Talk:United States/Archive 79

Archive 75

←

Archive 77

Archive 78

Archive 79

Archive 80

Archive 81

→

Archive 85

Why has Wikipedia stopped showing the breakdown of religions in the summary panel in entries on a respective country?

This seems to have been a unilateral decision affecting all entries for countries - I was advised by the Wikipedia information team to address this question to an article talk page.

"Decisions like these are made by the volunteer editors who donate their time maintaining our various articles. You can ask questions to them on the article talk pages. Simply click the "talk" or "discussion" tab at the top of any article, then click "new section" to start a thread with a new section. Click the "edit" button next to a thread title to add a message to an existing thread.

Yours sincerely, Robert Johnson" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.132.188.122 (talk) 08:47, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

I honestly don't know what you're referring to? --Golbez (talk) 21:44, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Here is the state of the article, in June.[1] Looks pretty similar to now. But my guess is that we used to have something about "47% Protestant / 21% Catholic / etc" up top, in the infobox (which is what I think Robert meant by "summary panel"). Definitely seems to be some changes to infobox-content between June and now, anyways. Ping User:Golbez, do you remember, did there used to be an infobox-sub-section which listed major religions and their percentages? 75.108.94.227 (talk) 22:21, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Maybe? But it's better handled in the text rather than the infobox. We don't have ethnicity or relative language use in the infobox either. --Golbez (talk) 03:42, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

United States of America - request the name for the article Suggestion

I request the article be named the United States of America as the common name and a better proper name

The name of the country is the United States of America per the USA Constitution: "...establish this Constitution for the United States of America" the name used on US paper money, Air Force 1, et al.

WP recommends doing a google search as a technique to find the common name. United States of America gets 1.5 billion results United States gets 3 billion results.

But I don't think this is a good technique here, I see lot's of double counted results, and results like the United States of ISIS, etc.

Thank you,CuriousMind01 (talk) 00:07, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree, United States is such a broad definition, even mexico is the UNITED Mexican STATES officialy. But this page should obviously not be moved to "America", as that would cause so much more conflict, so why not just move it to it's official name, United States of America?

AvRand (talk) 01:33, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

You can see which search term is more popular by visiting this link. Clearly, "United States" is more popular, according to Google. If you are suggesting a move based on the constitution then it's most likely WP:PRECISE you are looking for, not WP:COMMONNAME. However, another editor recently brought up this topic, and the consensus was to keep the title as it is. -- Chamith (talk) 01:46, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Parties and elections edit

2012 Electoral Vote cartogram

In “Parties and elections” section, propose to remove outdated photo of political branches leadership (executive and legislative) and replace it with a map representing divisions found under a two party system as illustrated in the 2012 Electoral Vote cartogram.

Add to the one sentence third paragraph to read,

The winner of the 2008 and 2012 presidential elections, Democrat Barack Obama, is the 44th, and current, U.S. president. Current leadership in the Senate includes Democratic Vice President Joseph Biden, and Republican President Pro Tempore (Pro Tem) Orrin Hatch. Current leadership in the House includes Speaker of the House, Republican John Boehner, and Minority Leader Democratic Nancy Pelosi.

TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 15:58, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Disagree. The photo serves as an illustration of the bipartsian process of governing; the map does nothing but show how particular electoral votes were doled out in 2012. It doesn't indicate how strongly each state is for that color, like a congressional map would; it has absolutely no relevance to congressional representation at all. If people want to know how the election went, we have more than enough articles about that very subject. I would sooner suggest removing the photo than adding this map, it has no place in this summary article. And even if your point is to illustrate the lockdown of the two-party system, I'm sure there are better ways than this. --Golbez (talk) 03:15, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

The section is “Parties and elections”. National party legal existence is in National Conventions to nominate presidential candidates, not in Congressional caucuses, the section is not "Congressional caucuses". The 2012 Electoral Vote represents party successes in state elections voting for the national office of President of the United States. The map as a cartogram shows the relative size of the states casting Electoral College vote, the people choose a president in their states independent of Congressional lockdown, Congressional District turnout per se is irrelevant.

If your point is that state geographic diversity should be reflected in the Electoral College, then we can work together to expand the District Plan that Maine and Nebraska have, but the President is not elected by the Congress, so a congressional map of presidential votes would be irrelevant to “Parties and elections” in the US. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:24, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

My point is simply that the map is irrelevant. It shows how the states voted for president in 2012; what does that illustrate for this summary article? If people want to know how the states voted in 2012 the article is linked right there. Basically, the image illustrates a subtopic, rather than improves general understanding of the topic of the United States. Knowing how the electoral votes were doled out in 2012 doesn't enhance my knowledge of the topic "United States" at all. Of the 2012 election, yes. Of people involved in it, perhaps. Of the country as a whole, not really. --Golbez (talk) 14:33, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Electoral College 2012 for president by state

US Congressional district results 2012

Of course the map is relevant. The section is “Parties and elections”, the map depicts the two major parties in an election reflecting persistent regional divisions as a whole as it really is. Of course another aspect might show the disparity between presidential returns and the gerrymandered state results in Congressional Districts.

