioning WMDs would require adding other rationale components. VictorD7 (talk) 22:32, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

I believe the reader needs to know who is funding the controversy and whether the controversy is artificial or actually grass roots. Opposition to abortion is grassroots. Opposition to "Obama Care" was from the Tea Party funded by the Koch Brothers. This issue goes both ways including Soros and Buffet. Here is another example. 83% of Americans supported the 2013 gun control measure but conservatives kept the bill from passing. The bill was not controversial in terms of Americans being divided. Here is the article: Poll: Majority Supports Failed Senate Gun Control Bill. The NRA strongly opposed the Manchin-Toomey S. 649 Senate Gun Contol bill. There was no controversy on gun control. Here is the article: Senate rejects expanded gun background checks. This is an example of artificial controversy when the NRA got in the way of the American people. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:01, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

In the end using controversial for one one, and not another, can be seen as creating a non-neutral section that leans to the American political left. This article should not lean left, or right. We can have our individual POVs, and we can be open about it (as some are) here. But that shouldn't be taking place in the article.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:13, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

I yield on the Iraq War. Keep the link to the rationale, and if y'all can manage to fit a reasoning into a single sentence, go for it. --Golbez (talk) 03:45, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

I am not advocating that Wikipedia take any sides on "controversial" issues. For example, is global warming a controversy or is this a political issue sponsored by the left wing environmentalists? Before stating any issue is controversial in the article there needs to be authentication that the controversy is indeed grassroots, rather then sponsored by some political group or is politically motivated. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:48, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

I would say that there are three controversial issues in the United States. These include Immigration, Abortion, and Outsourcing. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:09, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

You need to present sources to support your theories. TFD (talk) 07:25, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

This is a discussion TDF. I am not presenting any original research or theories. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:56, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

United States intro description

‘‘'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." Executive Order 13423 This is a straightforward affirmative statement that the inhabited territories are a part of the country, without legalese.

There is other support from secondary government and scholarly sources without need to resort to tertiary sources. There are no sources which exclude the five territories over the last twenty years; Insular Cases establish territories are not states, the Uniformity Clause does not apply, the Congress may administer discriminatory taxation regimes in territories which it cannot in states.

Populations which were acquired under US jurisdiction as "aliens" are now incorporated in the nation; the Census Department defines "native-born American" to include those born in Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, the US Virgin Islands, and the Northern Mariana Islands. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 06:58, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

The suggestion you made above did not include the erroneous claim that the unincorporated territories are part of the U.S. BTW citizens of foreign countries cease to be aliens (and foreign) when they come under the same sovereignty. Hence Australians are not aliens in the U.K. but Australia is not part of the U.K. TFD (talk) 16:08, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

"Unincorporated territory" is sometimes erroneously taken out of context. In US jurisprudence, "unincorporated" means not under the Uniform Clause requiring all law to be uniformly the same for states, such as in personal and business tax regimes. We can look to the legal scholar K. Vignarajah, U. Chicago Law Review, Judicial Legitimacy, 2010, p.796 to see what the applicable law is in the US constitutional tradition apart from your original editor Australian research.

Australians elect no British Member of Parliament, they determine national status independent of British Parliament. US territories are not states, but they elect a territorial US Member of Congress. US territories determine their national status as one of the American people in US Congress with privileges of floor debate as all previous politically incorporated territories, and additionally they have committee votes and appointments to Joint Conference Committees with the Senate in the modern era. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 17:21, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Your source does not say unincorporated means "not under the Uniform Clause." Obviously, since the clause says, "all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States," it does not apply to areas that are outside the U.S. TFD (talk) 18:34, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

The source says, "Downes held only that the heavier duties imposed upon Puerto Rican imports were valid, leaving US territories outside the Constitution’s Uniformity Clause," which applies to states. Territories are not states, which you have conceded before. Congress could apply whatever constitutional provisions in any sequence at any speed it chose, including citizenship, which you concede has been extended to all territories by birthright, bloodright or naturalization as in previous 'incorporated' territories, which you also admit to have been. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 21:00, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Congress does not "apply...constitutional provisions", only the constitution can do that. Congress may extend any of the rights that the constitution provides for the United States to territories outside the United States, and they can take them away. TFD (talk) 22:37, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Congress and the Executive are the political arms of government that apply the constitution, the Judiciary adjudicates.

Scholars say, In practice -- "whatever the theoretical scope of the Insular Cases doctrine" -- the U.S. “has in FACT vested Puerto Ricans by statute or judicially, "virtually the same constitutional rights and privileges enjoyed by citizens of the several states. The consistent trend since 1952 … has been to expand this category.” (p.1162) Gary Lawson and Robert D. Sloane, Puerto Rico’s Legal status reconsidered Boston College Law Review, 2009.

Once the rights of citizenship are extended, they cannot be taken away, in states or territories, the Equal Protections Clause of the 14th Amendment applies to all five big territories. US General Accounting Office, U.S. Insular Areas Application of the U.S. Constitution, November 1997. p.9, Appendix I, p. 23-38. Viewed April 29, 2013.TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:27, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

"Virtually the same" does not mean the same. You need a source that Congress has no power to end birthright citizenship in Puerto Rico. The Equal Protections Clause applies to all areas under U.S. jurisdiction, including uninhabited territories and Guantanamo Bay. It does not mean that Guantanamo Bay is part of the U.S. - it is part of Cuba. TFD (talk) 13:19, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

More distinctions without a difference. "Virtually the same" is effectively the same, they cannot be "the same" until territories are made "the same", states -- but territories can be a part of the US, without becoming states. Citizens in states and territories are virtually the same now (Lawson and Sloane 2009), the Equal Protections Clause is as a matter of fact by US statute and US courts applies the same to all US citizens, (GAO Insular Areas-Constitution, 1997). Scholars, congress and US courts say that Puerto Ricans will not lose birthright citizenship. You have no source to say that they will. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:58, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

The same passage says, "Congress remains theoretically empowered to modify or eliminate the rights and privileges of Puerto Ricans with the stroke of a pen...." (p. 1163) BTW, you should look up the word "virtually." TFD (talk) 15:16, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

The same passage says, Wrong. I’ve heard someone like you before, “the Bible says ‘There is no God’”, but Proverbs says, ‘Fools say, There is no God.’ Regardless of whether there may be a God or not, the Bible as a text does not renounce the possibility of His/Her existence, taken as a whole. In the current instance you do not understand common usage in the English language. Meaning is conveyed by placing a lesser idea into a subordinate clause, the thought in the subordinate clause is lesser.

You say without a source that scholars support your contention that Congress will remove citizenship at a stroke of a pen, but Lawson and Sloane say in Legal Status Reconsidered, “In short, then, even if Congress remains theoretically empowered to modify or eliminate the rights and privileges of Puerto Ricans with the stroke of a pen, current U.S. practice, we conclude, satisfies [UN requirement for self-determination] Resolution 567’s directive to ensure that sufficient “constitutional guarantees extend equally to the associated territory.”

“As a general rule, Helfeld’s remark that “if a state can do it constitutionally, Puerto Rico can do it, and vice versa” accurately captures the constitutional jurisprudence to date.” p.1163 You misunderstand the meaning of "virtual", again challenging me without a source, and in any case, UN General Assembly “does not purport to require complete equality in constitutional guarantees.” for the once colonial peoples. p.1161. Italics complete is in the original article text. That would be due to the scholars' assessment that the UN operates in the real world, and it intends to be in the real world, unlike some unsourced wp:madeup imagination America, which is not in the modern world at all. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:53, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Your source says that Puerto Rico is an "associated territory." TFD (talk) 22:02, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Proven wrong about four items, you go for five. You are wrong about “unincorporated”, the “Uniformity Clause”, “virtually”, and “removing citizenship”, now another word game. At the end of World War II, the US occupied territories by free association, not by coercion as the Japanese occupation of the Philippines, for instance. Modern “Associated Territories” with the US do not have US citizens with territorial Members of Congress. Modern Associated Territories are Marshall Islands, Palau Republic and Micronesia.

Five modern US territories have fundamental constitutional protections, equal individual US citizenship, territory self-government, and territorial Member of Congress in national councils. They have all mutually entered into the US federal republic by agreement of their self-elected legislatures and the American people in Congress, most recently Puerto Rico reaffirmed Nov 2012 by 2/3 for Commonwealth either existing or expanded, about 30% of the total for statehood and under 3% for independence; the Puerto Rican legislature applied for statehood. Puerto Rico met the demands of the 2009 authors in 2012, and you are still stuck in the past.

You will not acknowledge islander votes until they make your chosen outcome, independence and secession from the Union that you likewise imagine possible in your wp:madeup Texas wp:fringe fantasy – neither has any business influencing WP editorial choices in a modern country-article introduction. The UN does not replace Puerto Rico on the “colonial monitoring” list on the basis of WP and 3% of Puerto Rico in an 80% turnout --- because of the modern US reality. As in Consejo v. Rullan 2008 US District Court and in Consejo v. Feliciano 2012 Circuit Court, show constitutionally and in law, Congress has incorporated Puerto Rico into the United States. And the UN will not overturn the will of 97% of a population, even though only US citizens, even though only islanders, even though such action might advance WP madeup fringe fantasy. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:12, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

So far as most everyone can see, only one person on this talk page has been persistently engaged in fantasies and WP:MADEUP speculative inferential conclusions. older ≠ wiser 14:48, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

[insert] posting after me in various venues, it is Bkonrad, alternately older≠wiser. personal attack. no discussion. no sources, one discussion role to play, I suppose. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:20, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

There is nothing new being said, this supposed discussion is mostly endless repetition of the same sort. If it ever reaches a point where other people are convinced by your winding-road speculations, let me know. older ≠ wiser 12:00, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Not endless repetition, I'm learning more with better sourcing. Earlier I quoted directly from Juan R. Torruella journal articles with Insular Case interpretation by Professor Julian Go. Now additonally from legal scholars a reference to both viewpoints, Lawson and Sloane in the Boston College Law Review, p.1177-1178. Insular Cases are good law for discriminatory tax and revenue regimes in the territories to avoid application of the Uniformity Clause applied to states. I did not understand that before the source from Mendaliv. We also have additional insights from legal scholars into the MISUSE of the Insular Cases politically. "From the standpoint of an originalist, such as Professor Lawson, The Insular Cases are, as Judge Torruella has aptly put it, 'a strict constructionist’s worst nightmare'.

"From the standpoint of one who views the Constitution in more functional or normative terms, as does Professor Sloane, The Insular Cases look even worse. They were transparently the product of an overtly racist ideology that viewed the inhabitants of Puerto Rico, Hawaii, and the Philippines as uncivilized—as unworthy of receiving, and incapable of handling, governance according to constitutional norms. Furthermore, in the context of a study of the interplay of international and constitutional law, it is worth noting that The Insular Cases originated in substantial part in the (now utterly anachronistic) international law of the era, in particular, the presumptive “right of states to acquire uninhabited territories through discovery and occupation” and the concomitant 'right of the acquiring power to govern a territory as it saw fit'." TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:36, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

TheVirginiaHistorian, Sorry, but I quoted your source above, “In short, then, even if Congress remains theoretically empowered to modify or eliminate the rights and privileges of Puerto Ricans with the stroke of a pen, current U.S. practice, we conclude, satisfies [UN requirement for self-determination] Resolution 567’s directive to ensure that sufficient “constitutional guarantees extend equally to the associated territory (my bolding)”. Follow this link where you will find your posting. I am not making this up, and that is a personal attack which you should retract. TFD (talk) 15:20, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

When I note your misunderstanding, there is no personal attack. You have no sources to support your position to exclude territories from the US. You first used this article by misrepresenting the article preface, a quote from the outvoted and defeated Governour Morris in the Constitutional Convention as though it were Lawson and Sloane’s view on modern US territories as published in the Boston College Law Review.

You persist in misrepresentations. Here, you use the international term of the article topic as the authors’ conclusion as to the status of Puerto Rico. It's a three part article: international law of the associated state, the U.S. - Puerto Rico relationship under international law, and “the obstacles to the instantiation of associated statehood for Puerto Rico”. That is, the authors have problems with calling PR an example of associated statehood. p.1129-1130.

For the purposes of describing the modern US, Lawson and Sloane’s assessment is actually, “Today, Puerto Rico seems to be the paradigm of an incorporated territory as modern jurisprudence understands that legal term of art. p.1175. So we have two often-disagreed scholars, a US district case and a Circuit Court concluding Puerto Rico is constitutionally, politically a part of the US virtually the same as a state, incorporated as a part of the US, unlike the common usage of "associated state" in international law such as Republic of Palau, Marshall Islands and Micronesia without US citizenship or Member of Congress. If you meant Puerto Rico is a part of the US, I apologize, but sometimes you make it hard to follow you. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:36, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

I have never misrepresented that article and it is disingenuous to provide a link to the article rather than to my posting. "Virtually" the same as, "seems to be" - even when you provide out-of-context quotes, they still contradict your beliefs. TFD (talk) 11:08, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Constitutionally US territories are virtually the same as states means constitutionally having the properties of a thing (Law dictionary) or being such in essence or effect (Merriam-Webster). Modern US territories have the political effect of being a part of the US with the constitutional essence of its domestic states. Lawson and Sloane are the reliable source, WP postings are not properly sources for WP. After twenty pages of discussion of international law, the 2009 authors turn to US constitutional law, concluding on page 1175 that domestically, Puerto Rico is "an incorporated territory as modern jurisprudence understands that legal term of art".

