Jump to content

Talk:Territories of the United States/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Removal of "Associated States" section

I removed the section listing "associated states" because that misstates the status of the Compact of Free Association nations. Though initially the rest of the world (especially the Communist bloc) treated them as part of the U.S., they are in fact sovereign nations, and after the Cold War ended they were all admitted to the UN as independent nations. (Palau gained its status later than the others due to nuclear weapons issues with the U.S.) Therefore, they should no longer be treated as "territories" of the U.S. However, I retained links to their articles, as well as to the "Compact of Free Association" article (instead of the "associated state" article, which is more about the concept), as they were part of the historic Trust Territory of the Pacific. --RBBrittain 02:44, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

The Associated States may be members of the UN, but so are other territories that are not independent. The association means that they are not sovereign, though they are also not part of the USA.122.59.212.133 (talk) 07:05, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Colonies

Why is the expression "sub-national administrative divisions directly overseen by the United States federal government" used? This reads like a euphemism for colony.122.59.212.133 (talk) 07:02, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Reverts

Whoever keeps reverting the article, why do you keep deleting the statistics table and photo galleries? There is no reason to delete these sections. Also, having the territory tables grouped by whether they are inhabited/uninhabited (as is done in the List of U.S. states and territories article) is less confusing than having them grouped by whether they are organized and/or incorporated (which requires 4 sections rather than 2). LumaP15 (talk) 23:34, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

"Palmyra Atoll" is the wrong name for the federal territory

All the references to the territory in the article use the wrong name (Feb. 15, 2018). The legal name is "United States Territory of Palmyra Island", not "Palmyra Atoll". See the subsection about this in the article Palmyra Atoll and its legal references. A National Wildlife Refuge inside the federal territory is named the "Palmyra Atoll National Wildlife Refuge", administered by the Fish and Wildlife Service. This is not the official name of the federal territory (the actual government of which is also the Fish and Wildlife Service, but by different federal statutes assigning the government of "Palmyra Island" to the president in 1959-1960, a presidential Executive Order in 1961 assigning it to the Secretary of the Interior, and a 2001 Secretary of the Interior's Order that transferred the government authority under the Executive Order from the Office of Insular Affairs to the Fish and Wildlife Service.

The WP article name "Palmyra Atoll" may refer generally to the place, not to the formal legal government entity (the federal territory).

Somebody should correct the misreferences to "Palmyra Atoll" as the territory name, in the main article here. 68.188.110.254 (talk) 00:27, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Claimed/disputed territories

The ownership of a number of territories are disputed by other countries. Some of them are not actually under US control or administration. I think this article needs a section properly explaining the situation of the affected territories, to expand on the "passing mentions" in a few places scattered throughout the article. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:49, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

The listing of the uninhabited territories already mentions relevant disputes. But these territories a a tiny aspect of the topic compared with the currently inhabited territories and historic territories that were developed into states, or ceded. TFD (talk) 00:30, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Disputed territory Sikaiana

An editor keeps blanking a cited section on Sikaiana. Outback the koala (talk) 20:36, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

That's because most of the claims are either original research, or synthesis based on what the sources do say. Sikaiana isn't considered part of the state of Hawaii by the US government or Hawaiian government, nor is it considered a territory of the United States by the Federal government. The claims in the section that "The issue for Sikaiana has not been litigated, but if so, then Sikaiana would be an incorporated territory of the United States of America if it is not a legal part of the State of Hawaii" is pure speculation and Original Research. The claim that "The United States is not known to have pressed its legal claim, but under the Constitution it cannot cede an incorporated territory (or a U.S. state) to another power" is Synthesis, as the editor is applying something to Sikaiana that is not found in the citation.
In most cases, disputed territories are claimed by both the United States and other countries. This is the only case that I know of of a people from a territory claiming the area is part of the US when the US doesn't recognize it. While we do have a list of disputed territories in the article, they are all uninhabited, so Sikaiana{{}} would be inappropriate there. If we do add a separate disputed territories section, then perhaps Sikaiana could be added, but with reliable sources that support the content. - BilCat (talk) 21:13, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
@Outback the koala: Please stop re-adding this material until you have addressed the issues and built a consensus to restore this. - BilCat (talk) 23:23, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
Also, the content violates NPOV, and is evidently a Fringe viewpoint, and thus cannot remain in the article as long as it violates these policies. - BilCat (talk) 23:26, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

See also Sikaiana#Hawaiian/American/Solomons sovereignty issue which (disclosure) I have just edited. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:37, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