That would take two maps, though again the cartogram is better graphically. What is called for is an update of this cartogram Congressional District map for comparison.TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:18, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Democratic National Convention 2008, New York delegation at roll call, 282 delegates of the 4,419.

Republican National Convention 2008 with 2,280 delegates. Major national conventions represent 50 states, DC and 5 territories.

It does not follow that since every illustration considered is of something specific, it cannot be admitted since it does not encompass the entire nation’s history in all places at a glance. The section will admit one perhaps two images of something.

US national parties meet in national conventions to select candidates for president, a national office. They are made up of state and territory delegations reflecting the party voting and population of each. For an article about the nation's Parties and elections, a national office is appropriate, and this rationale serves for picturing elected national office holders. But an image of the US process of nominating a presidential candidate informs the reader's knowledge of the topic "United States, parties and elections" by illustrating part of the process among citizens by states meeting nationally, not just the result of Congressional party office elections.

WP prefers not mirroring other articles. The selection here shows a recent national convention (Democratic 2008) for the sitting president at the time of a roll call of a particular state (New York), and the companion major national convention (Republican 2008) from the floor addressed by the nominee. Each image is used in one other article, at the NY Democratic primary 2008 and at John McCain. Neither is linked in the United States article in the way the election maps are. These image should meet all previous objections. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 06:17, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

What happened to the maps? Please keep talk page entries stable. The maps made more sense than these pictures, which say nothing; they're just pictures of conventions. But we don't need any more graphics than necessary, because this page is so slow to load as it is. Dhtwiki (talk) 02:08, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

The section is “United States, Parties and elections”. It has had an illustration which is now out of date showing the leaders of the two political branches, a sitting president and four past Congressional leaders. It should be replaced with an alternative which will not recognizably slow the loading speed of the article but related to parties and elections.

I propose two alternatives, a) one with national maps objected to on the grounds they do not represent the country as a whole, and b) one with party conventions nominating candidates for elections to illustrate “Parties and elections”. That is now objected to on the grounds that it is only an illustration of conventions of parties for elections, and that says “nothing” about “Parties and elections".

The images explain how it is party candidates in elections for the national office of president and vice-president are chosen, by delegates from states in conventions of all 50 states, DC and 5 territories. Please explain your objection further. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:29, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

I rather like the Democratic convention photo, though the caption is needlessly descriptive. I don't see a purpose to the far lower quality Republican convention photo. --Golbez (talk) 14:01, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

The right-hand map is an excellent graphic, showing constitution of the House by party and concentration of population. It's a good summary map, not used elsewhere, that I could see. It's too bad that the presidential results aren't shown on it. That states like Michigan, Ohio, and Pennsylvania voted Democratic for president is remarkable, given how covered in red they are otherwise. Having a second map showing the presidential results as just labels is a much lesser graphic, as I indicated before. The problem with the convention photos, for me, is that they don't elucidate the process (note the barely visible state-delegation signs and tiny, off-to-the side total shown for New York, in the D. convention photo), with the R. photo being definitely sub-par (focus very poor). Dhtwiki (talk) 23:26, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

We have maps illustrating the section above, the crowd photos add visual interest. The congressional election map on the right is used at United States elections, 2012, and United States House of Representatives elections, 2012.

The convention photos elucidate, explain and spell out the process of electing a national office by state, as the electoral vote is made by state: the DNC photo shows the NY roll call vote, the delegation spot lit, and the RNC photo from the floor clearly shows the signage at the location of the Kentucky, Wisconsin and South Carolina delegations. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:42, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

I didn't see the map when I looked. However, it's of more intriguing visual interest to me. The convention photos are pretty poor, IMO. What about an updated photo such as what is there now, with a caption enumerating the current political leadership (including Senate caucus leaders, which aren't mention in the extract you posted above)? Dhtwiki (talk) 18:35, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

All objections removed. I simply don't care anymore. --Golbez (talk) 14:23, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Congressional District 2014 election results: red Republican, blue Democratic, light colors show change

Update to section done, adding current congressional leaders, linking to sources for any further updates in this Congress, and removing outdated image. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 06:59, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

The picture of Congressional leadership is a function of Congressional in-house elections, not directly related to the people. Not sure why Dhtwiki's CD map is removed, but Wikicommons still offers this map of Congressional District elections. Is this agreeable? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:43, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

The picture was a good one, and it allowed the listing of important officials (caucus leaders) not listed in the infobox, a good representation of national political leadership. What is "Dhtwiki's CD map" and where has it been removed? Both maps that I like are now present on the talk page. However much I like the map, because it's limited to House districts, it's somewhat flawed as the representative graphic for the section. Dhtwiki (talk) 02:22, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

At least we now have sourced narrative in the section to justify a congressional leadership image. Wikicommons does not seem to provide a current one. As possible alternates for upload, Truth in Media has a leadership image from 2014 at [2]. And IBMs API page seems to invite free usage of its image, which might qualify for WP use at [3].