The scholars convey the meaning of 2008 Consejo v. Rullan, “Congress… sequence of legislative actions from 1900 to present has in fact incorporated the territory… the territory has evolved from an unincorporated to an incorporated one.” That holding was affirmed constitutionally and in law on appeal by 2012 Consejo v. Feliciano, the entitlement formula at issue remanded for reconsideration with Puerto Rico to be considered by the Department of Health as a domestic state of the United States. Previous discussion somehow implied modern US territories, islanders and Puerto Rico in particular were not politically incorporated in the US, and so not legally a part of it, a view unconfirmed by reliable sources brought forward to date. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:13, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Lawson and Sloane cite "Citizenship Denied: The Insular Cases and the Fourteenth Amendment", which argues, "the Supreme Court should overrule the doctrine of territorial incorporation." (p, 1036)[4] It says that under the existing interpretation, Puerto Ricans could be stripped of their citizenship. They argue that the 14th amendment should be read in light of Calvin's case, so that people "born within the dominions of the United States" should be considered citizens just as persons born within the dominions of the British crown were British subjects. Your problem here is that it is a minority viewpoint, and the Supreme Court has rejected it. TFD (talk) 16:06, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

No English speaking country in the world has used judicial ruling to assign citizenship in over a century. It is done by positive law. I have provided the positive law by statute for all five organized territories. Scholars, US District Court and Circuit Court assert Puerto Rico is constitutionally incorporated. You misread the legal scholars again.

To support Lawson and Sloane’s 2009 point, p.1175, that Puerto Rico is “an incorporated territory as modern jurisprudence understands that legal term of art”, they cite in note 281, Lisa Maria Perez published in Citizenship Denied 2008, p.1032, addressing the case of a minor in Dade County, Florida seeking to become a US citizen when she was a US citizen. “The district court dismissed the action, holding that [plaintiff’s] uncertainty regarding her future citizenship status was too speculative to warrant judicial intervention, …[plaintiff] would actually have to lose her U.S. citizenship or be on the verge of denaturalization in order to file a justiciable claim.

Perez refutes the legitimacy of citizenship holdings in the Insular Cases as they were based on racial discrimination. Her view is that persons born in Puerto Rico are born in the US under the 14th Amendment, not Congressional statute. Nevertheless, “Congress does not, however, have unconstrained discretion … the Due Process Clause provides a substantial obstacle to the denaturalization of persons born in Puerto Rico.” p.1067.

Perez argues, were Puerto Rico to become independent, the Congress would have the theoretical power to revoke US citizenship. She then speculates in 2008 on the 2012 two-tier plebiscite, that most would favor permanent Commonwealth Status, 49% did. She then estimates a split between statehood and independence, independence had never had more than 5% of the vote, p.1079. In 2012, independence had under 3%. --- That is, plaintiff’s citizenship is safe even under the most speculative scenario of wp:madeup America for the foreseeable future to report in this country-article, that 5 US territories are a part of the US federal republic. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 19:37, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

You are presenting sources, then arguing against their conclusions, which is OR. You provide a source that says Congress can revoke citizenship of Puerto Ricans as a source that they cannot. "You misread the legal scholars again... under the most speculative scenario of wp:madeup America." TFD (talk) 22:16, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Perez conclusion is that the Insular Cases relative to islanders, territory and citizenship, are morally and ethically, legally and constitutionally bankrupt, as do Lawson and Sloane, and the Puerto Rican people have a voice in their future. The PR legislature has petitioned for statehood. Puerto Rican independence movement gets at most 5% of PR vote.

Since 1952, half of Puerto Ricans are elsewhere in the US. 'Independence' should get twice the percent, 10%. Today, 4 million self-identified Puerto Rican US citizens live on PR, 4 million on the mainland. But PR independence vote on PR now gets HALF, down to 2.5%. I suppose 3% wp:fringe Americans will always believe in a flat earth, it's a free country. But Flat Earth and PR independence should not govern Wikipedia country articles. Persistent 3% or not, you have no source to exclude territories. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 05:39, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Perez writes, "the doctrine of territorial incorporation reasserts Dred Scott's race-based approach to citizenship and should be overturned." She may be right, but the fact remains that it has not been overturned, so Puerto Rico remains outside the U.S. The other problem you have is that under international law, Puerto Rico is a separate country and it is unlikely that other countries would agree to the revocation of Puerto Rico's right to self determination without a clear expression by the citizens of that country to become a U.S. state and subsequent admission as a state. TFD (talk) 06:14, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

There is no “overturning” to be done. At the Yale Journal of Law and the Humanities scholar Polly J. Price observes in Natural law and birthright citizenship, that the period 1600-1900 of determining citizenship in the English-speaking world by judicial decisions is over, “antiquated” as Lawson and Sloane say. Price notes, “The determination of national status in most parts of the world… is a matter of positive law--either statutory or constitutional."

The Insular Cases say Congress will determine when islanders are no longer “alien”, which it has by positive law for citizenship: Puerto Rico 8 U.S.C. § 1402; the Virgin Islands 8 U.S.C. § 1406; Guam 8 U.S.C. § 1407; and the CNMI CNMI Covenant, sec. 303. Samoans have birthright citizenship by any Samoan US citizen; birthright nationals have a “Court House citizenship” eligibility by application when they turn 18. Guide to Naturalization, p.18.

Under international law, Puerto Rico is a separate country, no source, wrong. Lawson and Sloane in the Boston College Law Review survey international and US constitutional law p.1175, and conclude that Puerto Rico is “an incorporated [US] territory as modern jurisprudence understands that legal term of art”. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 06:57, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

The insular cases did not determine that Puerto Ricans were "aliens", but that they were American nationals. As mentioned, Lawson and Sloane are citing Perez, who says, "the doctrine of territorial incorporation reasserts Dred Scott's race-based approach to citizenship and should be overturned." Indeed nationality is now mostly a matter of positive law. The 14th amendment provided that people born in the U.S. would be citizens. Legislation has since extended citizenship to 4 of the five inhabited territories. New Zealand has even extended citizenship to people in associated states, while the U.K. has extended it to people in various of her overseas possessions. Conceivably Congress could extend citizenship to everyone born in the Mexico, it would not incorporate Mexico into the U.S. TFD (talk) 07:15, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Oh really? That is an incredible argument -- as the UN and foreign nations recognize US sovereignty over its territories, the Congress and US courts recognize US sovereignty, and no one has ever suggested we could assert sovereignty over Mexico by act of Congrress'. Until you. So the prior post is not only irrelevant here, it is actually disruptive of this talk page. Cheers. Collect (talk) 07:26, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes they recognize U.S. sovereignty over those territories, but do not recognize them as part of the U.S. Similarly they recognize British sovereignty over Bermuda and Anguilla, but do not recognize them as part of the U.K. Can you provide any source that says having sovereignty over a territory incorporates that territory into the state? Incidentally, while you may find Supreme Court decisions "incredible", they are still binding. TFD (talk) 08:03, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Glad you finally accept that the US has "sovereignty" over PR. "Dred Scott" was not "overturned" - it was made nugatory by Constitutional amendments. So I could ask you for a SCOTUS decision which actually overturned that case <g>. Acts of Congress and the constitution can, indeed, make a SCOTUS decision obsolets. Cheers. Collect (talk) 08:39, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Please read discussion posts before responding, it will say time. No sources say that the U.S. does not have sovereignty over its possessions, otherwise they would not be possessions, would they? This dispute is over whether they have been incorporated into the United States. Perez does not say that Dred Scott was overturned, but hopes that the court decision that Puerto Rico is unincorporated (which she compares with the Dred Scott decision) will be overturned. TFD (talk) 20:23, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Courts defined islanders aliens, Congress made nationals and citizens. I've quoted Downes as defining islanders at acquisition as aliens. Congress subsequently recognized nationals or citizens. The Insular Cases are clear -- the political branches are to incorporate territories, which we see a federal court observe Congress has done in Consejo v. Rullan , and scholars show under international and US constitutional law, that "Puerto Rico is an incorporated [US] territory". You say otherwise, but you have no source. The US operates constitutionally under the contract theory of government. The American people in Congress and four of the five self-governing territories have agreed to US citizenship by birthright, in Samoa the mutual agreement is birthright citizenship to Samoan US citizen children, "courthouse" citizenship on turning 18, national birthright status for all others.

No MEXICAN STATE legislature has (a) applied to Congress, (b) Congress accepted, (c) local legislature approved and (d) referendum confirmed US citizenship, self-government and Member of Congress, --- as has happened for the five modern US territories --- making them a part of the US, "native-born Americans". No contrary sources, only wp:madeup speculation about Congress making Mexicans US citizens by fiat, as Congress theoretically removing US citizenship by fiat. That is not how the US constitutional system works. Congress is not Parliament with a bill of attainder. --- Congress is not the law, Congress makes law restrained by law in a written constitution. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:25, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Obiter dictum statements by federal judges do not override Supreme Court decisions. Congress of course can extend citizenship to anyone they please. Downes v. Bidwell does not say that Puerto Ricans were aliens, it says they are "nationals". Congress did not make them nationals, but they became such when their territory was acquired, according to the court. Congress btw does not issue "fiats", it passes legislation. No idea what you mean by referring to bills of attainder. When the U.S. government decides to kill one of its citizens without trial it is done by executive fiat, not Congressional legislation. TFD (talk) 08:57, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

There is no “overriding” of a one-hundred year old Supreme Court holding to be done on a subject that is not in its purview. It has been superseded in statute by Congress as the Court itself anticipated in Downes -- the court case, not TFDs link to a WP article. Scholars note for one hundred years, nationality is not determined in English-speaking nations by jurisprudence, but by positive law, as seen at Yale Law Journal. Federal District Court, Circuit Court and scholars show US territories are incorporated by Congress “as modern jurisprudence understands that term of art”, seen in Boston College Law Review, p.1175, Insular Cases are "utterly anachronistic".

You have suggested without sources that Congress will remove citizenship in US territories and Texas can secede. But Congress cannot remove US citizenship, no harm can be done to qualify for a justiciable claim, as seen at Virginia Law Review, p.1032 -- due to extending the Equal Protections Clause to US territories, seen at GAO Report, p.35. Scholars and jurists agree -- rights only expand in US constitutional practice, once the constitution is turned on, it cannot be lawfully turned off. WP:madeup online to the contrary notwithstanding, “settled law” applies to Texas secession and US territory citizenship.

That is -- unlike political incorporation of US territories in history, “unincorporated” in modern jurisprudence supports discriminatory tax regimes, it means territories are not, in “the domestic sense” states, subject to the Uniformity Clause, as seen at Chicago Law Review, p.796. That sense does not extend to issues of nationality and geographic extent, a subject determined by the political arms of government, Congress and Executive. The ruling: “Porto Rico is a territory appurtenant and belonging to the United States, but not a part of the United States within the revenue clauses of the Constitution” – but revenue does not apply to citizenship, which is the purview of Congress. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:19, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Desourcing the lead

Per WP:LEAD, emphasis mine: "The verifiability policy advises that material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and quotations, should be supported by an inline citation. Because the lead will usually repeat information that is in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material. Leads are usually written at a greater level of generality than the body, and information in the lead section of non-controversial subjects is less likely to be challenged and less likely to require a source."

Our lead is extremely oversourced. For example, we do not need two citations that the country is a federal republic in the first sentence. First of all, this should be wholly uncontroversial, and second of all, it is not immediate enough in scope that it requires sourcing outside of the government section. That manifest destiny existed is uncontroversial. That the Civil War ended slavery is uncontroversial. Most of the sources in the lead could easily be removed and/or moved to the article text where they belong, if they aren't there already. I would like input from others before I go on a drastic pruning. --Golbez (talk) 16:22, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

The reason for the sourcing in the lead is due to WP:CITELEAD, due to the contention that has occurred over the past couple months over the lead, this is the reason for the need for citations. I understand that it does make it appear a little more cluttered.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:55, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

We have a dispute resolution with eight editors accepting some form of "including territories" across three venues over six months, versus three who have not at some time accepted the sources provided to include territories as a part of the US.

Unsourced editors persist in pushing a POV to exclude territories from the US --- contrary to reliable documentation by secondary government and scholarly sources to include territories by nationality, geographically, politically and constitutionally in the US.

