Talk:United States/Archive 65

Archive 60

←

Archive 63

Archive 64

Archive 65

Archive 66

Archive 67

→

Archive 70

Lower/Upper Houses of Congress

The infobox lists the Senate and House as the upper and lower houses of the US Congress respectively, but Bicameralism#Federal states that ‘In the United States both houses of the U.S. Congress, the House of Representatives and the Senate, are co-equals and there is no "upper" or "lower" chamber and no hierarchical relationship between them, although the House is colloquially (and incorrectly) referred to as the lower house, and the Senate the upper house.’ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pokepal101 (talk • contribs) 10:47, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

The issue, in my opinion, is that Bicameralism makes a statement about colloquial and incorrect use that is misleading. I think that the issue is with the other article. The two houses in the United States are approximately co-equal, but the terms upper house and lower house still apply, and are historically accurate, because the Senate was indirectly elected until the Seventeenth Amendment. I think that the issue is with the other article. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:54, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Agree. While they have near equal ability to make laws, the Senate is considered the upper house because of its longer term limits, fewer number of seats, and responsibility to approve treaties and presidential appointments. Also, it's incredibly rare for a sitting senator to give up his seat and seek a seat in the House. The reverse happens multiple times each election. -- Calidum 15:38, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

The articles Lower house and Upper house, linked from this article's infobox, go into considerable detail as to how these terms, which seem to more naturally belong to the British Parliament (see OED, esp. "upper, adj."), are terms of art that apply to all bicameral legislatures. Dhtwiki (talk) 15:42, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

As an irrelevant point, an upper house usually but not always is smaller than a lower house. The British House of Lords is larger than the House of Commons of the United Kingdom, but it otherwise meets all of the usual criteria for an upper house, such as that noblemen outrank MPs. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:32, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Senators in fact take precedence over Congressmen, see United States order of precedence. A "Senate" is by definition an upper house. And the U.S. has followed the UK example that money bills can only be introduced in the lower house. TFD (talk) 17:01, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

• Just an FYI, but I've tagged the statement about Congress and upper/lower houses in the bicameralism article as dubious and started a thread on that article's talk page. -- Calidum 17:04, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Moving Forward as to Scope Issue

Can we get the scope issue resolved? I have my preference, but more than anything I would like to get rough consensus on whether the primary figure for scope does or does not include the five territories. The suggestion was made at WP:AN that we could go to formal mediation. Is everyone willing to go to formal mediation? (I am willing, but since formal mediation does not appear to differ that much from moderated dispute resolution, I am not optimistic that mediation will help if moderated dispute resolution did not help.) Part of the problem seems to be that certain editors are attacking other editors, and certain editors were quarreling (although that has stopped). If user conduct issues continue to interfere with resolving what should be a straightforward content issue, a last resort would be to ask the Arbitration Committee to impose WP:AC/DS under authority of the American politics case. Is everyone willing to put aside their dislikes of each other in order to resolve this content issue, or do we need discretionary sanctions? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:41, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

We should mention the territories and include detail in proportion to their significance because they are subject to the U.S., birthright citizenship has been extended to most ot the inhabited territories and the federal government operates there. Stats should be for the U.S. and if possible have a second line saying something like "including territories." We should not however say that the territories are part of the U.S. or present stats for the U.S. that include territories without qualification. I would point out that articles about the United Kingdom and France do not included outlying areas, even though some of France's overseas areas have been incorporated, and Denmark separates the part in Europe, Greenland and the Faroe Islands. But customarily, U.S. stats include Hawaii and Alaska. TFD (talk) 22:21, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

AGREE to formal mediation. @TFD: Thank you. The first half of your post, “we should mention" is an acceptable “second best” alternative for reporting area and population. However, I argue for promoting the 50 states, DC and the five major territories as the scope of the United States, footnoting “50 states and DC” in area and population, --- otherwise following the databases readily available that do not include all five territories, including those using "50 states, DC and Puerto Rico". Two SCHOLARS include territories: "The five island political communities in the Pacific and Caribbean that are part of the United States...”, Jon M. Van Dyke at [1]. "At present, the US includes the Caribbean and Pacific territories, ...”, Bartholomew Sparrow, p.231-232 at [2]. The article should follow secondary sources, wp:psts.

Regarding the international status of the five major territories, using Puerto Rico as the “paradigm” of incorporation, — Jesus de Galindez, stated in International Affairs (1954), "The status of Puerto Rico is perhaps comparable to that of the Associated States of the French Union.” p. 337 [3]. At France we have an example for use here at United States article, "France, officially the French Republic, is a unitary semi-presidential republic located mostly in Western Europe, with several overseas regions and territories.”. — “The United States is a federal republic of 50 states, a federal district and five territories.” — all have Members of Congress as representatives or territorial delegates.

• WP has international readers. Territories have an INTERNATIONAL status and a domestic status. For international readers the U.S. is a ‘“sole person” conducting the international affairs of 50 states, DC and five territories. POTUS is the Head of State for all. Internationally, the five territories are “a part of the United States” as polities within U.S. territory with a permanent population of U.S. nationality.
• WP has general readers. Territories have a dual DOMESTIC status, they are politically "a part of the U.S." with locally self-governing polities of U.S. citizens and nationals, with delegate Members of Congress, organic acts, constitutions and referendums for political union, AND they are judicially “unincorporated” for certain taxes and constitutional provisions until Congress extends those to the territories. The article should not represent territories as only one part of their two characters, but narrate both international and dual domestic aspects. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:10, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Clarification

I wasn't asking for agreement on how to state the scope. I have no reason to think that we will get agreement on how to state the scope via discussion on this talk page. I was asking for how to move forward to resolve the difficult-to-resolve issue about stating the scope. If the different parties will agree to behave properly and resolve the differences, we can use either moderated dispute resolution at the dispute resolution noticeboard or formal mediation at requests for mediation. If there are any more personal attacks (and there have been personal attacks), I will ask the ArbCom by motion to extend discretionary sanction, a draconian remedy, to this article and this talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:25, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

AGREE to either moderated dispute resolution or formal mediation. I believe the procedure would be to close the RfC, then someone formulates the issue and initiates the request in one venue? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 18:03, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 December 2014

There should be a restrictive comma after “The latter date” under § Independence and expansion. 174.141.182.82 (talk) 07:17, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

 Done--Chamith (talk) 08:15, 24 December 2014 (UTC)