I still prefer the double convention illustration as the best example of “Parties and elections” with samples of the entire national population gathered in one place, but I can live with an image of current Congressional leadership, as Congress is the First Branch and closest to the people. In the mean time, should the Congressional District map be used as a place holder? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:22, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Why not put the old picture back, with the caption reworked to show the changes (Cantor replaced by McCarthy; the majority/minority roles reversed in the Senate), until we get an updated photo? The CD map is pretty but needs study in high res, and the second map to show how "red" states in terms of cong. district area can be "blue" in terms of how the population votes. I don't think that the convention photos offer much, as I've said. I haven't examined the photos you referenced, and am not well-versed enough in copyright to offer much help in determining whether they're usable here. Dhtwiki (talk) 21:59, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

(left to right) 2011 House leadership, President Obama, Senate leadership

A picture of the US President with House and Senate leadership still does not represent the voters of the country in party elections as well as the national party conventions nominating candidates for a presidential election. The old picture had a caption longer than 1-3 lines which cluttered the section. It seemed like a Hill staffer did a promotional hack job for his/her Member. Leadership is listed at United States House of Representatives and United States Senate, so the caption could be shortened to 1-3 lines, "the US President with 2013 House and Senate leadership”. But we should await a current photo unless you think dating the shortened caption is sufficient. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:05, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

I think that the picture there now is as representative of elections and their outcomes as any one photo can be. The convention photos just aren't good, and where are the Libertarians, the Green Party, Peace and Freedom, etc., as they have conventions too? The caption could simply read President Obama meets with congressional leadership in 2011. BTW, the linkage in your proposed caption is not as good as what you set up in the article body, which leads directly to pages giving Senate and House leadership up front. The photo is by a White House photographer, and works by U.S. government employees seem to be usable on Wikipedia by that reason. Dhtwiki (talk) 19:42, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Other than the Democrats and Republicans, other party conventions do not rise to the level of significance. Libertarians (on the ballot but gaining 0.5% of the vote), Green Peace (0.4%) and Peace and Freedom parties (on the ballot in California, Iowa and Utah) do not gain electoral college votes,

So we are agreed, over a ten-day discussion, and since Golbez dropped out, to the pre-existing photo, caption “President Obama meets with congressional leadership in 2011” without links, adding updated narrative with links to support the image. Very well, collaborative improvement. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:58, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Looks good to me. The independent parties don't get electoral votes in presidential elections, but there are two independent senators, and there are, no doubt, other elected officials of independent affiliation. Plus, for how many is a party political convention that relevant? I suspect that most vote for party candidates in primary elections, and that's the limit of their involvement. A better representative picture would probably be one of a voting booth or ballot, if we had to find something other than one similar to what's there now. Dhtwiki (talk) 21:07, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

The 'independent' Senators caucus with the major party that is closest to their stances; they are independent in name, but not in voting-pattern. Most people don't vote, roughly speaking; those that do vote, only vote in the general elections (and often only the presidential ones not the midterms), but only rarely vote in the party-primaries. That said, I think that the usrep-maps and ecVote-maps are important because they show political *control* of the country... I don't think they have any substantial correlation with what people actually *want* (or would be perceived to want if we used some other kind of voting system), but that doesn't mean the maps don't have meaning, just that we should be careful to neutrally and accurately describe the meaning the maps do actually convey. p.s. TheVirginiaHistorian, the Green Party e.g. Jill Stein is distinct from Greenpeace e.g. Michael Bailey.     75.108.94.227 (talk) 23:18, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

I stand corrected. Well, 1) we have me and Golbez for convention floor pics, but Golbez withdrew, but it is still my druthers, and 2) me and Dhtwiki for the existing pic of president and Congressional leadership until an updated image is located, and 3) at different times, me and you for the us rep-map, with Dhtwiki once saying he could live with it, but for me, that’s now visually awkward with a map in the section just above. Did you have a caption in mind to run by Dhtwiki? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:33, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

I've looked for a suitable replacement photo at whitehouse.gov. They have mostly videos, not still pictures. The most promising video, from which I might have gotten a frame with everyone in it, had Sen. Durbin subbing for the injured Harry Reid. So, it may be awhile. However, their copyright (i.e. no copyright) indicates that we can use whatever we can find. Dhtwiki (talk) 22:48, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Agree. It is a government source. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:33, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

This Article should be called The United States of America because the official name of Mexico is the United States of Mexico.