The source in the agreed to introductory statement, that is, the US includes "50 states, a federal district and territories" must be maintained per WP policy since it is challenged. Any one of the four facets would be sufficient for the introductory paragraph describing the geographic extent of the US, but unsourced resistance continues. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 00:05, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Everything isn't about you, champ. I'm not talking about things that we're arguing about or that are controversial; I'm suggesting removing/moving to the body of the article sources for things like "The Civil War happened!" Stop trying to make everything about your pet cause; it's tiresome and immature. --Golbez (talk) 00:18, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Is the United States a Federal Republic? The Constitution states that the United States is a union of people. "We the people in order to form a more perfect union." Does the Constitution state that the United States is a Federal Republic? Cmguy777 (talk) 00:51, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

No it does not. But it is the consensus opinion, that it is both a federation and a republic. TFD (talk) 01:12, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Since the Constitution is the legal document that authorizes the United States, should not that have precedence over consensus of opinion? Cmguy777 (talk) 05:59, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

No. It is apparent from a basic reading of the constitution what they are describing. TFD (talk) 06:18, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

The term federal and republic have been used after the Constitution was written. I agree that there is a concensus of opinion that the US is a federal republic. However, why not put the constitutional definition into the article that the US is a Union of the People? Cmguy777 (talk) 06:42, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

The aim is to make an easy to understand lead using common terms as much as possible, and using wording which can achieve a WP:CONSENSUS. "Union of the People" is not a term normally used anywhere at all, and is not the "definition" in the US Constitution (nor even found in it), making it a non-starter. Collect (talk) 06:59, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

It is a union of states (i.e., a federation), not people. TFD (talk) 14:09, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Here are the sources I think can be absolutely unambiguously removed from the intro (I won't use numbers because I suspect a source will be removed from the lede in a few hours):

• It is one of the world's most ethnically diverse and multicultural nations, the product of large-scale immigration from many countries.[13] (This can absolutely be backed up by the demographics section)
• Driven by the doctrine of manifest destiny, the United States embarked on a vigorous expansion across North America throughout the 19th century.[16] (Don't think anyone disputes this)
• This involved displacing native tribes, acquiring new territories, and gradually admitting new states.[16] (This is objectively true, though perhaps the sourcing is for the wording of "displacing"?)
• The American Civil War ended legalized slavery in the United States.[17] (Absolutely no dispute.)
• By the end of the nineteenth century, the United States extended into the Pacific Ocean,[18] and its economy was the world's largest.[19] (18 definitely needs no source. 19 might be necessary but it would be nice if it could be moved to the History section.)
• The United States is a developed country and has the world's largest national economy, with an estimated 2012 GDP of $15.6 trillion – 19% of global GDP at purchasing-power parity, as of 2011.[6][20][21] (Why do we have three sources for a simple number that should be handled in the Economy section?)
• The per capita GDP of the U.S. was the world's sixth-highest as of 2010,[6] (Same, this is a simple figure that could be handled in the Economy section.)
• although America's wealth inequality was also ranked highest among OECD countries by the World Bank.[22] (Same, though now we're getting into "what? I don't believe that!" territory that makes people want immediate sourcing)
• The economy is fueled by an abundance of natural resources, a well-developed infrastructure,[23] and high productivity;[24] and while its economy is considered post-industrial it continues to be one of the world's largest manufacturers.[25] (Three sources for one sentence that should be handled in Economy)
• The country accounts for 39% of global military spending,[26] (Not terribly controversial, should be moved to Military)

So of the above sources (Any I didn't mention I think either should be there, or are not as cut and dry), some have no reason to exist at all (the Civil War one), and some (the source, not the statement) should be moved to their appropriate section (or, if the information in that section is already properly sourced, removing the source from the intro entirely). If no one complains about the above, I'll start trimming them tomorrow. --Golbez (talk) 13:59, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

[insert] Agree with Golbez administrative project to remove intro citations for commonly known events, such as the American Civil War, which has its own subject title on Wikipedia. Less blue-out. The difficulty arises is that substantive textual editing sometimes occurs, whether intentionally or not, then replacing the omitted phrase leads to misunderstanding and charges of edit war. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:18, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Actually the Civil War is one of the defining points for the US - establishing that the federal govermnet was sovereign over the individual states. Collect (talk) 14:28, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

What does your statement have to do with removing a source in the intro on "The American Civil War ended legalized slavery in the United States."? --Golbez (talk) 18:27, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

No, it did not. Individual states have no right to leave the union, then again the federal government has no right to remove them from the union either. TFD (talk) 14:47, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

The sovereignty of the federal government over the individual states was established in Article 6, Clause 2 of the US Constitution. It can be argued that the Civil War reinforced this or tested this, but it did not establish it. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 18:18, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

No it does not. TFD (talk) 18:21, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

You give no sources, but I know where that is written down so that another might read such an idea. St. George Tucker, an important Virginian jurist in the 17th century wrote "Tucker's Blackstone", free online. His interpretation is clearly explicated and applied to US constitutional practice by Jefferson Davis in his "Short History of the Confederate States of America", free online. However, in this world of how things are today, the legal thought of the Virginians George Wythe and Thomas Jefferson have carried the day, and that is what should be used for this article.

By persuasion and jurisprudence, by votes then by arms, now again by votes, the United States is a government of the people in a federal republic. The people of the nation are sovereign, those people live in States subject to Congress and the US Constitution with self-government in states and territories, made by Congress of territory granted by kings, purchased, and conquered, from existing States ceding territory and dividing themselves, as the sovereign American people decide. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:00, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Could you please explain what your comments have to do with OuroborosCobra's statement, "The sovereignty of the federal government over the individual states was established in Article 6, Clause 2 of the US Constitution." TFD (talk) 16:22, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Ugh, you people have no self control. Why do I even bother. Nothing can ever get accomplished around here because every single section devolves into fighting about an argument from another section. Stop falling for it and it will stop happening. Look at how I responded to Collect's non-sequitur - not with asking him to back it up, not responding to it as if it had substance, but to shut it down by asking how it was at all relevant. Stop spoiling legitimate discussions with your petty, worthless arguments, all of you. Gain some self control and stop taking the bait. --Golbez (talk) 16:24, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I believe that to state the United States is a Federal Republic requires a source for the lede, specifically since the Constitution, the founding and active document of the United States, states the United States is a Union of the People. In other words the Federal Republic derives power from the People. "We the People" should not be casually dismissed from the lede of the article. Maybe one could state the United States is the People's republic. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:18, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

It is [nearly, apparently] uncontroversial. Why does it need a source in the intro when it can get a source in the appropriate Government section? Sources in the intro are only for controversial statements, statements that aren't sourced in the article (which is the sign of a bad intro to begin with), or for BLP statements. 99% of people coming in are not going to challenge that it is a federal republic, therefore it does not need a source in the lede. --Golbez (talk) 16:41, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

A republic, unlike a monarchy, is a "union of the people." And the constitution recognizes states, which must have "republican" forms of government. The constitution btw only provides for representation from states and and states' approval is required to amend the constitution. TFD (talk) 16:50, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Then why didn't the founders state that the United States was a Republic in Constitution? This is why a source is needed in the lede that the United States is a Republic. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:14, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

It does sort of, just like TFD says. States are required to have a republican form of government, in the republic of the United States. It is federal in that national and state governments have spheres of authority assigned to them. With the Civil War and the 14th Amendment, State governments are now restricted by the same constitutional provisions which used to only apply to the national Federal big-gummit.

So either the Constitution replacing the Articles (my choice), or the 14th Amendment, is the end of "States Rights" -- states as independent actors apart from the American people as a nation. But there is still a "dual citizenship" in the nation and in the state, --- so, like Golbez says --- characterizing the US as a federal republic is UNcontroversial --- to the extent its polities have republican forms of self-government.

How is Cmguy77 correct? The people are sovereign, they are the authority for the Constitution. ** The people in the states may call a national convention without Congress. ** The people in Congress may call a national convention, or an amendment process by the people in the states, which at 3/4 ratification, takes effect without further endorsement by President, Congress or the Supreme Court; -- but the courts then sort out how the amendment is to interact with previously passed constitutional amendments in each Circuit. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:00, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

TheVirniniaHistorian is correct. The People decide on making amendments to the Constitution. The People can hold a constitutional convention at any moment in time if the The People of each state agree to hold a Constitutional convention. The word state is interestingly mentioned in the Constitution. The "federal" part of the government is refered to as "Congress". The President is elected by an electorial college even today. There are only current 538 electors that elect the President. That does not sound like much of a Republic when only 538 people choose who will be President. When Bush was elected in 2000, the Supreme Court put him in office with a 5:4 decision. The President in a sense is not part of the Republican system. He is seperate. The Supreme Court is really out of the Republican system. They hold the office for life and are appointed. Congress, itself, could be considered a Republican form of government, but not the President nor the Supreme Court. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:27, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

See Webster's definition of republic.[5] The U.S. conforms with the first definition in every way. It also meets Webster's definition of a federation.[6] Where are you getting your definitions? TFD (talk) 16:47, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate the Webster's definition of a republic The Four Deuces. My reference source is the U.S. constitution. The United States Congress is a Republic since the people can directly vote for officials both Senate and Representatives. Contary to popular opinion, the President is not elected by the people. That is a myth. The President is elected by the electoral college or electors. That falls outside the definition of a Republic. Yes. The President is not a "Monarch" and can be impeached. The Supreme Court is not part of a Republic, even by Webster's definition. The Supreme Court is not elected and has a life time tenor in office. I agree with you in part that the United States is a Republic, but not completely. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:05, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

There is nothing in the definition of a republic that requires direct election of presidents or judges. Of course the courts are part of the country under the definition. And the U.S. constitution does not call Congress a republic. Are these ideas you have developed on your own or is there a website devoted to them? TFD (talk) 19:32, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Republic discussion continued

TFD, I am agreeing with you that Congress is a Republic. My reference source is the U.S. Constitution. I am not making this up on my own. Webster's second definition B states: "a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law". Neither the President nor the Supreme Court is elected by the body of citizens. Currently only 538 electors vote for the President. That is not the People. Of course the Supreme Court is not elected, rather life time tenor. In terms of electing the President the supreme power resides not in the People, but the electors. Presidential campaigns are not planned on the popular vote, rather how to obtain a majority of the 538 electorial votes. The Supreme Court is appointed by the President, not elected by the People. I would state that the United States is a modified Republic where the President is elected by Electorial College, rather then the people, and the Supreme Court is appointed by the President, and approved by the Senate for a life time tenor. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:54, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

[insert] 'Here is a source (2007) on the Electoral College: Encyclopedia of American Political Parties and Elections, page 136. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:34, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

[insert] The source says some would have direct election for president as James Wilson in the Constitutional Convention, but he was outvoted there. The living PEOPLE in each state are represented in the Electoral College based on the state population, NOT manipulated registration, not restricted voter turnout, not inflated numbers from Chicago/Cook County IL tombstones. What is your point? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 20:53, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

The United States is a republic based in the people voting in states, making it a federal republic. Each state government must be have republican forms of governance. All three branches are derived from the authority of the people.

Congress is the First Branch, closest to the PEOPLE. In the House, elected directly by the people by the broadest possible electorate, without religious test when states still had religious test for state officers. The American people once allowed their elected state legislatures to chose Senators, but the American people took that away from all State legislatures for direct election of US Senators in Constitutional Amendment.

The Executive is the Second Branch, second closest elected by the PEOPLE in the states (a) by their elected state legislators electing presidential electors, or (b) by their direct election of presidential electors (b-1) by statewide or (b-2) by statewide and congressional district (once in a dozen States, now Nebraska and Maine).

The Judiciary is the Third Branch, furthest from the people, but derived from the PEOPLE by appointment from their chief magistrate elected by a simple majority from the Electoral College, and confirmed by their elective representatives in states from two-thirds of their elected representatives in the Senate.

All three branches are derived from the consent of the governed. TFD's characterization of the US as a "federal republic" is correct. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 20:30, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate the civics lesson TheVirginiaHistorian, but the political reality is that the People do not vote for the President nor the Supreme Court Justices. The Presidential elections are derived from swing states. In the last election (2012) these swing states were dominated by each candidate, particularly Ohio and Florida. The People can't overturn any Supreme court decision, except through an amendment to the Constitution. I suppose that the Amendment process could be a potential validation for calling the United States a Republic. In my view, however, the current condition of the United States is not a complete Republic. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:53, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

[insert] The outcome of the civics lesson is that the US is a republic. You do not like the outcomes of the federal system electing a president from results in some states voting for the same party in a predictable pattern. But that pattern must be left for the people to decide in their political parties. You would bring about direct election of president as a democratic feature in the republic, but that does not alter the republican nature of the nation-state, it is governed by laws of Congress in a scheme of representation.

If you would like the diversity of the nation more uncertainly expressed in presidential elections, the answer for your state is the District Plan of presidential electors. In 2008, Obama won the Omaha City electoral vote, McCain took out-state districts and the state at-large electoral vote for a outcome of 1-4 in Nebraska.

Without state apportionment by population, the most important element in an election is turnout, dead or alive. The greatest turnouts are in the port cities, so I guess I should be for that, Virginia’s Hampton Roads has more shipping than New York or Chicago. But without state electoral or congressional district communities, organization in that narrow geographic and economic interest will determine the president versus your swing states. Longshoremen and teachers versus farm co-ops and the NRA? I think I prefer the American political party system with both trying to forge a national consensus for election day victory across the entire continent versus which is for more docks and deeper navigation channels --- as a political reality. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:55, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

How about adding this to the lede: "The People have the power to amend the U.S. Constitution." Cmguy777 (talk) 21:02, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

To the lede? Why? How is this remotely important enough that it belongs outside of the government section? --Golbez (talk) 03:52, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Wow. Once we identify the US as a "federal republic", we do not have to say it can self-change its constitutions. It is in the nature of a federal republic to change its constitutions by the living people, since it is not restrained by the dead hand of the past, tradition, common law, what-have-you. That is the point of describing the US federal republic as it is today, 50 states, DC and the self-governing territories. --- Thank you, Golbez, for taking this article project on. Your critique in 'a review of the historical sections' below here at Talk is a good place to start a broader discussion. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:07, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

"DC and the self-governing territories" play no role in amending the constitution. TFD (talk) 08:16, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

You have agreed territories which are not states have been and can be in the US federal republic before becoming states. Amending the Constitution requires in part, 2/3 of the House. DC and territory Members have full debate privileges on the floor and voting privileges in their committees. They play the role of territory delegations in amending the constitution.