I didn’t add this information, I just watched you remove it from the article because basically it does not fit the traditional narrative of a disputed territory that’s disputed by two parties. It does have citations associated with it in the section you have blanked. Obviously the content doesn’t agree with your POV, but I think as an encyclopedia, we should simply present the facts as supported by the references and let the reader draw conclusions from there.
I do, however, not at all accept your explanation that you can blank content that is citied, and break 3RR rules because “it was added 10 days ago”. I have never heard of such an interpretation ever. You don’t like this content, fine, but discuss it here instead of edit warring and blanking section which have references, acting as if you own the page. I will restore the content for now, I don’t feel strongly about it one way or the other, but I really don’t like to see an editor act like a bully. Outback the koala (talk) 00:51, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
The facts presented aren't in fact supported by the references, which is why I removed them. Restoring improperly cited material because "really don’t like to see an editor act like a bully" is just making a bad situation worse. You haven't actually dealt with any specific claims that the section makes, only claimed that because it's "citied" it can't be removed. As to 3RR, editors are allowed to remove content that expesses fringe views and makes claims not supported by the sources per WP:FRINGE, and that is what I did. In fact, by restoring improperly cited content, you have violated 3RR yourself. - BilCat (talk) 03:24, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
I just looked at the sources that Outback the koala provided (about Sikaiana), and the text about Sikaiana is found in one of the sources ( https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/GAOREPORTS-OGC-98-5/pdf/GAOREPORTS-OGC-98-5.pdf ). On page 39 of that document (page 41 of the PDF), the following is said:
"Some residents of the Stewart Islands in the Solomon Islands group, which is located northeast of Australia and east of Papua New Guinea, claim that they are native Hawaiians and U.S. citizens. (See figure 1.) They base their claim on the assertion that the Stewart Islands were ceded to King Kamehameha IV and accepted by him as part of the Kingdom of Hawaii in 1856 and, thus, were part of the Republic of Hawaii (which was declared in 1893) when it was annexed to the United States by law in 1898. The 1898 law identifies the islands being annexed only as the “Hawaiian Islands and their dependencies.” However, the annexation was based on the report of the Hawaiian Commission which did not include the Stewart Islands among the islands it identified as part of the Republic of Hawaii. Report of the Hawaiian Commission, S. Doc. No. 16, 55th Cong., at 4 (3d Sess. 1898). In 1996, some Stewart Islands residents applied to register to vote in a plebescite limited to Native Hawaiians. Their requests for ballots, however, were rejected by the Hawaiian Sovereignty Election Council."
The above text is in the form of a footnote (within the document). The fact that residents of the Stewart Islands (also known as Sikaiana) believe that their land is a U.S. territory is a minor detail. It should be mentioned in the "Territories of the United States" article, but only as a footnote (similar to how it is only mentioned as a footnote in the official document). A main-text paragraph about would probably give it too much weight. LumaP15 (talk) 01:12, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Duplication

Palmyra Atoll, Jarvis Island, Midway Islands, Baker Island, Johnston Atoll, Navassa Island, Howland Island, Kingman Reef and Wake Island are listed as both Territories of the United States and as United States Minor Outlying Islands. Shouldn't they only be listed one of them?--Wyn.junior (talk) 23:15, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Why? The terms aren't mutually exclusive. - BilCat (talk) 01:16, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
The article does not notate these terms being mutually exclusive.--Wyn.junior (talk) 22:51, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
Because they aren't mutually exclusive. - BilCat (talk) 05:11, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
They are territories and also minor outlying islands. --Golbez (talk) 23:11, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
Territories of the United States is a category that includes the smaller category Minor Outlying Islands. It's like rectangles and squares. All squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares. Similarly, the MOIs are all territories but not all US territories are MOIs. --Khajidha (talk) 01:51, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Contradictions between sections

The Classification of former U.S. territories and administered areas section seems to differ with the Organized territories section in some cases. The example which caught my eye is the Philippines, which became a U.S, territory with the Treaty of Paris (1898) and was under U.S. military government before then but had no Organic Act until the Philippine Organic Act (1902) (see also Sovereignty of the Philippines#Peace protocol, U.S. military government, Treaty of Paris). I don't know about other territories. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 19:42, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:07, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:53, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:52, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Merger proposal (merge from Territories of the United States to U.S. territory

Notice of a person's merge proposal with Pro/Con Positions:

Formal request has been received to merge: Territories of the United States into U.S. territory; dated: February 10, 2020. Proposer's rationale: I'm not sure if these articles should be merged, but the article's descriptions seem to overlap. Pinging proposer @Interstellarity: discuss below. Richard3120 (talk) 15:43, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

@Richard3120: Thank you for creating the discussion. Interstellarity (talk) 16:26, 26 March 2020 (UTC)"
Oppose and Remedy Problem
Territories of the United States are one of a few sub-national administrative divisions within the United States then same way states and a federal district are, while the concept of U.S. territory on the other hand, outlines what the United States legally holds under its sovereign jurisdiction. For example, The State of Maryland is a state and is thus part of U.S. territorial sovereignty but it is not a Territory of the United States while the United States Virgin Islands is a Territory of the United States which automatically makes it part of U.S. territor(ial sovereignty). In the same way U.S. navel ship are part of U.S. territory but are not Territories of the United States. The Best way to remedy this confusing ambiguous problem is to rename the page U.S. territory to the new name "U.S. territorial sovereignty," but keep in mind that Territories of the United States and U.S. territory are two different things. Llakew18 (talk) 20:57, 7 April 2020 (UTC) Llakew18

This is taken from the Talk:U.S. territory Merger proposal Discuss. (talk) 04:12, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Strange/inaccurate language in lede

The following language in the lede strikes me as very strange and almost certainly inaccurate: Each state has individual sovereignty by which it delegates powers to the federal government. Neither under the constitution or any founding era political theory I am aware of (Declaration of Independence, Federalist Papers, Antifederalist Papers, etc.) are the powers of the federal government delegated by the states. On the contrary, the federal and state governments possess separate powers which cannot constitutionally be delegated to the other. Ergo Sum 01:28, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Unnecessary comparison in the introduction

The 2nd to last sentence includes the phrase "some territories' Internet speed was found to be slower than the least developed countries in Eastern Europe", and cites a respective article. The problem lies in both the comparison itself (Why is there a need to compare it to Eastern Europe? Just because that article did it?), and more importantly the cited article only mentions one true Eastern European nation, Belarus, with the other two being Mediterranean rim countries. A change of this part might be advisable. Dracona94 (talk) 14:25, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

It's provided as an example of how the territories are at a low level of development compared with the United States itself. I don't know if it is the best comparison though. TFD (talk) 16:31, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Disputed territories and potential pseudo territory

In the information bar on the top right it states that there are only 2 disputed territories. Wake Island is claimed by the Marshall Islands and Navassa Island is claimed by Haiti. It should be 4. Plus I would consider Guantanamo bay to be a pseudo territory even if not legally so because it is treated as one in practice. Possibly a 3rd category should be created. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.118.98.179 (talk) 09:10, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Bare URLs

I note that many items in the References sectionare formatted similarly to the following:

https://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/cph-2-1.pdf United States Summary: 2010. Population and Housing Unit Counts. Issued September 2012. Page 1 (Page 49 of PDF). Retrieved July 4, 2019.

This is ugly. WP:MOS/Linking#Link titles says, "Embedded HTML links within an article are a now-deprecated way to supply a bare URL as a source within an article, ...". I'll mention here that if the concern is making URLs visible in pronted copies of an article, that is covered in Help:Print. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 21:15, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Unpopulated Territories Flags

While considered unofficial, there are WP:RS documenting at least some of the flags for unpopulated island territories:

  • Midway Island: Klimeš, Roman (July–September 2010). "Lesser-Known Symbols of Minor U.S. Possessions: Part 2. Pacific Ocean—Midway" (PDF). NAVA News (207): 8. Retrieved March 15, 2021.
  • Navassa Island: Klimeš, Roman (April–June 2010). "Lesser-Known Symbols of Minor U.S. Possessions: Part 1. Caribbean Sea" (PDF). NAVA News (206): 8. Retrieved March 15, 2021.
  • Palmyra: Wheeler, Skip (October–December 2010). "Flags for U.S. Island Territories—a Vexillonnaire's Tale" (PDF). NAVA News (208): 10–11. Retrieved March 15, 2021.