This Article should be called The United States of America because the official name of Mexico is the United States of Mexico. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.150.49.184 (talk) 20:58, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

The official name of Mexico is "United Mexican States". There are virtually no instances in English of Mexico being referred to as "United States", so I don't think your concerns are realistic. Dustin (talk) 21:05, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

That line of reasoning has been rejected in the past. Also, unless something had changed it has been shown previously that even the Spanish Wikipedia does not use Unitied Sates of America.--76.65.43.144 (talk) 03:20, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

"the United States of America" is common enough for us to rename the article just that. The United States of America is often called "United States" and "America". However, those are just shorter terms for the country's name; "the United States of America" is both the official name and is very common so I support renaming this article. However, my reasoning for changing the name of this article is for a different reason than the original reason given. Prcc27 (talk) 03:43, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Strongly Disagree. Regardless of any "official" name, the WP:COMMONNAME of our southern neighbor in English is simply "Mexico", a fact which leaves "United States" both unambiguous and WP:PRECISE. The status quo naming of the two articles is fine (i.e. in accordance with policy).--William Thweatt ^TalkContribs 09:45, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Doesn't the very first line of the article already clearly specify that the official name is United States of America, even if the most common shorthand form is "United States"? --SchutteGod (talk) 23:33, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

What is the likelihood someone searching for "United States" is looking for Mexico rather than the United States of America? TFD (talk) 07:01, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Also, not using Unitied States since it is the shorter term does not fly either since if Wikipedia wanted the full names North Korea would titlec the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. Tne Unitied Kingdom does not use the full name for the title either.--76.65.43.144 (talk) 21:45, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Mexico's official name is the United Mexican States, not the United States of Mexico. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.160.33.132 (talk) 01:46, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Aren't the two just variant translations? "Mexican" literally means "of Mexico". How is this different from "steel bar" vs "bar of steel"? Admittedly, the "United Mexican States" is the usual translation, but how can you say that "United States of Mexico" is wrong when they are exact synonyms? --Khajidha (talk) 03:06, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

How many sources do you have that use "United States" to refer to Mexico? WP:COMMONNAME is pretty clear on this; when people use the term "United States", they overwhelmingly mean this article's subject. - Aoidh (talk) 03:11, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm not arguing that. I'm simply asking a question about translation. To me, the English forms "United Mexican States" and "United States of Mexico" seem to be exactly equivalent, but others seem to see some distinction that I am missing.--Khajidha (talk) 03:19, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

They aren't exact synonyms. For example, on the Spanish Wikipedia, the United States is "Estados Unidos de America". But Mexico is "Estados Unidos Mexicanos". Not of Mexico, simply "United Mexican States" (or, "Mexican United States"). The distinction is being made for a reason, so we should respect it. It's the difference between... I'm not sure if this specifically applies in this case, but it's just to illustrate that the terms are not synonyms: "Republic of Madagascar" vs "Malagasy Republic". The former is saying it's the republic of a region named Madagascar; the latter is saying it's the republic of the Malagasy people (who happen to live on the island of Madagascar). Similar, but not synonymous, despite pertaining to the exact same land. --Golbez (talk) 03:20, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

So the term "Mexican" is being used to mean the people? Is that the distinction you are making? Because otherwise "Mexican" is simply an adjective meaning "of Mexico" and, again, the two forms are equivalent. In English we COULD say the "American United States" with no change in meaning from "United States of America". We don't, but we could. --Khajidha (talk) 03:27, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

That's not what I'm saying; I'm saying "United States of X" and "Xian United States" are not 100% synonymous in all cases. Furthermore, the official translation is United Mexican States. And yes, you could say American United States, but you'd be wrong because no one uses that name, either officially or colloquially. Some people might use "United States of Mexico" informally but it would be incorrect to use it formally, just as it would be incorrect to say "American United States" formally. --Golbez (talk) 03:43, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

I still haven't seen an English example of when "______an" and "of ______" would have different meanings (not a Spanish example, not Madagascar vs Malagasy). I'm not arguing about what is the officially used translation, I'm not saying we should use "American United States". I'm simply asking how "__________an" and "of ________" can have different meanings. But this is way off topic, so let's just drop it.--Khajidha (talk) 09:55, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

We don't name articles based on what could be, we name them based on what is. This article is called United States because this subject is called that. "United States of Mexico" is not used by reliable sources in the English language, and even if it was, no source uses United States to refer to Mexico, so there is no cause to rename this article on that rationale. Even if United States were used to also refer to Mexico, WP:COMMONNAME would apply, and even in that incredibly hypothetical situation, it couldn't be argued that when the overwhelming majority of sources use the term United States, they mean anything other than this article. That is why there is absolutely no reason to change this article based on that rationale. There's an album called United States (album), but we don't change this title for that per WP:COMMONNAME. This scenario you're presenting is even less of a reason to, because there's no way someone would confuse United States for Mexico. - Aoidh (talk) 03:34, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Discussion habits food USA

"American eating habits owe a great deal to that of their British culinary roots with some variations. Although American lands could grow newer vegetables England could not, most colonists would not eat these new foods until accepted by Europeans." is what I deleted

References

The source here is to a broken link. The link is to a page where I can buy a book. Not an actual source, there's no proof and all that this quote is in the book. I have researched this independently on my own and have not found anything of the sort related to this material. This is an opinionated argument and not a fact you can easily look up. The source does not share this quote or fact; it isn't in it from any link posted and is in fact a broken source and a link that does not lead to the information written.