Bills in the House begin from the floor and go to committee, where DC and territorial Members of Congress vote on them in substance and procedurally to report to the floor. On the floor, DC and territory Members participate in the national councils, in floor debate --- as territory delegations, but not as states. You keep saying that since territory delegations are not state delegations, they are NOT there -- nonsense -- they ARE there, not as state delegations, but as territory delegations. Which you admit, you just refuse to allow it to be written on Wikipedia. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:27, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Why is the United States a federal republic? I believe that needs to be in the lede. TFD has a signifgant view. Territories do not have representation in Congress. That is not a Republic. The President being elected by an independant electoral college is not a Republic. The Supreme Court being appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate having life time tenor is not a Republic. I believe Congress and state governments are part of the Republic. The CIA, FBI, and Pentagon are not accountable to the public. The Department of Defense has secret intelligence angencies througout the United States outside the control of the people. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:52, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Territories do not have representation in Congress. --- Wrong. At the US House website The House explained, we see DC and territory Members of Congress “possess the same powers as other members of the House, except that they may not vote when the House is meeting as the House of Representatives.”, so that includes privileges of floor debate, -- as all US territories before them -- and additionally, the modern territories have voting in House committees, in conference committees with the Senate, and in their House Party Caucus. Each makes two appointments each year to the four service academies. The Puerto Rican Congressman is on the Judiciary Committee which would be one of those considering any Constitutional Amendment.

DC and territory Members of Congress are found at the Directory of Representatives in alphabetic order at their .gov websites. (1) District’s Norton, (2) Guam’s Bordallo, (3) Northern Mariana’s Sablan, (4) Puerto Rico’s Pierluisi, (5) Samoa’s Faleomavaega, (6) Virgin Islands’ Christensen. Territories do have representation in Congress, not as states, as territories. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:44, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Cmguy777, where are you getting your definition of a republic? All the Webster's definition says is that it is not a monarchy. The president and other officials need not be directly elected. TFD (talk) 11:33, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

In my opinion Webster's dictionary is not a historical source. The definition of a Republic is very basic. If you can't vote in the House on any bills then you are not actually representing any territory or district. I keep repeating myself. Congress is a Republic. Remember, the Constitution States the People are a Union. We the People. The Constitution does not state, We the People of the Republic of the United States. Just because the U.S. in not a monarchy, even allowing the fact the Supreme Court is a life long tenor, that does not mean all of the U.S. government is a Republic. What about the CIA, the FBI, the Secret Intelligence Service of the Department of Defense. Then there is the Pentagon. None of these entities is under the power of the People. Then there is slavery. How could the United States have been a Republic when slavery was widespread? Defining a nation as a Republic is a complicated issue and I believe the definition of a Republic needs to be expanded in the lede. Part of the United States is a Republic. I believe there needs to be a reliable book source with an inclusive definition of what a Republic is. Cmguy777 (talk) 06:06, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

You need to provide a source for your definition of republic. TFD (talk) 06:28, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

@CMguy777. The definition of a republic is government of society by a scheme of representation -- that is your legislative body which makes the laws governing that society. You object to the 200-year constitutional practice which the US Congress follows, making a distinction between states and territories in the House of Representatives. Good for you, but that's not the United States as recognized and operating de facto and de jure today -- regardless of your contrary unsourced imaginings, the US in Congress today includes 50 states, DC and five organized territories of US citizens and nationals, the society represented in the US federal republic. You have their .gov websites as Members of Congress, you refuse to read them.

You object to departments of the executive and the federal courts. But they are a part of the Constitution of 1789, a legitimate government existing in today's world. In the Articles of Confederation there was no President, Supreme Court, etc., etc., all functions were a function of Congressional Committees. But most legislative, executive and judicial business in Congress of the 1780s required 2/3 membership present to do anything -- important things required unanimous vote. The regime was widely seen as unsatisfactory, then and now. Congress approved of the process to replace the Articles, each state in turn agreed to the process apart from existing state legislatures. The Constitution was ratified by the new process.

The old Congress dissolved itself, each state sent representatives elected by the new system -- without religious test for Congress from every state, while most states still had religious tests for state offices. The new Constitution was adopted unanimously by the American people within two years, versus the seven years it took for unanimous adoption of moribund Articles of Confederation -- the new Constitution being three times better than the old Articles, in the eyes of the Founding Fathers, as they voted then in history. You may say the new Constitution and its Congressional makeup of states, DC and territories is illegitimate, but you need a source. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:12, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit Break

This all depends on agreeing on the definition of what a Republic is. Does a Republic include slavery? Does a Republic include the CIA, Secret Intelligence Service of the Department of Defense, and the FBI? Is Plato's Republic a valid source for defining what a Republic is? What about corporations and lobby groups? Are they part of a Republic? Cmguy777 (talk) 15:14, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Please provide any source (with a page reference) that defines a republic. TFD (talk) 15:22, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

• Barry (2011) The American Republic: The Fourth Form Government, Chapter 5. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:10, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Here is the link. Notice it says nothing about the definition including how presidents and judges are selected, whether all people have equal rights, or any other objections you have raised. TFD (talk) 18:08, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

According to the book there are many definitions of a Republic. The book give James Madison's view of what a Republic is. Madison also believe blacks were property and 3/4 people. That does not sound like much of a Republic. Sounds like a slave empire. Today there is no slavery, but we have the CIA, FBI, Secret Intelligence of the State Department, all not under the power of the people. That is not a Republic. We have corporations who lobby and control the United States Senate and House of Representatives. They are called PAC's. In addition corporations outside the United States, including royalty, can donate to political parties in the United States. The people are not represented when the NRA has more power over Senators more then 88% of the people who supported gun screening at trade shows. That is not a Republic. I believe we are going around in circles. With that stated, I believe that Barry (2011) would be a good source for the article and replace one of the sources and keep the Onuf source. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:30, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Well we agree on one thing: We are going around in circles. Can we all please come to an agreement that there is a consensus that the U.S. is a federal republic, and that Cmguy's point of view is an outlier that doesn't warrant further effort? You having an opinion does not warrant inclusion on this page. (also, it was 3/5ths, and that was a political compromise with regard to representation and taxation that didn't square with the beliefs of the founders; a certified teacher with a BA in History would surely know that no one thought they were literally partially human.) --Golbez (talk) 21:06, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Goblez. How does the institution and protection of slavery, the CIA, the FBI, the Secret Intelligence Agency of the Defense Department fit into the category or definitions provided for a Republic? None of these issues has been addressed in this article. How do you know what Madison thought of blacks? He did state that blacks were property. Blacks did not get to Constitutionally vote after the American Civil War in 1871. Maybe you need to read the words of Ulysses S. Grant, who supported the 15th Amendment. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:23, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

You appear to not know why the 3/5ths compromise existed. Also, you have provided no definition. You've mentioned a source to one but I'm not about to find this book. If you cannot find a more accessible definition of "Republic" then it's clear yours is a minority position. "Republic" is a standard enough term that it should be very, very easy to find an accessible definition of it on the web. --Golbez (talk) 23:22, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

I provided the link above, here it is again. Nothing in it supports Cmguy777's arguments. TFD (talk) 02:08, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Here is another source: Salmon (2010), The Rise and Fall of Corporate America, p. 21 Cmguy777 (talk) 04:14, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Salmon states the corporations through bribery and lobbying have taken over the U.S. government and that the U.S. government no longer serves the interests of "the People", as the Founders intended, but rather the interests of the corporations. The United States is owned and run by the corporations. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:14, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

By the way Madison believed blacks were a depraved race and that as slave property their masters would take care of them. In other words blacks did not need a government and were not counted as people. Cmguy777 (talk) 06:14, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

You are leaping to conclusions away from the sources, secondary and primary. Madison believed that slavery as practiced in the United States degraded the people enslaved; he promoted Virginia state purchase of skilled volunteers away from their owners, training for wagon makers etc., and state/national purchase of lands in Africa for sponsoring them to colonize an independent republic of African-American settlers, following the example of the British abolitionists in Sierra Leone, under the military protection of the United States.

In a recent book tour featured on CSPAN, Ralph Nader noted there were several anti-corporate impulses converging including his citizen-consumer movement, libertarians, John Birch Society and Occupy Wallstreet. The first mistake is to think corporations are people. Corporations are legal fictions, exist to allocate financial risk, not escape legal and ethical accountability (like states are legal fictions to create political communities). But the American people in Congress CAN determine what best serves their interests in the long term BECAUSE the US is a "federal republic", and when any provision or practice becomes harmful enough, long enough, to enough people, it will be amended or ended. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:22, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I gave a valid source Salmon (2010) that stated corporations own the U.S. government and the People are no longer in charge of the government, as the Founders intended. If Madison actually believed slavery was degrading to blacks, then why did he not emanciapate his own slaves? Yes. He was for colonization because America was only for white people. Madison did not include blacks to be part of the American Republic where they have voting rights and freedom to travel from state to state, choose their own employment, as white people could during Madison's times. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:37, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Considering your blatant ignorance of the reason for the 3/5ths compromise, which you continue to defend despite that reasoning being available on this very encyclopedia, I'm not sure why we should further consider your redefinition of republic. --Golbez (talk) 15:43, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Before you decry me of "blatant ignorance", please read the following by Junius P Rodriguez (2007) Slavery in the United States: A Social, Political, And Historical Encyclopedia , pages 128-129. Rodriguez discusses how the three fifths compromise created "Slave Power" that controlled congress. Washington, Jefferson, Madison, and Monroe were all Virginia Presidents. They were elected because of the electoral college representation that gave the Southerners an advantage since counting slaves 3/5 person increased the South's Representation. Woodrow Wilson, another Virginia president, was a dedicated segregationist. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:24, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it was a compromise because the South wanted every slave counted, thus giving them more power in the legislature. The north wanted them treated as property, since giving them representation simply increased their owners' political power. Which ... kind of goes counter to your earlier statement about Madison thinking they were less than human. If, according to you, Madison and all the other "Virginia Presidents" (Wilson being elected from New Jersey notwithstanding) all thought slaves were merely property and not human, shouldn't they have logically argued that they should not be apportioned at all? I know I talk a big game about keeping focused and not straying off into side arguments, but I think this is relevant - if you're so wrong about one aspect of American history, why should we think you're right about another? Also, you haven't even bothered - at least from what I see - to say what you think it should say if not "federal republic". You've simply said "federal republic" needs a source, which so far not one person agrees with you, that I see (I could be wrong; there's a lot of discussion here after all). --Golbez (talk) 16:32, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

None of which has anything to do with whether or not the U.S. is/has always been a republic. TFD (talk) 16:33, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

At least we agree that the 3/5 comprise gave them more power in the legislature. Rodriguez contends that the 3/5 compromise destablized the nation, or as you state Republic. Congress passed laws that required the capture of fugitive slaves. Congress passed a law that only whites could be citizens of the country. This has everything to do with the nation being a Republic. Slave Power dominated Congress up until the Civil War. After the Civil War Corporate America took over our Congress, the Presidency, and the Judicial system. OK. Since we are going around in circles, mentioning the "3/5 Compromise", "Slave Power", in addition to "Corporate America" would be appropriate for the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:15, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Wow, you just cannot stay on point, can you. Can we all move on now please and put this behind us? --Golbez (talk) 17:17, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

That is fine with me. Wilson's primary education was in the Jim Crow south and his historical encyclopedia viewed blacks as inferior or next to monkeys and he castigated Radical Reconstruction that gave blacks citizenship and suffrage. As President Wilson honored the Confederate heritage and instituted segregation in Washington D.C. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:40, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Cmguy agrees to put this pointless "federal republic" argument behind us. Because that's what I meant when I said that. If I'm reading you wrong, please correct, otherwise we can get on to the task of actually improving the article. --Golbez (talk) 17:47, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

We can end the discussion. You are correct. There is one humorous part of the movie Network (1976) I found on YouTube. Network: You have meddled with the primal forces of nature! It's about corporations. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:57, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Controversial

I am suggesting that the "reform" sentence include the word controversial, as it is; and if required I can list a number of reliable sources that are critical of the health care "reform". Also, only one use of controversial is used in the article, and this is about the Iraq War. There is sufficient criticism and opposition of health care "reform" that it is clearly notable, and thus could be said to be controversial (which the terms "Obamacare controversy" returns back 34.6 million hits, where the terms "Iraq War controversy" returns a smaller 26.3 million hits). --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:41, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

The American Civil War was pretty controversial, as were the Civil Rights Movement and American involvement in World War I. It's probably pretty safe to say that there has been political advocacy and controversy throughout America every year for the last five hundred years. I don't see any reason to include health care reform as controversial. But you are right that the Iraq War probably doesn't need to be described as controversial either. I will attempt to rewrite that paragraph. NW (Talk) 00:31, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

I strongly agree. If anything, since the new law is a major ongoing controversy, the qualifier is more warranted than it is for a past event like the US led invasion of Iraq. If the word "controversial" is dropped from both sentences then the healthcare law sentence should still have some mention that the bill's ultimate impact is disputed (similar to the sentence about the long term debt impact in the Government Finance section), since there's a claim in the text about the future impact. Or maybe the whole sentence should just be deleted until things are sorted out years from now. VictorD7 (talk) 04:59, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

I somewhat agree that PPACA (and the financial reform bill) may not necessarily be worthy for the history section. It's a pretty big case of recentism, as the health care and financial reforms were marginal reforms rather than fundamental reconstructions that warrant actual mention, like Medicare and Medicaid were. It also seems to be part of the narrative (such as it is) style of the History section, which is to list things by president rather than by a wider era. This may be why things like PPACA etc. are given so much weight, to fill in the Obama administration with something. However, I would also say that the controversy of the Iraq War is much more important than the controversy over PPACA, since the latter is a marginal reform in the health care system, whereas the former was the pre-emptive invasion of a sovereign nation that resulted in hundreds of thousands of deaths. The two are not remotely comparable; to say we need some kind of balance by saying "if one says controversial then the other has to as well!" is a false equivalence. So, my suggestion is to remove the mention of PPACA and Dodd-Frank for now, but keep the linked controversy for Iraq. --Golbez (talk) 05:43, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Dodd-Frank may not be significant reform in the long term, but it is too soon to tell how the ACA will stand up in the time of history. Who knows, perhaps by 2025, all states will have implemented the Medicaid expansion and the ACA will have roughly accomplished its goal of providing universal health insurance. We don't know well how enough how effective it will be, but both take up all three words in the article. While the Iraq War may be more important on a global narrative scale, the ACA will be far more important for the citizens of the United States than the Iraq War. The bottom line right now is that we are too embroiled in recent events to truly figure out what will be important for the Grand Narrative. Accordingly, I'm fine with keeping things as it is now.