I've restored those three and am looking to verify the others. —Carter (talk) 18:10, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

In general, we should not be displaying unofficial flags anywhere but in the actual article on those territories, with sufficient reliable sources to verify their notability. BilCat (talk) 18:20, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
No. These were just made up by people who wanted every island to have a flag. They are 100% unofficial and are not used by any government or even non-goverment bodies. They are not flown on these islands, they are not exhibited by those with authority of these islands, and we should not be falsely portraying them as having been adopted. The Johnston Island one at least has a degree of unofficial use, having won a contest among those actually living there, but it's still questionable whether it should be used in wider contexts. Reywas92Talk 19:11, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
That's not accurate. The source notes that these three flags at least were accepted by the agencies that oversee the respective islands. The Midway and Palmyra flags are noted as having been flown on the islands, and they along with the Navassa Island one were flown in an exhibit at the USS Arizona Memorial that included all the other states, territories, and microterritories. Just because it's a small detail about small places doesn't make it not notable in context and they certainly aren't WP:MADEUP. —Carter (talk) 19:27, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
"having been flown" is not the same as "actually adopted and should be used as official signifiers without context in infoboxes". You're missing that the Navassa Island one was invented for this one event! That doesn't make it official, that doesn't make recognized. One flag enthusiast made it up for this memorial, never known to be used by anyone else. This Palmyra flag is not noted as having been flown on Palmyra; rather this says a similar design may have unofficially been for Palmyra in WWII, and then this Skip Wheeler, who was involved in all of these, decided to make his own revisions and The Nature Conservancy (not FWS, not DOI) said "sure, what the hell, use it as your event". No proof it's actually flown there by TNC, nothing suggesting we should give it status on this page. Similarly, one FWS employee creating a Midway flag upon Wheeler's suggestion is not adoption by FWS or DOI, especially not seeing any sources or photographs on their website or other indication it's been used since this one event 20 years ago. Should that be in the bulk of the Midway article as an unofficial design? Sure. Should it be used in the infobox here or there suggesting offical use? No. Reywas92Talk 20:06, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
"This Skip Wheeler" was a DoI employee working on a NPS project. He's not some random person as you keep insinuating. The Nature Conservancy owns Palmyra Atoll, which it manages alongside FWS. I can't prove they are not used, but the NAVA News articles are WP:RS that they have been used. I think that they should be included per MOS:FLAGRELEVANCE; clearly you disagree. —Carter (talk) 01:34, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
The context of MOS:RELEVANCE is of official flags, as is made clear at WP:ICON#Entities without flags until after a certain point in time in another section of that page. You've already conceded that the flags are considered unofficial. Therefore they should not be used here as if they were official in this time period. BilCat (talk) 01:43, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
As these flags are unofficial they should not be used on this page. We do not have the authority to grant them official recognition here on Wikipedia, nor is it proper for us to misrepresent them as having some official status. Drdpw (talk) 02:25, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
Agree with removal from most pages. They can be included in the articles with appropriate context within the article body, but Wikipedia should not be giving these flags any more prominence than the United States Government does. CMD (talk) 09:26, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Why doesn't DC get it's own map colour?

Why are "The 50 states and the District of Columbia" all the same colour on the map? Shouldn't DC be the same colour as Peurto Rico, or get it's own colour? I'm just a baffled Australian, so i won't change it myself in case there's some good reason for it to be that way), but if there's not a good reason, could you update the map please? The map doesn't show states, but possibly DC could just be a yellow dot? A U.S.American will likely be more accurate at yellow dot placement than i am, i'd probably end up dotting Boston. Irtapil (talk) 05:59, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

The map seems to be made by @Pharexia and Grundafjarðarkirkja: ping @Reywas92, PyroFloe, Paploo, HMSLavender, and Tcr25: recent contributers to the page. Irtapil (talk) 05:59, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

D.C. is not a territory, it's a federal district. Sort of like a distinction between Australian Capital Territory and the Ashmore & Cartier Islands? So, no, it's not the same as Puerto Rico. Reywas92Talk 06:09, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
ACT of course is considered a territory under Australian law, while D.C. is considered a district under U.S. law. There is no difference in U.S. law between the treatment of D.C. and territories that have been incorporated into the U.S., except that D.C. is allowed electoral votes for U.S. president. At present however, only the tiny uninhabited territory of Palmyra is an incorporated territory, while Australia includes the substantial Northern Territory. So it comes down to a matter of semantics. Since D.C. is called a district rather than a territory, it is excluded. TFD (talk) 22:42, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
The map is secondary to the article, the article does not cover DC so the map shouldn't either. If the article changes in this regard, I expect it's a simple assumption that the map will follow. CMD (talk) 01:38, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Merger proposal

NO ACTION
No Consensus for merging articles. Yarfpr (talk) 02:57, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