I recommend deleting this post until the user or whoever has written it can find identifiable information by a credible source leading to the statement. It does not further the page or help anyone understand anything about this topic nor is credible or have any identifiable backing of any kind.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryantheravensfan1 (talk • contribs)

That info is on page 3 of the book; anyone can look it up. Go to Google Books, type the name of the book ("Revolution at the Table: The Transformation of the American Diet"), scroll past the table of contents to page 3 and there it is. In general, it's not a requirement for Wikipedia sources to be actually online for immediate access, although Google Books makes it easy in many cases. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 18:26, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Orange Suede Sofa is correct that Wikipedia does not require sources to be available online. See Wikipedia:Offline sources. As it happens, this source is viewable at Google Books; here is a convenience link to the cited page. --Arxiloxos (talk) 18:35, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Links are never required, although page no., which is now added, is. I do not see anything opinionated about it Why wouldn't colonists eat the same types of foods as they did in the UK? TFD (talk) 23:37, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Colonists might try at first to eat what they knew; but if the growing conditions weren't right, they'd have to learn to eat what did grow or starve. Growing conditions in much of the South (long, very hot growing season with intermittent droughts) weren't right for shallow-rooted plants such as wheat, so corn and sweet potatoes were grown instead. I'd like to see something more on how Southerners didn't take to those foods until, say, hoecakes were reported to be popular in London dining rooms. The paragraph in question started being placed here and received its final form and placement here. You can see from the other edits around that time that I had reservations about it then. The following snarky part about how much better our forefathers ate than we do also seems wrong and positively out-of-place in the food section. Dhtwiki (talk) 03:02, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Colonists ate whatever they could grow, hunt or gather, particularly the earliest ones (before 1625) who constantly faced starvation. Wheat did not grow well in the South but corn and rice did in some areas. Rice was one of the colonies' largest exports, most of it grown in South Carolina. Transportation was a problem until the introduction of the steamboat in the 1820s and railroads in the 1830s. The cost of transportation by wagon limited the distance crops could be shipped to 25-75 miles or so, one reason early settlements were near rivers or on the coast. After the development of transportation infrastructures, southerners bought wheat, flour and cured/salted pork from the West (west then was the Ohio River valley to Great lakes).Phmoreno (talk) 19:23, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

References

Last polity admitted (infobox)

The last polity admitted to the United States was Hawaii. Northern Mariana Islands is neither part of the United States nor an incorporated territory. It is a dependent possession of the US, subject to US jurisdiction, but politically unincorporated and geographically outside the US. --SchutteGod (talk) 23:39, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

We had a months long mediation process that, in its wisdom, decided that the inhabited territories are incorporated. --Golbez (talk) 01:38, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Even though they are specifically called unincorporated territories? Smashing. Link? --SchutteGod (not logged in) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.181.183.169 (talk) 06:37, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Mediation is here, but the bulk of the discussion was on the mediation's talk page. Enjoy! --Golbez (talk) 12:31, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

“Unincorporated” is an arcane judicial term of art, with a different meaning than the common usage of the word. A hundred years ago, insular territories were judicially “unincorporated" for internal tariffs to suppress sugar competition with the mainland producers, and to justify colonial administration without local participation. But in the modern era, a federal court case observed that Congress has “in fact” politically incorporated Puerto Rico (p.26 [4]), see constitutional scholar confirmation (2009 p.1175 [5]). The "political union" of the Northern Mariana Islands with the United States was confirmed by a referendum under United Nations supervision.

Today the insular territories are self governing polities within the constitutional framework of the US, see U.S. State Department, Common Core Document to U.N. Committee on Human Rights, December 30, 2011, Item 22, 27, 80.— and U.S. General Accounting Office Report, U.S. Insular Areas: application of the U.S. Constitution, November 1997, p. 1, 6, 39n. The Insular Cases are reflected in IRS application of income taxes, but on the other hand Congress directs FICA taxes collected on wages in the insular territories. Judicial "unincorporation" has been substantially superseded by Congressional action over the las half of the 20th century. Apart from these considerations of internal US affairs, certainly in an international context, the U.S. territories are within the United States.

The modern day political branches of Congress and President include the insular territory in the geographic sense of the United States for all practical purposes, such as citizenship, immigration, homeland security, FEMA, environment, transportation, etc. See Note 1 and Note 2 of the article. Both mediation consensus and RfC consensus chose to use the geographic sense of the United States as sourced in its determination to include insular territories for a general international readership. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:43, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Discrimanatory IRS taxes are unconstitutional. TFD (talk) 18:36, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, there should be a flat tax on all income without discrimination regarding its source, and there should no longer be an interest rate advantage for banks in states west of the Mississippi by the Fed, but all law with inequitable consequences is not ipso facto, by itself, on the face of it, unconstitutional. DC and the insular territories need not be states, nor are they required to have the same constitutional status as states, to be within the constitutional framework of the United States, as sourced (items 22, 27, 80 [6]. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:00, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

The Uniformity Clause says, "all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States...." There are no exceptions. TFD (talk) 12:09, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

But there are exceptions in the case of territories as the Supreme Court has ruled; they are not states, they are foreign in a domestic sense for tariffs and domestic in a foreign sense for citizenship as Congress has allowed. You cannot wiki-secede the U.S. territories by your original speculations of counter-jurisprudence because they have self-governing citizenship within the constitutional framework of the U.S. as sourced to the U.S. State Department, and once the Constitution is extended in a political sphere, it cannot be turned off and on again like a spigot.