But I see now that you have left a larger comment below, and I will reflect on it. NW (Talk) 15:59, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

The impact of Medicare and Medicaid were probably obvious when they were created; the impact of PPACA is less so. Will it be more or less important than the HMO act or EMTALA? Hard to say. At this point, probably more, but enough to warrant mention? I'm unsure. As you can see I'm waffling on whether or not to include them; I feel that their inclusion will be determined by the greater narrative we want to draw on the post-Cold War era. --Golbez (talk) 16:54, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

I strongly disagree because wars are inherently "controversial", and the Iraq War was fought on a far smaller scale (and was far less controversial) than events like WW1, WW2, the Korean War, Vietnam, etc., and yet no other war is labeled with the qualifier "controversial". I also disagree that the healthcare law is merely a "marginal" reform. It's probably the most controversial underlying issue in the US right now, and has been for a few years. The legitimate rationale for not including it would be that events are in such a state of flux. The law hasn't been fully implemented yet, vast amounts of authorized regulation has yet to be written, legal battles continue, supporters are acknowledging that various components will be different than previously advertised, and frankly there's still a chance the whole thing gets repealed in a few years. At the very least matter of fact future pronouncements in Wikipedia's voice should be avoided. VictorD7 (talk) 20:17, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Wars are inherently controversial, yes; however, the "controversial" statement in question is not about the war, but rather the grounds for it. As I gave examples before, Fort Sumter igniting the Civil War is not in question; Pearl Harbor being the catalyst for entering WW2 is not in question; and that we went in to Iraq based on certain intelligence is not in question. However, the validity of that intelligence IS questioned, and should be mentioned when the war is introduced. We can't by any means say "Intelligence that Iraq had WMDs let to the Iraq War" because that intelligence is now widely considered faulty, and to omit that fact would be a disservice to our readers. Likewise we can't simply say "The Iraq War happened" because we're doing a disservice to the reader by providing no context. --Golbez (talk) 20:45, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

I addressed those points in my other response below. Numerous other, larger wars have no mention of grounds despite said grounds being controversial, and large WMD stockpiles weren't the only reason given for the invasion. It was a essentially a resumption of hostilities after numerous cease fire violations. People can support or oppose it but its origin was no more controversial than conflicts like Vietnam, the Spanish-American War, Mexican War, and to some degree even the world wars. VictorD7 (talk) 20:53, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

That the others lack it is no justification, they should have it as well. And (we're starting to repeat ourselves in the same section) I would like to see your suggestion for the sentence introducing the Iraq War. --Golbez (talk) 20:57, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

The term controversial can be a political statement. There may be artificial controversy if lobby groups due to financial interests create controversy over any issue in order to stop or to pass legislation in Congress. For example, abortion, was and is controversial because people protested and even resorted to violence of vandalism who actually believe abortion was murder. In terms of health, I believe that finding out who lobbied against what is known "Obamacare" would be help define whether healthcare reform was in actuality controversial or was sponsored by corporations. The Tea Party is sponsored by the Koch Brothers. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:29, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Cmguy has a point, though not the one he attempted to make: Legal abortion is at least as controversial as PPACA, considering that so far, no one has been killed over PPACA, and many states are actively trying to block or undo the provisions determined in Roe v. Wade. Yet, it's not specifically mentioned at all.

But to get back on topic wrt "controversy": Wars are very important things, both domestic and in the international context. We should always explain why a country goes to war when we mention it, and not simply say "and then this war happened". To explain why we went to war in Iraq, you must mention the controversial grounds for it. (I don't think we mention anything about why we entered the Gulf War, that should be fixed.) I mean, look at other wars. That Iraq invaded and annexed Kuwait is not in question. That Pearl Harbor was bombed is not in question. That Iraq had or was actively seeking WMDs is very much in question. The grounds for the war (not necessarily the war itself, almost all wars are controversial, but the grounds for it) are controversial, and that statement and the link should remain. Perhaps a different wording, though, if you really want to get away from "controversial"? --Golbez (talk) 16:54, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

This article should not be another place that advances the current administration's policy goals per WP:POV.

We are not hear to say that X legislation is positive or negative, we can say that there are X for and Y against, and in a neutral way say why either are for or against, but this is also a summary article. To say that the Tea Party is funded by XYZ is irrelevant to this discussion. It's like saying that Soros and Buffet are major funders of so and such, it is irrelevant.

So if we remove controversial from Iraq War, than we should not include controversial for the "reform". If we are to include it for one thing, it opens the door to include it for everything else that can be verified that the controversy regarding the event is notable enough for mention (WEIGHT).--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:08, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Right, there's simply no equivalence here. The question over whether the Iraq War grounds can be termed controversial has nothing to do with whether PPACA can be termed controversial, except to say that allowing one conceivably opens the door for others. So, if we were to remove 'controversial' from the grounds for the Iraq War, what would you replace it with as an explanation for why the country went to war? (And yeah, I don't know where most of what Cmguy talks about comes from either) --Golbez (talk) 18:15, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

There’s currently no mention of the grounds for the US-Mexican War, Spanish-American War, WW1, Vietnam War (was the Tonkin Resolution controversial?), or first Gulf War, only Cold War context presented for the Korean War’s brief mention, and damn little explanation for WW2 intervention aside from a Pearl Harbor mention (nothing on why the US had chosen to supply the Allies). Add that there was a lot more to the stated rationale to invade Iraq than just believed WMD stockpiles (one can find them in the Congressional authorization for war, Clinton era Iraqi Liberation Act, Tony Blair’s speeches on humanitarianism, etc.), and that it was one of the proportionally smallest wars in American history, and I see no need to single its grounds out for special emphasis (though I wouldn’t necessarily oppose good wording doing so) and certainly no reason to selectively apply the word “controversial” to it. If there's a difference between that and the PPACA it's that the latter is an ongoing controversy involving a high level of future uncertainty, not a past event. VictorD7 (talk) 20:46, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

And we absolutely need to provide the grounds for all of these. We can start here. As for the woeful state of context in the other wars, I go into that in the below section on the History section in general. Before I can say whether or not the term "controversial" would remain in your version of the grounds, I'd have to see what you propose. But unlike even Vietnam, where one could say it was a hot part of the Cold War, I fail to see any concise explanation of why the Iraq War happened that doesn't include a mention of now-discredited intelligence. But that could simply be my lack of imagination, which is why I want to see what you propose. --Golbez (talk) 20:55, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

By how much do you want to blow the section up? Adding background info for all those conflicts would significantly expand article length. Even if we do that, the Iraq War probably shouldn't get more space than events like WW1 or the War of 1812, or a more in depth explanation of what the Cold War was about, so it'd be best to keep it short and vague. How about something like..."In 2003, after repeated hostilities, a US led coalition invaded Iraq, ousting Saddam Hussein's regime."...with the appropriate links? VictorD7 (talk) 21:13, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Or "...,after ceasefire violations,..."....or "...,after repeated ceasefire violations,..." or even "...,after alleged repeated ceasefire violations,..."? VictorD7 (talk) 21:28, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't need to be blown up heavily, wars just need a minimum of context. It's not enough to say a war happened, we have to provide at least a bare amount of why. As for "repeated hostilities," if that is in rationale for the Iraq War it's only really mentioned as one of about a dozen bullet points, I assume you refer to the violation of the enforcement of the no-fly zone? Because that's the only hostilities I can think of that pertain to the run up to the Iraq War. So "repeated hostilities" seems to be insufficient. We can't say it was after UN resolutions because the UN did not sign off on the war. We can't say it was due to intelligence about WMDs or terrorism without stating that intelligence has been discredited. I'm confident it's possible to do this in a single sentence, I'm just not yet sure how. (In contrast, the Vietnam War was very much a part of the Cold War, and the context for that at the moment seems sufficient, though again I think everything since the 1970s or so needs a rewrite in the History section) --Golbez (talk) 21:34, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Hostilities would arguably also include an attempt to assassinate a US president, but that's why I added the alternative, broader "cease fire violations", and I avoid stating that those are the only reasons for the war, simply that they happened with the implication that they contributed to it. For the record, many argue that the war did have UN authorization due to previously passed, standing Chapter VII (binding) resolutions, and that further resolutions were unnecessary, but I'm not sure the issue of UN approval warrants inclusion. It's mentioned in the first Gulf War sentence but not elsewhere. Only two other wars mentioned had UN approval, Korea (because the Soviets boycotted and Beijing didn't have a seat yet) and Afghanistan, and in neither case would lack of approval have stopped the war. As for the rationale, among other things it included:

- Engaging "in brutal repression of its civilian population".

- "Supporting and harboring" terrorists, from Abu Nidal to Al Qaeda affiliated Ansar al-Islam to Hussein's open and boastful subsidization of anti-Israeli terrorists.

- Iraq's failure to cooperate with weapons inspectors, from kicking them out in 1998 to Hans Blix reporting continued failure to cooperate in 2003 (though the expected large bio./chem. stock piles weren't found, the post invasion reports concluded that the regime had both the intent to resume making them once the UN was off its back and the desire to solidify its hold on power by perpetuating the belief that it already had them, to the point where even various Iraqi officers believed they did and requested the deployment of WMDs during the US invasion; Also, Iraq did possess various conventional weapons that had been prohibited by the ceasefire agreements).

- "refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;"

- Attempting to assassinate President Bush and firing on Coalition forces "on many thousands of occasions" since then.

- A desire to replace the regime with a democratic government in accordance with the 1998 Iraq Liberation Act.

- Iraq generally "threatening its neighbors" and "international peace", common refrains throughout the document.

Relations between Iraq and the US (plus allies) had collapsed even before Bush took office (complete with occasional airstrikes), and there was far less patience for Hussein's shenanigans in a post 9/11 world. Any attempt to boil it down to just WMDs would be too simplistic and probably agenda driven, and mentioning WMDs would require adding other rationale components. VictorD7 (talk) 22:32, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

I believe the reader needs to know who is funding the controversy and whether the controversy is artificial or actually grass roots. Opposition to abortion is grassroots. Opposition to "Obama Care" was from the Tea Party funded by the Koch Brothers. This issue goes both ways including Soros and Buffet. Here is another example. 83% of Americans supported the 2013 gun control measure but conservatives kept the bill from passing. The bill was not controversial in terms of Americans being divided. Here is the article: Poll: Majority Supports Failed Senate Gun Control Bill. The NRA strongly opposed the Manchin-Toomey S. 649 Senate Gun Contol bill. There was no controversy on gun control. Here is the article: Senate rejects expanded gun background checks. This is an example of artificial controversy when the NRA got in the way of the American people. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:01, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

In the end using controversial for one one, and not another, can be seen as creating a non-neutral section that leans to the American political left. This article should not lean left, or right. We can have our individual POVs, and we can be open about it (as some are) here. But that shouldn't be taking place in the article.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:13, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

I yield on the Iraq War. Keep the link to the rationale, and if y'all can manage to fit a reasoning into a single sentence, go for it. --Golbez (talk) 03:45, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

I am not advocating that Wikipedia take any sides on "controversial" issues. For example, is global warming a controversy or is this a political issue sponsored by the left wing environmentalists? Before stating any issue is controversial in the article there needs to be authentication that the controversy is indeed grassroots, rather then sponsored by some political group or is politically motivated. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:48, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

I would say that there are three controversial issues in the United States. These include Immigration, Abortion, and Outsourcing. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:09, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

You need to present sources to support your theories. TFD (talk) 07:25, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

This is a discussion TDF. I am not presenting any original research or theories. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:56, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

"Officially" a secular nation?

There was recently an edit war over the religion section. I wasn't involved in that exchange, and I don't know if my narrower approach would address the concerns raised, but I do have a problem with the section's opening line:

"The United States is officially a secular nation; the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees the free exercise of religion and forbids the establishment of any religious governance."