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

I propose to merge Insular area into Territories of the United States. I think that the content in the Insular area article can easily be explained in the context of Territories of the United States. All current territories of the United States are insular areas. Historically many non insular territories were created, but most of them eventually attained statehood, others, such as the Philippines, the Federated States of Micronesia, the Marshall Islands and Palau, later became independent. Delasse (talk) 13:59, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

  • (support) I am inclined to support, given the overlap. However, the term insular area often includes the Freely Associated States, and so it would probably need its own section here explaining the term and its usage. CMD (talk) 14:19, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
  • (support) I agree. I would point out too that "insular" means island. Although the territories today are islands, that has not always been true. TFD (talk) 16:05, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
  • The Eloquent Peasant, the only difference I see is that "insular areas" includes the three independent states that are in free association with the U.S. I question whether they are really insular areas of the United States, but regardless a brief mention in this article would be preferable to having two articles about substantially the same places. TFD (talk) 01:24, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose - As The Eloquent Peasant points out, while the terms do overlap, they aren't equal at all, and thus are better covered separately. BilCat (talk) 01:03, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose merge. Nebraska, New York, Florida, and Wyoming, to name a few, are all territories of the US. It is, thus, not true that "All current territories of the United States are insular areas" because "insular area" (by definition) refers to islands and none of those four are islands. In essense, the US has two types of territories, incorporated territories and unincorporated territories. The 50 states and DC are incorporated, while the rest of the US territories, namely, those that are possessions (i.e., not part of) of the US, are defined as unincoporated. As such, the two subjects deserve separate coverage, which is the way they currently stand and which is why they should stay that way. Mercy11 (talk) 01:22, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
    Mercy11, Nebraska etc. are not included in this article, since they are classified as states, not territories. TFD (talk) 01:45, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
WP isn't a reliable source; we don't make merge decisions based on WP article contents. Mercy11 (talk) 02:00, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
Of course we make merge decisions based on Wikipedia article contents. We take into account length, overlap and ease of navigation between articles. I'm sure you can find external sources if you'd like to verify that Nebraska is a U.S. state and not a territory in the sense of Congress having direct federal control with no local sovereignty. That's what Territories of the United States is currently scoped to cover, and I think we're arguing that's what it should continue to be scoped to. Nebraska is a territory of the United States in the sense that it's a tract of land under U.S. jurisdiction, but "territory" in that sense is covered under U.S. territory. -- Beland (talk) 19:19, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Support - I think it makes sense to merge, given the overlap in content and the difficulty of navigating caused by an excessive number of articles covering U.S. territories. A small section explaining that these are also known as "insular areas" and a list of the Freely Associated States that explains they are not territories would be helpful additions to this article even if also mentioned elsewhere. That would make 100% overlap with Insular area. I agree that it is dubious to claim that the Freely Associated States are "insular areas of the United States", though federal programs there are administered through the Office of Insular Affairs. The territories (in the legal sense of direct federal control) that have since been chopped up or converted to states are cross-referenced here but covered in detail under Organized incorporated territories of the United States, so the fact that these were mostly not insular areas does not seem to be an impediment to merging. If the terminology really is the only sticking point, it would be worthwhile to me to rename this article Territories and insular areas of the United States just to avoid having overwhelmingly overlapping articles. -- Beland (talk) 19:37, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
If the articles were merged it could be renamed to Territories and insular posessions of the United States as seen here[2] in the 48 U.S.C. United States Code, 2009 Edition, Title 48 - TERRITORIES AND INSULAR POSSESSIONS document published by U.S. Government Publishing Office. --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 19:47, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
and the same document (Territories and Insular Possessions) can be found elsewhere: [1] and in the Library of Congress here [2].--The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 00:25, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
I would guess "insular area" is the common name because that's the current title of the Wikipedia article, but either title would be fine by me. -- Beland (talk) 00:39, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
The U.S. Code defines insular areas differently from the Wikipedia article. It includes American Samoa, Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and the Northern Mariana Islands, but excludes Puerto Rico, Palymyra, uninhabited islands and associated states, which are included in the Insular area article. TFD (talk) 00:56, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
P.R. is a territory of the US and geographically, the closest US insular area to the U.S. mainland. An insular area is defined as “a jurisdiction that is neither a part of one of the several States nor a Federal district.”[3][4] --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 02:08, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
I didn't see that definition in either one of those two linked sources (maybe I didn't look hard enough). I did see it here. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 12:22, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
Here you will see "A jurisdiction that is neither a part of one of the several States nor a Federal district." --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 12:33, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
Also here "Despite being the insular area that is closest to the U.S. mainland geographically, Congress and the courts have been hesitant to recognize Puerto Ricans’ constitutional protections." --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 13:15, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
PR is a commonwealth, an unincorporated territory, an insular area, etc. Why merge the articles?. There is a lot that can be added to the "insular areas" wikipedia article. Maybe the insular areas article just needs to be beefed up. I'm not concerned about "overlap". I'd rather keep an article that gives more detail about the different insular areas. --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 13:00, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
The article that gives more detail about the different insular areas is this one. "Insular areas" is a vague term of convenience, as indicated in the GAO source you note above, allowing for flexible usage (illustrated by the different definitions in sources you've found). Currently, the Insular areas article has picked a broad definition which is territories plus Associated States, so writing more about it would duplicate content from here or from Compact of Free Association. CMD (talk) 13:25, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
Overlap is one of the official reasons to consider merging. Anything that can be said about the territories as a group can also be said about the insular areas. Freely Associated States already have a dedicated article to describe common aspects, so that specific content doesn't need to be more than a summary. Most of the detail about the individual areas is included on articles like Puerto Rico; the articles to be merged only talk about the commonalities. However, if there is so much content to add that subarticles are needed, then it would be better to have a single parent article. For example, it would be a bit maddening for readers to have two nearly identical parent articles for "Taxes in U.S. territories". -- Beland (talk) 17:57, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.doi.gov/oia/islands/politicatypes
  2. ^ https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2009-title48/html/USCODE-2009-title48-chap10.htm
  3. ^ https://www.doi.gov/library/internet/insular
  4. ^ https://www.gao.gov/assets/hrd-91-18.pdf
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Jpears21.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 10:53, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Merge after discussion closed with no consensus