The constitutional status of the territories is ambiguous as sourced, Donald P. Haider-Markel (2008) at University of Kansas notes the five major territory ambiguous status, "They are officially a part of U.S. territory,” … despite remaining judicially 'unincorporated territories’. (p. 649 [7]), but their international geographic status is not disputed. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:15, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

We just had a mediation on this and it was concluded that the territories were unambiguously incorporated into the U.S. and the Insular Cases decision that they were "foreign in a domestic sense" and that the constitution did not extend in full to them is obsolete. Any other interpretation was "fringe." Can you provide any source that explains why the Uniformity Clause should not extend to all parts of the U.S.? As Mr. Justice Brown wrote in Downes v. Bidwell, "If Porto Rico be a part of the United States, the Foraker Act imposing duties upon its products is unconstitutional not only by reason of a violation of the uniformity clause, but because, by section 9, "vessels bound to or from one state" cannot "be obliged to enter, clear, or pay duties in another."" The case also cites Rev.Stat. sec. 1891: "the Constitution and all laws of the United States which are not locally inapplicable shall have the same force and effect within all the organized territories, and in every territory hereafter organized, as elsewhere within the United States." TFD (talk) 16:19, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

You assert absurd mischaracterizations of the mediation, misconstruing both the mediation and the following RfC where you were overwhelmingly outvoted. In both, editors were careful to distinguish between the internal issue of insular territory constitutional status, — which is ambiguous, — and the external issue of geographic extent in the modern international community, — which is not.

In the case of the Northern Mariana Islands, the view --- that indigenous peoples are not competent to freely choose in UN-supervised referendums to be US citizens in "political union" with the US --- is fringe. The Insular Case provisions for colonial governance with a military governor, presidentially appointed territorial legislatures and military courts is obsolete. They cannot be reimposed now that constitutional guarantees have been extended for internal democratic self-governance.

You persist in original research into primary documents without any scholarly backup. You need not do so any further, as limited application of jurisprudence regarding the commerce clause is not germane to the discussion of the geographic extent of the United States for the purposes of the general reader in a modern international context. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:26, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Indeed the insular cases are obsolete. The Northern Mariana Islands are now part of the U.S. and the constitution applies in full - no exceptions. TFD (talk) 15:54, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

FWIW, the statement that the mediation concluded that the territories are unambiguously incorporated is false. The language agreed to under mediation carefully avoided making any statement regarding incorporation or status. The status of territories is clearly ambiguous. older ≠ wiser 16:01, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the 100-year old Jim Crow Supreme Court holdings in the Insular Cases which withheld citizenship from indigenous "savages" to enable rule by military governors and military courts are obsolete. Because in the modern era, Congress has mutually made the inhabitants citizens with constitutional protections of federal courts. Puerto Rico provides a paradigm of what an insular territory looks like when it is "in fact" politically incorporated, as the federal courts would have it.

But the Constitution does not apply the Northern Mariana Islands in full because the territory is not a state, it does not have presidential electors for instance. And like non-state DC, its laws are subject to Congressional review. Regardless of these and other internal considerations of constitutional status, — internationally, the Northern Mariana Islands and DC are both considered within US territory. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 17:56, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Nothing in the constitution requires that citizens vote for presidential electors. It's granted specifically to the states and the federal district. The entire constitution can apply to a territory and they still not receive electors. Try again. --Golbez (talk) 17:58, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

And the Uniformity Clause does not say it only applies to states and D.C. It applies "throughout the United States", and was held to apply to Hawaii and Alaska in the Insular Cases. TFD (talk) 18:23, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Precisely, nothing in the Constitution requires that citizens in the territories vote for president, all provisions for states do not apply to territories, except in the last half of the 20th century, DC by Amendment about the time insular territory governors and the DC mayor are allowed to be directly elected by their inhabitant citizens. The Uniformity Clause does not take away citizenship, the Insular Cases concede that the elements of political union are a determination of Congress and the President, the political branches of government.

The Uniformity Clause does not apply throughout the United States because insular territories were once held by the Supreme Court to be foreign in a domestic sense for that limited purpose of restricting the Uniformity Clause, so an internal tariff would be paid to protect continental sugar growers. Others objected at the time to these cases, and some still do object to the "legislative" activity of the Supreme Court. But the judicial interpretation of the Uniformity Clause does not act to expel territories from the United States, that doctrine is not supported in the literature anywhere, the Insular Cases explicitly enable territorial acquisition. And Puerto Rico is now subsequently included in the US customs territory [8], so yet another provision of the racist Insular Cases limiting participation of “savages” in the Union is obsolete. Congress over time has been dismantling that 100-year old judicial regime despite the best efforts of Insular Case advocates.