Regarding the opening clause, not it's not. There’s no “official” proclamation in the founding documents or in any national motto making such a designation. The official national motto is “In God We Trust”, the Pledge of Allegiance (which strangely isn't mentioned anywhere in this article) routinely recited in schools calls the US “One nation, under God”, Christmas and other religious holidays are officially celebrated by the federal government, religious chaplains are officially employed by the military and to lead Congress in daily prayers (and have been since the founding era), “so help me God” is regularly cited in court rooms and official government oaths, and theistic references form the philosophical foundation of the Declaration of Independence. There may be statutes and Supreme Court opinions off handedly referring to the US as “secular” in the certain narrow sense of sectarian neutrality in government, but such texts have also referred to America as a “religious” or even “a Christian nation” over the years. Of course the population is perhaps the most religious in the western world. All of this flatly contradicts broadly understood uses of the word "secular". The secular state page linked to in the text uses a narrow definition focusing on neutrality in government that's sourced with a single European book, and frankly it looks like someone is trying to institutionalize and then shoehorn in a pet buzzword ("secular nation") here that's not ideal for an article in American English.

You can argue the US has a secular government, depending on precisely how one defines “secular” (in this case discrimination and a national church a la the Church of England are prohibited but it’s hardly devoid of religion or religious symbols), but use of the words “official” and “nation” is problematic. The term “secular nation” is ambiguous and in this case misleading.

Also, the claim that "any religious governance" is prohibited is overly categorical for such a vague term, though I'm fine with the link. Since there's enormous controversy over the meaning and scope of the Establishment Clause, with strict separationists wanting to sterilize the public sphere of cross shaped memorials and all the religious references listed above, and with the Supreme Court caught in the middle and issuing sometimes comically contradictory rulings (but generally agreeing that there's some place for religion in the public sector), we should avoid POV by sidestepping the dispute and sticking with undisputed points. A superior alternative would be to delete the opening clause and alter the sentence to read something like:

"The First Amendment of the US Constitution guarantees the free exercise of religion and forbids Congress from passing laws respecting its establishment."

(other potential links: Free Exercise Clause, Establishment Clause)

Those who believe that's what the old language meant anyway should still be satisfied, as should those who found the old language unacceptable. If, however, the "secular" language remains, then we must add a mention of the religious references and practices like chaplain employment above for clarity lest readers be misled into believing the US government is devoid of religion.VictorD7 (talk) 20:30, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Does anyone object if I make the change to the streamlined, undisputed version? VictorD7 (talk) 17:15, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

I have requested a reference for the statement officially secular. This reference (Hertzke p.236), calls the United States has passive secularism. Is there a document published by the Federal Government that states in non-legalize plain English that the United States is a secular nation-state?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:22, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree with VictorD7's suggested rewording for the lead of the section.

Also found a source that states what the lead currently says (Wane p.214). Makes me wonder how much of that wording is from Wikipedia given its 2011 publishing date.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:30, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, that's a Canadian book, a collection of essays actually, edited by radical political activists. That particular essay is written by a woman who describes herself as "agnostic or atheist" and claims the "Christian right" perpetuates "oppression". I'm not sure I've ever seen a reliable, informed, American source claim the US is "officially a secular nation". If they did they'd be wrong, for the reasons I laid out. Indeed, as your first source points out, "In the United States there is officially sanctioned public visibility of monotheism," in a way that differs sharply from assertively secular states like France. It goes on to list many of the same examples I did. VictorD7 (talk) 18:12, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Canadians have not renounced the British Queen, the titled head of their Anglican churches, her image is on their money, and according to the Canadian Religious History of Canada, in the province of Quebec, the Roman Catholic church is still … "entitled to collect tithes from Roman Catholics by process of law; it has control of the education of Roman Catholics in the province, the Protestant schools being 'separate schools'; and … the marriage of Roman Catholics with Protestants.” That’s a little different from the way it is done in the States wherever the 14th Amendment is applied, our separate-but-equal schools are overturned. I'm not sure that makes the US "secular", though. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:00, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

What does TVH think of VD7's proposed rewording of the lead of the section?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:42, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

BTW, I've decided to go with the Free Exercise/Establishment Clause links for symmetry and because they're more US specific. I'll probably make the change tomorrow if no compelling objections are raised. VictorD7 (talk) 20:26, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. Neither nation is "officially secular", but I've always been amused by the heartfelt concern expressed by Canadians and Europeans from nations with state churches over the alleged threat of oppressive theocracy posed by the American "religious right". VictorD7 (talk) 20:26, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I like VD7s wording, perhaps (maybe not, if editors see this as a can of worms) a note pointing out that courts have ruled that the 14th amendment applies the same guarantees and prohibitions made on the national government onto states and US territories by its Equal Protections Clause, --- ASIDE. That is, the guarantee and prohibition both extend equally to all US citizens under institutions of self-government in all polities of the US "federal republic", the 50 states, DC and 5 organized territories. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:32, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Ha Ha, for now I'll just make the limited change, but I do think at some point we should probably add text mentioning 14th Amendment non controversial incorporation of the Free Exercise Clause, controversial incorporation and interpretation of the Establishment Clause, and the "officially sanctioned public visibility of monotheism" mentioned earlier as exhibited by the national motto, chaplain employment, Pledge of Allegiance, reference to the "Creator" in the Declaration of Independence, holidays, etc.. "In God We Trust" isn't an obscure motto, but is present throughout society. Presidents of both parties have traditions like national prayer breakfasts and frequently make religious references in speeches. The motto currently appears in the info box, but it's strange that the Religion section doesn't mention it or any of this broader symbolic endorsement of theism. VictorD7 (talk) 18:14, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

The United States is certainly not secular in modern practice with all the religions in this country. The Constitution does not mention God and forbids any religious test to be taken. The Founders did not want a religion to dominate the government, such as the Catholic Church, or as in Britain where the King or Queen was head of the Church. I would state the United States allows citizens to practice their faith freely without interference from the government. The United States is not officially affiliated with any religious group or religion. The Treasury department does state "In God We Trust" on the coinage. I would state that is "publically sanctioned" monotheism. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:05, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit review - history, cont. – Indian removal

Indian Removal in "Independence and Expansion" can be in a chronology, followed by an expansion paragraph.

Displacement and removal of Amerindian tribes followed settlement and wars, land rushes and gold rushes, canals and railroads. Following the French and Indian War, Britain pushing French allies west of the Mississippi, causing a domino effect of displacement, disease, absorption and war across the Great Plains. A pattern of introducing settlement into Native-American lands, then their displacement and absorption, war and removal was followed by the US after the Revolution, War of 1812, and Mexican War. Native-Americans were displaced in the wake of gold rushes into Cherokee Georgia, Lakota-Sioux Dakotas and elsewhere. The Plains Indians Wars removed those remaining on land that could support crops or cattle onto reservations in the wake of intercontinental railroad construction in the late 1800s. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:49, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Though you mention "absorption", we also might include a further clarification that removal was oriented toward tribal entities, not individuals, that large numbers of Amerindians left tribal existence and assimilated into American society during this period, including by marrying whites, and that they had various avenues for becoming US citizens. Assimilation was generally encouraged by reformers and sometimes by government policy, and exemplified by the program to Americanize Indians through education at boarding schools, Christian missionary activity, and property allotment legislation like the Dawes Act. VictorD7 (talk) 19:14, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

The section doesn't give the reader the entire picture. The American Indian was often, if not always, given the option of assimilation, but because most Indians were xenophobic, racist and territorial, wanting the entire continent for themselves, most refused to join in with the nation. In fact, presidents like Thomas Jefferson encouraged the various Indian nations to assimilate, hoping they would take to farming and ranching. Also remember that for every Indian killed by a white man, ten others were killed by other Indians, simply because of demographics as the various Indian tribes were already spread across the continent, often fighting for hunting grounds, etc. This was going on long before the American settlers began making footprints on the continent. The Sioux and the Navaho tribes were notorious for whiping out other tribes -- genocide, something that the white man is routinely given 'credit' for by agenda driven individuals and other 'friends' of America. Also, much disease was spread by Indians to the settlers, including syphilis. The section is lacking in this perspective entirely. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:12, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Gwillhickers, the reality is that the U.S. Military won the majority of Indian battles. Even during the Revolutionary War, Washington ordered the removal of Indians from their lands. After the War of 1812, the Indians were pushed out of Ohio. Yes Indians were hostile, but not all tribes. Clearly, acquireing land and building an American empire was Jefferson's goal. If the Indians did not move they would be exterminated. The Land was to be used for slave labor and grain or tabbacco farming. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:12, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Insert : Cm' as usual you're just repeating the one sided narrow party line and not responding to the point of the message -- i.e.the perspective that is lacking in the section. And kindly name just one tribe or nation of Indians that suffered "genocide" at the hand of white settlers. Here's a clue. Not one. Indians suffered heavy loses doing battle with white settlers, and like any war, once the killing began, no one played fair and it was not pretty. But this notion that Europeans just came over and started shooting fish in a barrel is the stuff of agenda driven poppy-cock, typically fed to naïve college students who are led to believe that the Indians were this great united nation of peace loving "indigenous peoples", when in fact they were overall a racist, male dominated, xenophobic culture, many of whom also enslaved other tribes btw, and who were responsible for more Indian deaths than the white man was -- by far. And let's not forget all the massacres of settlers during the early years of colonization. Again, Indians overall were given the choice to assimilate. If any "extermination" occurred it was because they chose war instead of adapting to a rapidly changing world. The 1960's are over. So are its fantasies. Please do not cherry pick events to make overall statements and not use Wikipedia articles as a coatrack for such propaganda. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:55, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Whoa! Why the removal of non-English colonization of the United States? Also, regarding Native Americans, perhaps we should look at the work I did here.

From the 16th through the 19th centuries, the population of Native Americans declined in the following ways: epidemic diseases brought from Europe;[126] genocide and warfare at the hands of European explorers and colonists,[127][128][129] as well as between tribes;[130][131] displacement from their lands;[132] internal warfare,[133] enslavement;[134] and intermarriage.[135][136]

It was more than just epidemics and disease.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:48, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Gwillhickers, you are doing everything you accuse other editors of doing. This was not about assimilation. This was about taking over their land so planters could bring in their slaves. The War of 1812, was an attempt by Native Americans to keep their lands. They lost. White settlers took over both the North and the South. Speaking of fantasies, your white wash of slavery, and that Jefferson was a nice guy, who loved Indians and blacks, who fought for equality of races, oh yeah, he wanted all races to vote. Here is another fantasy. Jefferson freed all of his slaves and started Save the Indian foundation to protect Native Americans from land encroachment. I will tell you one thing though. I am not ashamed of Thomas Jefferson or any of the Founders. I don't agree with everything that they did, believed, or stood for. That is the difference between us Gwillhickers. I am not ashamed of the past and I don't try to sweep "uncomfortable" issues under the carpet of history. Cmguy777 (talk) 06:01, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

I have struck the outright lies you have made on my behalf. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 15:30, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Cm', it seems you've descended into one of your narrow minded rants again. The War of 1812 was fought against the British, who btw agitated and exploited Indians to fight American settlers, and now you have the entire white population taking over land so they could bring in their slaves and grow tobacco and grain (you're obviously stuck on Jefferson) when in reality only a (very) small fraction of settlers had or could afford to keep, feed, cloth and house slaves, esp on their journey westward. This section wasn't about slavery, an issue you never go after the Indian over, btw. Also, noting how Jefferson treated and provided for slaves is not a "whitewash", it is a reality you have yet to come to terms with, as it undermines the agenda-driven flat-earth presentation of slavery, as you are now dragging that issue onto this talk page in an obvious attempt to 'ace' the discussion with buzz words. Such tact might agitate the naïve and ignorant but I like to think most editors around here know better. As for this "Jefferson freed all of his slaves and started Save the Indian etc, etc", (i.e.more horn blowing which I struck) no one that I know of ever said this. Where are you getting this from? Again, please don't use Wikipedia, or its talk pages, to vent your distorted idea of racial justice or to misrepresent the ideas and views of other editors. I addressed this discussion in terms of how to improve the section, that the confrontation with Indians was a two sided issue. All you are doing is blowing the same racially charged horn, once again. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 15:30, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Gwillhickers, you stated this: "The 1960's are over. So are its fantasies." I was only fantasizing. Not lies. The reality is that Americans took over Indian lands for industrialization, gold and mineral resources, the spread of slavery, railroads, and defense against foriegn invasion. Whites replaced Indians in Ohio after the War of 1812. Indians were driven from their lands. Jefferson allowed the spread of slavery into the Louisiana territory. No Indians had any input in the Louisiana treaty between Napoleon and the United States. During the War of 1812, Tecumseh allied with the British in an attempt to keep Indian lands. Both the British and the Indians lost. No one is denying that Indians used war as a method of conquering and/or enslaving other Indians. Remember, the Puritans starting in the 1640's were involved in the slave trade for profit. Benjamin Franklin sold slaves at his general store in Philadelphia. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:57, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Please don't fantasize on anyone's behalf other than your own, and kindly not drag in cherry picked items (Ben Franklin) onto this talk page. "Keep Indian lands"?? Is this your way of saying that only white people should live in Europe, only blacks should live in Africa, etc, etc? Isn't that racist and xenophobic? Seems in your fight against 'racism' you have become the racist. This is a common condition among activist types and is too often readily apparent in their language and views. Sad. Let's keep the discussion focused on how to improve the article. What would you suggest we say to let the readers know that the issue with Indians was a two sided issue? Or would you prefer we ignore those things also? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:28, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

European and Indian conflict was bound to occur. Their cultures and religion were vastly different from each other. I believe a neutral historical view is that Indian policy and the wars with Indians and British mainly concerned the aquisition of territory and the control of the American continent. I am not judging the motivations of any Americans, Indians, or British. I am neither xenophobic nor racist. I can't change the past. These people lived their lives the way they wanted to live their lives. I would say this was a one sided issue for both British, Indians, and Americans; who would control the American continent. Both Indians and Whites could be extremely savage when they wanted too. There were misunderstandings between both cultures between whites and Indians. Starting with Jefferson, extermination was the policy if Indians did not move from their lands. It is not up to Wikipedia to state this was a good or bad policy. Were any tribes actually exterminated? I don't know. Indians, were forced to relocate and were pushed Westward. That has been documented. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:02, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Jefferson, of all people, did not say to "exterminate" the Indians if they did not assimilate or relocate. Jefferson always avoided war if possible. (btw, your language, i.e.'exterminate', implies the Indians were stupid and helpless bugs who couldn't defend themselves.) Now ask yourself how many colonized countries or territories throughout history gave the original inhabitants the options of assimilation or relocation? (!) FYI, the American Indian reservations, lumped together, comprise an area about the size of Texas, giving that race of people more land per capita than any other race on the continent -- throughout American history. And they are free to relocate if they want to, while whites, blacks and others are not free to relocate to any land reserved for the Indian. If the racial shoe were on the other foot I'm sure the flat-earth activist types would be doing cart-wheels all the way to Washington chanting 'racism' all the way. Suggestion for the section:

Since the first settlers set foot on the American continent, they were subject to attacks and massacres by many Indian tribes in the attempt
to drive them from the land. In the process it set a precedence for cultural and racial indifference and for future wars over land both
peoples wanted for themselves. This advent eventually led to other wars, forcing many Indian nations to relocate if they did not assimilate.