Everyone, I am inclined to support the merge after all. User: Delasse renamed this article (a first step to merging) and I think this is the correct and good name for it. Can we change the NO CONSENSUS, NO ACTION to CONENSUS TO MERGE? @The Four Deuces:, @Mercy:, @Chipmunkdavis: @Beland:--The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 12:44, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces:, @Yarfpr: would it be possible to change the previous close decision from No Consensus to Consensus. My comments further into the discussion were inclined to merging with "if we do merge.. the article name should be changed to "Territories and insular posessions of the United States". The originator did go ahead and change this article name already so now it only makes sense to move forward, despite you know.. Delasse having done that without conesnsus.. I think.we should merge the two and maybe it was my Oppose vote that led to No Consensus. --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 12:49, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
@Beland: Please forgive the three posts with 1 message. I haven't even had my coffee yet this morning. I'm hoping the subsequent pinging works.--The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 12:50, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, that's not how that works. You don't circumvent a merge proposal by unilaterally moving the article. As such I have reverted the move.
@Delasse and The Eloquent Peasant: If you want the article moved, then please create a request for move discussion. SkyWarrior 17:27, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
Maybe we could re-open the discussion because I don't think everyone is clear on the distinctions between the two concepts. A territory of the United States is an area that is neither a state nor D.C. Territories that were outside the mainland were referred to as insular areas because they were mostly islands. Today, all territories of the United States are insular areas. In addition, the federal government operates in three independent states that are in free association with the U.S. Although they are not insular areas, they are treated as such by the federal government.
So even though the two terms do not have the exact same meaning there is considerable overlap. First, all existing territories are insular areas. Secondly both articles explain the laws governing territories, for example, incorporated vs. unincorporated and organized vs. unorganized, which are defined under the Territorial Clause of the U.S. Constitution and decided by the Insular Cases by the U.S. Supreme Court. All this article has to do is to say that island territories are also called insular territories and the federal bureaucracy also sometimes uses the term to include the three associated states.
TFD (talk) 20:21, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
I agree that this matter could benefit from further discussion. I see the admin above, SkyWarrior, left a note (here) to the editor who proposed the original merge (i.e., Delasse) as to how he needs to go about moving this article (WP:RM). The "procedural close" doesn't mean Delasse was wrong in his merge proposal, what it means is that Delasse was wrong in how he was going about it. At least that's what I understand. Note I said "moving" the article, for that's what the admin says and the admin makes no mention of merging articles. Maybe is because this needs to be taken in 2 steps, first move and then merge, but I could be wrong. @The Four Deuces: I believe what the admin above wants is that for such discussion that you are suggesting be reopened, that such discussion should not be about any merge for now, but about a move, and that such discussion should take place at WP's RM page, not here. That's how I understand it. Mercy11 (talk) 21:48, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
Mercy11 is pretty much correct in my reasoning: move first then merge. I closed the second merge proposal was closed on procedural grounds because it depended on the article being at Territories and insular possessions of the United States, which it is no longer.
In any case, the first merge proposal was just closed as no consensus, so I recommend waiting a little bit (say a month or so) before attempting to move/merge the article again.
(By the way, I'm not actually an admin, but I do have page mover rights). SkyWarrior 01:48, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
I would object to a move with no merge. If we decide to keep "insular areas" it makes even less sense to have an article on "insular areas and territories" than it does to have an article on "territories". We should either move and merge, or leave two articles and try to scope them more clearly. It doesn't make any sense to me to wait to discuss this, because the second merge proposal has a different merge target than the first proposal, which addresses the terminology objections to the first proposal. It's possible that if the "no consensus" discussion hadn't been closed when it was that it would have actually reached a consensus. This is supposed to be a discussion, not a vote, and Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, so I think we should just continue discussing, and see if the amended proposal has changed the opinions of other editors as it has done for The Eloquent Peasant. -- Beland (talk) 03:48, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