Insular territories are domestic in a foreign sense for the purposes of international sovereignty of the United States over US territories, — the geographic sense addressed in the mediation and RfC as older≠wiser points out. No source disputes it, only unsourced original speculation into the implications of the Commerce Clause is used to question that territorial inclusion in the constitutional framework of the US as sourced (items 22, 27, 80 [9]). But idiosyncratic doctrines concerning the Commerce Clause are beside the point of US geographic extent as we see in modern era presidential proclamation [10]. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:20, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Indeed the Supreme Court in the Insular Cases determined that because, in their opinion, the territories were not part of the U.S., the Uniformity Clause did not apply, although it did apply to territories and D.C. that were part of the U.S. But since then there is consensus that all the territories are part of the U.S. and the constitution applies in full. TFD (talk) 01:12, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

No, there is no consensus that the constitution applies in full to all the insular territories, as the Insular Case provisions are overturned by legislation related to each territory over time. So while the Commerce Clause and citizenship did not apply 100-years ago to any, the Commerce Clause now applies to Puerto Rico as there are no internal tariffs, and citizenship applies to all. The consensus merely says internal discrimination in the Commerce Clause for limited domestic purposes is independent of the geographic extent of the US internationally.

The territories are within the constitutional framework of the United States as sourced (items 22, 27, 80 [11], there is no counter source, only your original doctrine that the Commerce Clause expels territories, which is not the reasoning of the Supreme Court. The Court reasoned that "savages" unacquainted with American republican forms of government were a danger to the United States until Congress acted to include them within the constitutional framework of the US, then the Court allowed an internal tariff and denied citizenship.

But now there is no internal tariff on Puerto Rico and there is citizenship by soil or by blood in all insular territories with delegate representation in the House of Representatives for all and constitutional protections in federal courts. Insular territories were to be temporarily "foreign in a domestic sense" for the purposes of the internal tariff which was independent of the Commerce Clause, but even then they were domestic in a foreign sense under the exclusive sovereignty of the United States, as they are now, see [12]. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:59, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

The Uniformity Clause says, "all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States...." Where in the Constitution does it say that "throughout the United States" excludes any part of the U.S.?

You said, "the judicial ‘unincorporated’ doctrine which once applied to Puerto Rico is explicitly overturned in 2008 by federal court ruling in the Ponce case, p.5." [10:45, 19 December 2012.] In that case, the judge quoted the reason the Supreme Court decided in the Insular Cases the Uniformity Clause did not apply: "It is obvious that in the annexation of outlying and distant possessions grave questions will arise from differences of race, habits, laws and customs of the people, and from differences of soil, climate and production, which may require action on the part of Congress that would be quite unnecessary in the annexation of contiguous territory inhabited only by people of the same race or by scattered bodies of native Indians."[13] Are you now arguing in favor of the Insular Cases?

TFD (talk) 02:06, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

You still have no source to exclude U.S. territories from the U.S. You have cherry picked a part of the First District Court’s decision that quotes from Downes on its way to making the conclusion, Congressional "sequence of legislative actions from 1900 to present has in fact incorporated the territory [of Puerto Rico].” [14]. I acknowledge the Supreme Court rulings in the Insular Cases have been superseded for the most part by a sequence of Congressional actions for all of the territories, in areas such as citizenship, which is not addressed in the Commerce Clause. Nor has the Supreme Court ruled to expel U.S. territories with citizenship and delegate representation in Congress from the geographic extent of the United States, see items 22, 27, 80 [15] which you refuse to acknowledge.

But that is why you were outvoted 10-1 in the mediation. The vote was not about your unsourced original doctrine of the Commerce Clause and its internal application within the US to four of the five territories, -- that was held as irrelevant to the geographic extent of the US. The vote was on the geographic extent of the US in an international context, which includes all five territories -- including the constitutional "political union" with Northern Mariana Islands, supervised and approved by the UN in local referendum -- our topic here.