I am open to other neutral suggestions. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 15:53, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Gwillhickers, the Puritans actively sold and traded African American and Indian slaves in Boston during the 1640s. If you were Indians and whites were attempting to enslave you, would not you fight back too? Jamestown was founded on slavery on May 13, 1607. The original colonists brought in South Asians to do their work. Please check this source: Indian Slaves in Colonial America. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:25, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Insert : You're not even responding to the thread -- nothing you say here refutes the reality summarized above. We were discussing Indian removal, wars, etc, before you dragged in your pet topic -- 'slavery'. Your race card. Once again, settlers were subject to attacks and massacres from the beginning. This is what set the tone for cultural and racial indifference that resulted in wars over the same lands. 'Slavery', whether at the hand of whites or Indians, had nothing to do with that reality as you seem to think sitting in your 21st century easy chair. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 07:36, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

(To: Cmguy777) Your claims are absurdly inapt. The Puritans were not substantial slave-holders in the 1640's. Nor was slavery "hereditary." In fact, they, as a religious matter, opposed slavery. These migrants were thus not forced by conditions beyond their control to experiment with strange crops such as rice, sugar, or tobacco, and because a father and his sons could cultivate enough land to support a family-- even produce a little extra income from cash sales -- there was no compulsion to recruit a large, "cheap, subservient labor force. In fact, it was probably the transfer of cereal agriculture rather than an aversion to human bondage that kept the New Englanders from adopting slavery on a large scale" (Breen 74). [7]. As for Indian slaves -- there was a lot of intermarriage in New England - but no slavery of Indians in general! Yes - the Pequot War resulted in Pequots being taken captive - and some were also enslaved by the Narragansetts - but that was an extraordinary exception. A king that lives by law lives by love; and he that lives above law shall live under hatred, do what he can. Slavery and knavery go as seldom asunder as tyranny and cruelty. [8] BTW, Jamestown was not initially filled with slaves ... in fact hereditary slavery was not established in Virginia until 1662. To all reasonable intent, agricultural slavery was only viable in the South. WRT India - slavery was endemic at the time [9] The medieval period saw the Turco-Mongol seizure of political power in North India and the importation of new types of slaves, following practices prevalent in Central Asia. They included the numerous slave-eunuchs guarding royal and aristocratic harems, skilled artisans and construction workers, and militarily trained and highly valued slaves from Central Asia who even established a ruling dynasty--the "slave dynasty" of the thirteenth-century Delhi Sultanate. Thus a qualitatively very different type of slavery was superimposed on the age-old servile relations involving the continuing customary subjugation of low-caste and outcaste groups to the proprietors of landed and mercantile wealth. Artisanal production received an impetus, with slave-manned workshops producing a range a goods for direct consumption by the Muslim ruling aristocracy. Domestic slavery also expanded greatly; many thousands of slaves were owned by the richest nobles, differentiated by levels of skill and training and varying in price. The expansion of this group was aided by the emulation of the ruling class lifestyle (including purdah and harem) by the local Hindu aristocracies, who were integrated into the new systems of revenue collection. The practice of manumission allowed some social mobility to the better-off elements of this new servile class. With the decline and eventual disintegration of the Mughal Empire and the similar decline of the ruling dynasties in the outlying provinces during the eighteenth century, the large bands of domestic and other types of slaves were scattered and absorbed into the larger, relatively freer civil society. Collect (talk) 16:00, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Is www.indiacurrents.com even a reliable source? Are there other reliable sources that can verify this claim of South Asian Americans being slaves in the Colonial America?

This reliable source from Columbia University Press Okihiro p. 178 states that Indian did not arrive until the 1790s, and does not state whether or not they were slaves. The discrepencies between the two is almost a 200 year difference, and greatly impacts the Asian American and Indian American articles.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:17, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Insert:The indiacurrents.com article sourced a reliable historian and is dated 2007, while the other source is dated 2001. More information has come about through research. The 2007 article is more current then the 2001 source. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:33, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Are you really, really certain that the history of the Mughal Empire was appreciably different in 2007 than in 2001 when the major book was published? Really? Not. By the way, I suggest you read up on "indentured servants" which included all apprentices etc. Collect (talk) 23:03, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit break 01

Sources:

• Richard A. Bailey (2011) Race and Redemption in Puritan New England, pp. 117-118.
• Betty Wood (1997), The Origins of American Slavery: Freedom and Bondage in the English Colonies, pp. 10-11.
• Paul Harvey (2011) Through the Storm, Through the Night: A History of African American Christianity, pp. 19-20. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:55, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Gwillhickers (Collect) you know good and well the Puritans enslaved races they thought were heathen. Chesapeake colonists or Puritans believed blacks were cursed children of Ham. That is false since Noah cursed Ham's son Canaan, not Ham. Indians were enslaved because they were viewed as heathens. Colonists were not likely to evangelize the natives or blacks because if these heathens converted then Christians would be enslaving Christians. Not even Baptism could free a slave from slavery. Being black did not fit in the Puritan theology. All of this of course was a rationalization and justification for slavery. True northern protestants had a little issue or guilt for enslaving Indians and blacks. However Puritans enslaved blacks and Indians buying and selling them from the British West Indies. Chesapeake colonists began to purchase slaves in 1619. I am not sure when the first slave actually appeared in America, however, this was between 1607 and 1619, a difference of 12 years. In 12 years slaves were being bought and sold at Jamestown and Chesapeake. America was founded on slavery. East Indians were also brought in by the Dutch to be enslaved by the British colonists. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:08, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Try sourcing such outlandish claims. Especially since so many of the New Englanders married the Indians. First indentured black entered Virginia in 1612 AFAICT - but slavery was generally for a fixed period. The Indians "enslaved" by the Puritans as a result of the Pequot war were freed at age 24 (most were children or fairly young). Jamestown was not under Puritan influence in any way at all. Nor was Chesapeake "Puritan." And the Puritans actively preached to the Indians. As did the Plymouth Separatists. In fact, Squanto was Christian. So much for all the bosh above. Collect (talk) 23:03, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Indentured blacks were slaves. Indentured servitude was forced labor. If the Puritans were getting along with the Indians why was there the Pequot War. Using Indians as slaves was nothing new. Christopher Columbus wrote to Queen Isabella stating the Indians would make good slaves. In fairness the Spanish started Indian slavery. The Spanish were the first to import African slaves in 1502, only ten years after Columbus discovered America. In that sense, the Jamestown colonists may have had the ability to purchase black slaves in 1607. Black slaves had been in the Americas for over 200 (100) years. Being a slave for a certain period of time does not make that person any less of a slave. The Puritans practiced and profited from the slave trade. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:48, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Insert : Actually, the African tribal chiefs that rounded up entire tribes in the Congo basin for slavery (and human sacrifice, btw), profited from slavery far more than the Puritans did, if they did at all. And Africa is the only continent where wide spread slavery is still practiced today -- at the hand of Africans who still are enslaving other Africans. If you want to play hot potato I have a few more you might be interested in -- or we could get back to the original discussion about Indian/settler wars that led to the removal of Indians if they didn't assimilate. We were trying to bring perspective to that topic before you came in with your off topic and distorted slavery rant. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 07:36, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Interesting view, that. But one not shared by scholars. Vy your standards, Ben Franklin was a "slave" when he was apprenticed! An "indenture" is a form of contract in British law - not any more "slavery" than a mortgage is. As for the Pequots - the issues included their relationships with the Naragansetts - I thought that was clear from the history books. And as for having 1500 being 200 years before 1600 -- I fear there is a math mistake in that claim. Collect (talk) 05:18, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes. That would be 105 years. Thanks Collect. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:31, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Why are you thanking him? He just took your load and put it out on the curbside for collection. We need to get back to the original topic of Indian / settler wars, Indian removal (which is the title of this section, remember?) and why it occurred. 'Slavery' had nothing to do with it. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 07:36, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

The book The Origins of American Slavery does not mention Indian American's being slaves. The book Race and redemption in Puritan New England uses Indian to refer to Native Americans not Indian Americans, and the same thing can be said about the book Through the Storm, Through the Night.

Sorry, these sources do not support the statement, and the INDOlink's status as a reliable source remains questionable at best.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 13:58, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

I had thanked Coast for correcting a mistake although his intentions apparently appear to be hostile. The above book sources I gave are all valid and appropriate. The 2007 source is not questionable. Why don't you contact the website and register any complaints. The sources do support my above statements. I have not relied on one souce but used three sources. As for Coast, Benjamin Franklin owned slaves and sold slaves at his general store receiving a percentage of the profits. Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, George Washington were all wealthy slave owners and profited from slavery. That is my whole point. Columbus and the Spanish government started slavery in America. Slaves had been in America before the British arrived to set up Jamestown colony. East Indian slaves were brought over by the Dutch traders. The 2007 article states that an "East Indian" is documented to be in America circu 1624. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:33, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Franklin sold slaves at his general store?? What did he do, keep them chained up in the back room? What source are you getting this from? It is understood slaves were used to make a profit, and all slave owners at one time or another bought/sold slaves. No one gave them away. Hello? You say this like you've uncovered some revelation that we're supposed to be awe-struck over. There were far worse fates than slavery in those days and with wars, infant mortality, disease, etc, hardly anyone blinked at slaves who were for the most part well provided for and often worked no more than free farmers did. Sorry to have to deflate your 21st century demons. In any event, the section started out discussing Indian removal / assimilation and all you've done is deviate from that topic with your out of context slavery horn blowing, dragging in Franklin, etc, and have abandoned the idea of page/section improvement. What does Franklin's slaves have to do with Indian removal? Please don't use WP talk pages to campaign to drive productive contributors away by attempting to keep the page wrapped up in your usual off topic out of context distortions regarding slavery. Again, slavery had nothing to do with the conflict between settlers and Indians and their eventual relocation. We were discussing why relocation occurred. If you would like to discuss slavery start a new thread and do so with the idea of how to improve the page, pointing out what is lacking, etc. Present a draft and cite your sources. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:22, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Insert:Gwillhickers, I was just as shocked as you were concerning Franklin owning and selling slaves. Rjensen sent me this information. I am not POV pushing. Source: Nash, Gary B., Franklin and Slavery, Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, 0003049X, Dec2006, Vol. 150, Issue 4 pp618-635. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:41, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

As is understood, slave owners had to 'buy' slaves to own them, and no doubt sold them if they no longer needed them, or needed the money. The only thing that I did find unusual is that Franklin sold them (on a regular basis?) out of his general store. Again, what did he do, set up living quarters in the back room? Did he deliver? End of the month sale? In any case, you avoided explaining why you dragged this item into the Indian removal discussion. No matter, I think I know why. i.e.Another deviation away from the idea of giving the readers the whole truth regarding Indians and why they were relocated. And of course, we don't want to tell the readers that they were most often given the chance to assimilate. This might cast settlers in a human light, and we can't have that, can we? Same old hat. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:01, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Btw, when you dragged in Franklin you forgot to mention also that he was instrumental in setting up schools in New York to educate slaves, and that he enrolled his slave, Othello, into one of them. (Waldstreicher, (2011). A Companion to Benjamin Franklin, p.193) Or that he publically petitioned the British government (who collaborated with African tribal chiefs/slave merchants) in his Pennsylvania Gazette to end its role in the slave trade? And since we were discussing Indian removal where you dragged in Franklin, why did you also fail to mention that Franklin encouraged assimilation and trade relations with the Indians and was an outspoken critic against unwarranted violence toward them? If you are not pushing a POV, then why are you always standing on one side of the fence? The same side. Always. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:52, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Insert: Gwillhickers, I was responding to Collect's statement that Franklin was a slave by my standards. That is when I stated Franklin was a slaveowner and sold slaves from his general store. I agree that Franklin became anti slavery most likely around the 1750's possibly while he was in England. I am more the happy to keep the discussion on Indian slavery, relocation, wars, or assimilation. Mentioning Franklin in terms of Indian relations with colonists and U.S. citizens would be good. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:49, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

The books cited, and the pages listed, do not mention Indian Americans being slaves. The 2007 article from India Currents does, but I looked at one of the sources they state says something, and that source (the NPS study for Jamestown) actually gives a date of 1635.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:03, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedias article Slavery in the Spanish New World colonies stated that slavery began in America when Columbus enslaved Native Americans upon his arrival to America. African slaves were brought to America in 1502. This source (2004), Themes in Religion and American Culture, p. 138 states that Puritans owned Native American slaves in addition to African slaves and indentured servants. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:39, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

I am not debating that point Cmguy777. I am talking about Indian Americans.