That actually leads to ask for clarification:

Well, it's disappointing to hear rejection of all ideas without even considering the merits, but I'll give this 30 days of inaction. -- Beland (talk) 19:07, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
To be honest, and without trying to be mean, I didn't see any merits, just "lipstick on a pig". For me, the crux of the argument is whether or not Insular area should exist as a separate article. I believe it should exist separately, as "territory" and "insular area" are not synonymous. Therefore I will oppose all efforts to merge it somewhere else, because they undermine that position. BilCat (talk) 19:53, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
I think BilCat is right that the issue is whether or not Insular area should exist as a separate article. As it stands it is a WP:REDUNDANTFORK of this article, so the question is whether sources exist that treat it as a separate topic. Perhaps, for example, there may be enough sources to have an article on the term itself, although I have not seen any. CMD (talk) 02:34, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
Such issues are better handled by an AFD, not in multiple merge discussions. Since it seems the only way to get issue dropped, you might as well do so, and put the drama out of our misery. BilCat (talk) 05:02, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
I was hoping to leave a little time for sources to potentially emerge, rather than going straight to AfD. CMD (talk) 05:20, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
I would oppose outright deletion of insular areas; it is a common term with incoming links, and if that target is not an article, it should be a redirect to an article that explains the term and the entities the term refers to. I've added a source to a U.S. law that considers the freely associated states to be "insular areas" and other than that, [1] is a good source for official definitions of the terms. -- Beland (talk) 05:31, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
@BilCat: You said that you opposed any other ideas "that might be proposed", and it seems a bit impossible to judge the merits of an idea which hasn't even been conceived yet. As for the merit of the idea that has been proposed, the proposed phrases "territories and insular possessions" and "territories and insular areas" are meant to accommodate your objection that these two terms mean different things, by not implying in the title that either one of them includes all of the things that the other includes. I agree that they are not the same, since there are many former territories that are not insular areas, and at least three current insular areas that are not territories. I'm not sure if that attempt at accommodating your objection is inherently somehow unsatisfactory, or if there is some other reason you have for keeping separate but overlapping articles. -- Beland (talk) 05:31, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
You don't have to accommodate my objections, as a consensus doesn't need unilateral approval. I'm not going to take disruptive actions if a consensus I disagree with is reached, and probably won't appeal it even if I think it was done unfairly. I'm also not going to create a CFORK under a slightly different title, or move a page without discussion to a title I prefer in order to get my way. I just don't believe the articles overlap enough to be merged. Shouldn't that be enough for you to accept that I disagree ? BilCat (talk) 06:12, 30 August 2021 (UTC) (Struck out my final comments, as I misread Beland's final sentence, and inferred something that wasn't meant. My apologies.) BilCat (talk) 06:20, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
@BilCat: Sure, I'm not going to do anything disruptive or make a fork, either. Consensus-building is not a contest in numbers; it requires understanding what other people are saying and taking good suggestions on board to write better articles. That's why I was asking why you disagree; you might have a convincing reason that would change my mind or point to a creative solution that would satisfy everyone and benefit readers. Thanks for explaining that; it sounds like the objection is "insufficient overlap", which is a valid reason and something we can ponder. Given that freely associated states are not U.S. territories, I see in the article Insular areas that the sections "Associated states", "Freely associated states", the dictionary definition in the intro, and a paragraph of the "History" section are not overlapping. That represents less than 50% of 6k prose that would be merged into an article of 35k prose, according to XTools. To me that sounds like good numbers to establish sufficient overlap for merging. Perhaps you have a higher threshold in mind for merging, and we just disagree on that (which is fine), or perhaps I'm missing something. -- Beland (talk) 17:35, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
What you're probably missing is that I find it frustrating to repeat the same basic answers over and over. I'm going to take the suggested month away from this discussion. Feel free to ping me then if there's substantially different proposal after that which still hasn't reached a clear consensus in the meantime. BilCat (talk) 23:56, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
OK, I'm sorry we frustrated you. For what it's worth, I read "they aren't equal at all", "Oppose Merge/Renaming/Anything else", and "don't believe the articles overlap enough to be merged" as completely different objections, each of which suggests a different threshold of action and thus a different path to consensus, so from my perspective this wasn't repetitive. But I'll join in some time away. -- Beland (talk) 08:01, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Merger proposal 2