Now that the Commerce Clause, "all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States...." applies to Puerto Rico [16], do you now argue that 90% of the insular population living in Puerto Rico are within the United States in all constitutional respects? Of course, Northern Mariana Islands and the other insular territories are geographically within the US as sourced, regardless of any ambiguous constitutional status that you may be wrestling with. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:51, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

TFD, I know how frustrating it can be to carry on an argument like this without other people backing you up. But ... there's no point. You two realize you're talking at each other and will not change each other's minds, right? TFD, do what I did and disengage. Literally nothing good can come of this. (I mean, what, do you expect TVH to suddenly relent? Really? After everything you know about him and how he works?) Please stop this, or take it elsewhere, because it has ceased to be a productive conversation on this talk page. --Golbez (talk) 14:29, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

I just wanted to clarify what TVH meant. So the territories are part of the U.S. but that has no relevance to their constitutional position. IOW if they were not part of the U.S., the constitution would not apply in full. But although they are part of the U.S., the constitution still does not apply in full. So the issue is pure semantics. The Court in the Insular Cases were wrong to say they were not part of the U.S., but correct in how the territories should be considered under the law. TFD (talk) 16:15, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

No, you want to argue for arguing's sake, and you're apparently still not done. Just step away. Why bother arguing with him? He's won. --Golbez (talk) 20:51, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

My good friend, an opinion about the Insular Cases is not applicable to the modern geographic extent of the United States. It may be you cannot make a logical connection between them with a reliable source because in recent years, “no current scholar, from any methodological perspective, defends the Insular Cases.” [17]. You seem unable to grasp the evolutionary nature of American constitutional federalism and the interplay between the Courts and Congress. Most of Insular Case law has been superseded, such as Congress and territories mutually arriving at citizenship and delegate Members of Congress, and extension of the Commerce Clause to Puerto Rico in the modern era.

Regardless of the Insular Cases 100-years ago, a federal court has ruled unchallenged for seven years, Congressional "sequence of legislative actions from 1900 to present has in fact incorporated the territory.” by laws of citizenship, self-governance and Article III federal courts [18]. But again, considerations of internal constitutional status are distinct from the geographic extent of the United States as it is understood by a general reader in an international context at items 22, 27, 80 [19] and [20]. "[The insular territories] are officially a part of U.S. territory,” … despite remaining judicially 'unincorporated territories’. (p. 649 [21]). Their international geographic status is undisputed as sourced, there is no counter source of reliable scholarship applicable in the modern era. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 03:59, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

What to do about users reverting to versions linking dispute tags to nonexistent talk page sections?

Could an uninvolved editor please clean up this revert by User:Mattnad who, among other things, replaced a {{disputed-inline}} tag linking to the "Republican Party description" section which has been archived away from this talk page for over a week? Note that he also attempted to revert the unanimous and repeated endorsement of the four income inequality RFCs. And saying US taxes are "among the most progressive in the world" along with several hundred bytes of Heritage and Peterson Foundation sources is not just completely wrong, it's puffery and WP:WEASEL wording, too. EllenCT (talk) 18:39, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Stop edit warring, EllenCT. Those "other things" were the massive, controversial, non-consensus changes you've repeatedly tried to make that have already been reverted by several editors. VictorD7 (talk) 21:33, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Correcting those of you who think trickle down has merit, or that encyclopedias should be based on the paid advocacy you call scholarly instead of secondary peer reviewed literature isn't edit warring, it's improving the encyclopedia, and I will continue to do so as often as is the custom for as long as is necessary. EllenCT (talk) 02:33, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Trickle down is in fact an economic reality. Incomes rose over 10 fold over the 20th century despite the fact that the work week is much shorter and working conditions much better. Total compensation closely tracks productivity, but productivity growth has been slowing for a long time now.Phmoreno (talk) 02:48, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

It would be edit warring against consensus even if you were being honest and were correct on the merits. That you aren't makes it even worse. Again, sources like the CBO, Washington Post, and peer reviewed academic studies published by Oxford Journals aren't "paid advocacy" and the segments in question have nothing to do with "trickle down". VictorD7 (talk) 18:26, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

That opinion is not grounded in guidelines or policy. Your POV fringe sources that you have been continuously pushing for years are far out of the mainstream. EllenCT (talk) 18:08, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

None of the sources I just listed are "fringe" or represent the (actually mainstream) POV you claim they do. VictorD7 (talk) 18:07, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Now VictorDJ has joined Mattnad in reverting to the version contrary to the RFC outcome and which includes hundreds of bytes of far right-wing fringe sources, and which has a broken link on an inline dispute tag. EllenCT (talk) 20:01, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

The Republican party tagline (assuming that's what you're referring to) has nothing to do with the massive "other" changes in the Gov. finance and Income sections you've repeatedly tried to sneak in with misleading edit summaries. If you really care about the link then fix it separately. Same if you're referring to a broken link in one of those sections. Just edit the link. Of course your claim about "far right-wing fringe sources" is outrageously false (we're talking the CBO, OECD, The Atlantic, The Washington Post, peer reviewed journal articles, the Tax Policy Center, Wall Street Journal, mainstream economists of varying political stripes, etc..). VictorD7 (talk) 20:23, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

You're the one who broke the link. Why should I have to clean up after your mistakes? EllenCT (talk) 06:22, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

I had nothing to do with the link, and no one told you to clean it up (or use it as a lame cover for a contentious stealth edit with a misleading edit summary). VictorD7 (talk) 09:59, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

You've been reported for edit warring against consensus even after warnings to stop. [22] VictorD7 (talk) 22:09, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

The discussion is ongoing at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#VictorD7. EllenCT (talk) 06:22, 28 September 2015 (UTC)