Also, Wikipedia states that we do not cite Wikipedia as a reference; however, as this isn't in the article space, and just a discussion that's fine. Just a reminder.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:45, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Martha W. McCartney project historian for the National Park Service’s Jamestown Archaeological Assessment did research that revealed Captain George Menefie owned "Tony, an East Indian" headright slave. Menefie had arrived in Virginia in 1622 and owned 1,200 acres in Jamestown. I am not sure why this is so controversial. East Indians, or at least one, "Tony", was/were in Virginia at least by 1624. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:10, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

King Philip's war put an end to evangelism of Indians by the Puritans. The Puritans simply did not trust the Indians whether converted or not converted. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:44, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Your claim as to what you "know" is not borne out by such things as marriage records, etc. Such claims do not get used in articles, as Wikipedia as this awful rule that we only use "reliable sources" and comments by editors do not meet that test. Collect (talk) 06:49, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Let's see I have sited four books and one web source. Then you state that this is commentary by an editor, myself. This is rediculous. So every word that eminiates from Collect need not be questioned. There were marriage records between Indians and Anglos. So what? This does not mean that the Puritans, as a whole, trusted Indians. Quite possibly the Indians did not trust the Puritans either. The Puritans took over Indian land and segregated the Indians into "strategic hamlets" so they could watch over them. The Kennedy Administration used this same tactic against the South Vietnamese during the Vietnam War. Cmguy777 (talk) 14:55, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

You readily assert that the Puratins didn't trust the Indians, but then say "quite possibly" the Indians didn't trust the Puritans, giving them the benefit of the doubt you fail to extend to settlers. I think it's safe to assume neither trusted the other. i.e. Nothing amazing. And when you say "Indian lands" -- which Indians? Since Indians were warring over lands with each other long before settlers arrived it would seem 'ownership' overall was in dispute. You seem to have no trouble with the idea of Indians fighting each other over land but when the settlers fight for it you seem to suggest that they had no right to do so and that this is 'automatically' some sort of wrong. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:15, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Gwillhickers, I am not taking side with Indians nor Puritan and or British settlers. Indian lands means that they are the original occupants of the this continent and this would be land by inheritance. The British settlers were not the original occupants of this land. I hope we can agree on that. I am not an expert on Indian-Indian wars prior to or after European contact, however, you are correct that Indians fought amongst each other. I have never stated Indians were pacifist and they could be as warring as any white settlers. There tribal community was formed on the Warrior concept. I believe there were misunderstandings between Indian tribes and the United States government. Even today I do not believe Indians completely trust the United States government. I believe you are correct that both sides did not equally trust each other. I am well aware of the treatment of Col. Custer and his party during the Great Sioux War of 1876. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:03, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

The "Indians" found by Europeans in the US were not the "original occupants." I suggest you read up on pre-colonial history, and the various waves of "Indians" who occupied the land. The Archaic Indians are all gone. As are a bunch of waves which followed them. Collect (talk) 00:49, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Collect, are stating that the Archaic Indians settled in Eastern North America or do you mean the first to cross the Bering Straight? The Natives came over here from the Asian continent. Indians are the original occupants of America whether Archaic or Perquot. Yes. There were different tribes. However, these are Indians and they had original claim on the United States through inheritence. Indian tribes had spread from North to South America. The Indians are related to Paleolithic Europeans. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:37, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

The original occupants of the North American continent were the Mound Peoples who where lost following contact with the invaders from Asia. Only their names for rivers survive. No land was inherited among nations or tribes, land was not titled as in European feudalism. Amerindian tribes lived in a fluid world of economic and political expansion and contraction. 'Emperor' Powhatan had expanded his father's domain exterminating some opponents and expanding tributary villages over five-fold by the landing of the English, and he expanded more west and south as a trading buffer/barrier with their supply and arms. To survive following Easter Massacre, the English at Jamestown in their turn had to forge an alternate trade and military alliance with the Rappahannock Indians on Powhatan's north along the Chesapeake.

Neither side was monolithic, Amerindian tribes exploited differences between Virginia and Maryland, New York and Pennsylvania, both in trade and militarily, by proxy and directly. Native Americans were not passive victims, they sought to shape the continent by playing French, English and Spanish against each other as they had played one another, to some success for over two hundred years. They were not guileless naifs in the forests of some sort of mid-eastern Eden. The end result was not a foregone conclusion, it should not be written that way, even in summary. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 06:08, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

TVH, it looks like there is simply no way around this discussion without furthering one's education . Not too long ago I heard that archeologists unearthed a skull that was Caucasian that predated any other remains unearthed on the North American continent. In any event, instead of using the term "Indian lands", we should simply refer to it as 'land', a neutral term, as the idea of 'ownership' is ambiguous and entirely debatable and has been in dispute among peoples long before settlers arrived. Or should we start referring to Europe as 'Caucasian lands'? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:57, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

What source states a Caucasian skull was in America over 20,000 years ago? These were Indian lands conquered by Anglo, French, and Spanish conquest. The Indians are suppose to be related to Paleo Europeans. Remember the Romans conquered much of the known world. Europe is the land that Caucasian peoples inhabited first, therefore, one could could state Caucasian or European land. That is acceptable. The fact is the Americans conquered the continent through force. The U.S. military the Reservation system subdued the Indian nations. President Grant kept the Indian's from being exterminated with his Peace Policy. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:45, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Insert : Ridiculous. Calling Europe "Caucasian lands" implies that they own it, and sort of insults all those who are not Caucasian who live there. Likewise with "Indian lands".
The racist, xenophobic, Indians would not assimilate so they were dealt with by force. People were not about to abandon their homes, pack up, jump on a boat and go back to Europe, even if they were able to do so. Most were not. That was the reality -- as opposed to 21st century fairy tales. American Indians overall tried to 'exterminate' the settlers from the beginning, which is largely why history unfolded the way it did on the North American continent. Btw, your notion that President Grant's one lone policy is what saved an entire continent of Indians from "extermination" is a complete distortion. I'm sure the policy saved many a life, both Indian and American, but the only genocide that occurred on this side of the globe was at the hand of other Indian nations, esp the Sioux, the Navaho and the Aztecs. Are we missing something? Can you name one Indian nation that was completely exterminated by settlers and/or armies? Indeed many tribes suffered heavy loses where the remaining people largely joined and were assimilated into other tribes. However, the racist notion that white settlers "exterminated" entire races/nations of Indians is just that. A racist notion. Any group of people has the right to control the immediate land on which they live. But the notion that one race of people 'own' an entire continent simply because they may have 'arrived' first is just too racist for words. Let's not promote racism here at WP and refrain from 1960's terminology. The year is 2013. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:10, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Gwillhickers is referring to Kennewick Man, which was originally thought to be possibly Caucasian. His remains date back 9,500 years, thousands of years after the arrival of native Indians, and may not even have been from North America.[10] Some right-wing conspiracy groups, such as the Council for Conservative Citizens, claim that he was Caucasian and that the government, the courts and the scientists are covering this up.[11] TFD (talk) 23:14, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

TFD, thanks for linking to the informative articles. Indeed, scientists have not been able to establish a link between Kennewick Man and the American Indian. In any event there is obviously a lot of socio-political implications attached to the idea of the origin of the remains, so we have to be careful about the claims anyone makes, be they Indian, 'right wing', or 'leftist'. In any event, assigning ownership of a continent to a race of people based on 'who arrived' first is inherently racist. For purposes of writing articles we should, again, use the neutral term, 'land'. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:37, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

"Indian lands"?

Re:'conspiracies'. Well, we all know there is no such thing as a conspiracy and everything is what it appears to be. And after all, everyone plays fair, always. Whether the remains are Caucasian or not, the point still stands. Or are you saying we should call Europe 'white man lands' and that the 360+ million American people, of all colors, are actually trespassing on "Indian lands"? -- Btw, if the Indians of which you are referring to were 'arriving' this would mean they were not "native", but originated somewhere else. Maybe we should refer to North America as 'Eskimo lands'. Gwillhickers (talk) 03:10, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Gwillhickers. Native Americans did sue the United States goverment for compensation of Alaska lands successfully. They were never compensated for the original 1867 treaty for their lands. Originally these lands were native Americans. The United States is conquered Indian lands by settlers and the U.S. Government. The Romans conquered much of Europe that was not originally their land. Recognized Indian tribes today are protected on their respected reservations and are semi-autonomous people. Europe can be called "White Mans Lands", since Europeans or Caucasians originally settled the European continent. We are not trespassing on Indian lands, reservations excluded, since the land has beed conquered or succeeded to the United States. The Spanish, British, French, Russians, and Americans conquered or took over Indian lands. I am not completely sure on the exact number of European nations who established colonies in North and South America. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:15, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Bear in mind that the law suits filed by American Indians could only be made possible by the sort of government and Constitution that was set up by settlers. What chance do you think an Indian law suit would have if the Aztecs came up, conquered and set up their idea of a government? During the 19th and 20th centuries the Japaneese were conquering and wiping out island nations throughout the south pacific and right up until and during WWii they were still a ruthless nation in terms of treating other peoples with whom they were not at war with. Wonder what kind of a 'Constitution' any of these 'folks' would have set up here if they eventually came here and settled. Do you think the options of 'relocation' and 'assimilation' would have been on the plate? Would a large segment of their populations be sympathetic to the Indian's situation? I sort of doubt it. Again, when discussing Indian "removal" we need to give the readers the entire picture as to why things unfolded the way they did. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 15:58, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Gwillhickers, I agree that "we need to give the readers the entire picture as to why things unfolded the way they did". The United States has protected American Indians through the reservation system. I don't believe we need to compare Indian policy with any Aztecs or Japanese extermination policies. I do believe that Jefferson's "move or be exterminated" was the policy of the United States until Ulysses S. Grant's Peace policy. In California during the 1850's extermination was the policy for American Indians. President Grant was the one who stated "wars of extermination are immoral and wicked" Grant's policy was to protect Indians on reservations with the U.S. military, however, if Indians straid from the Reservation system, they would be subject to War. I even believe some Apache warriors joined forces with the U.S. military for protection from settlers. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:36, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

President Grant stated:

"From the foundation of the Government to the present the management of the original inhabitants of this continent--the Indians--has been a subject of embarrassment and expense, and has been attended with continuous robberies, murders, and wars. From my own experience upon the frontiers and in Indian countries, I do not hold either legislation or the conduct of the whites who come most in contact with the Indian blameless for these hostilities. The past, however, can not be undone, and the question must be met as we now find it."

Ulysses S. Grant First Annual Message December 6, 1869. This is from the American Presidency Project Cmguy777 (talk) 17:36, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

No one wants to drag the Aztecs or the Japanese into the main space -- all that needs to be done is to write an account of how events unfolded and why. Getting tired of seeing racially and politically motivated accounts that treat the Indians like some 'sacred cow' and that they were this 'one unified group of peace loving indigenous peoples' where the mean ol' white settlers came over here and began shooting fish in a barrel, as if the Indians were dumb and helpless and as if the settlers, mostly poor and oppressed, had no right to venture out of Europe to seek a new life on "Indian lands". -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:00, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Gwillhickers, no one as far as I know is stating Indians were pacifists or peace loving. However, in taking into consideration the statement of President Grant, white people are not blameless for any hostile legislation or conduct towards Indians. For that matter neither are the Indians blameless for their conduct towards whites or other Indians. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:52, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I have no problems acknowledging this history. But issues arise when individuals leave out entire perspectives and other important facts and context.

Take for example this statement from the Native American and European settlement section:
After European explorers and traders made the first contacts, many millions died
from epidemics of imported diseases such as smallpox.[41]

Is that all that can be said about the meeting of these two civilizations? i.e.One (grossly exaggerated?) detail. That statement, by itself, paints a distorted picture. There are other truths that have been left out, and I have to question "many millions". The entire Indian population was only several million to begin with. The statement easily leads the young and naïve reader into believing that the Indians were whiped out by white man's disease, and at the same time fails to mention the diseases the American Indians gave to many settlers, like syphilis. Can anyone qualify "many millions"? I checked the source, Galloway, 1995, on line but pages 4-5 are not available for viewing. Btw, the link in ref 41 needs to be upgraded. From my experience Google links to books are much more stable and rarely change. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:47, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Indian population topic continued below