Procedural close. I have reverted the move; you don't get to circumvent a no consensus merge proposal by moving the article to include the merge proposal in the title. If you would like the article moved, then please create a request for move discussion. SkyWarrior 17:31, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

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

I changed the article title (using the RS) and now again propose to merge Insular area into Territories and insular posessions of the United States. I do not know what is the right wikipedia policy Delasse (talk) 13:08, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

  • Support - because that is what they are called in the 48 U.S.C. (United States Code), 2009 Edition. --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 13:52, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Support as a reasonable compromise given the opinions in the earlier discussion, though the correct spelling is "possessions". -- Beland (talk) 19:52, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
    Suppport alternative - Actually, [2] points out that "possession" only refers to areas under U.S. sovereignty also known as "territories", and does not include freely associated states. That same page points out that "insular area" includes both "territories" and freely associated states. Though the freely associated states are included in USC Title 48, and the title of that does include the phrase "insular possessions", the DOI page points out that "posessions" is outdated terminology, and I think maybe the name of Title 48 simply hasn't been updated after Freely Associated States became a thing. (And I'm not sure the names of titles are legally binding, anyway.) Plus, I see e.g. 42 U.S.C. §§ 5204–1 using the term "insular areas", and that seems to be the common name generally. So, I'm going to shift my support specifically in favor of Territories and insular areas of the United States which seems to be scoped properly to include the merged contents of both articles. -- Beland (talk) 05:51, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article length

@Mercy11: In September, you added {{Very long}} to this article, with the edit summary "Please see WP:TOOBIG". That page says that for articles under 40KB of readable prose, "Length alone does not justify division". According to XTools, this article currently has 38,135 of readable prose, so the cited guideline apparently does not support trimming or splitting this article. That being said, was there any particular content or section you would like to see pushed into detail articles to reduce the length of this article? I think probably most of the court case coverage in the "Incorporated vs. unincorporated territories" section should be moved to Insular cases. Maybe if you want to reduce visual length, we could move the galleries to articles of the individual territories? -- Beland (talk) 04:57, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

It's not a hard and fast rule, and the tag was merely an improvement recommendation. I tend to disagree with your interpretation and believe most of us use the raw byte count in the history section to make this sort of judgement call, but then eyeball a bit more (25-50% perhaps) to account for non-readable content, higher if there are a lot of references. "Readable prose" vs. "readable content" can be open to interpretation, as our conversation here already proves. Since you are the same editor who last added content to the article before I placed the tag, but didn't yourself see it necessary to include the tag at that time, I have removed it based on this discussion. Again, imo, this falls "in the gray area". Regards, Mercy11 (talk) 15:12, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:55, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:07, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Facebook criticism and "Giving Tuesday"

After edits related to its content by multiple users (including me), I have moved the following from the Public image section here for discussion and possible improvement:

In 2018, Facebook was criticized by the the non-profit Equally American for treating U.S. territories as equivalent to foreign countries by disallowing the use of the platform's #givingtuesday fundraising tools in the territories. Facebook stated the company either lacked appropriate fundraising licenses or had not yet activated the feature in territories where it was licensed to raise funds.[1] In response to Facebook's view, former Guam representative Madeleine Bordallo said, "It is an injustice that Americans living in the U.S. territories are not treated as other Americans living in the states. [...] Treating residents of Guam and other U.S. territories as living outside the United States and excluding them from programs perpetuates misconceptions and injustices that have long had a negative impact on our communities".[2]
  1. ^ O'Connor, Brian. "Nonprofit group cries foul on Facebook donation practices". The Virgin Islands Daily News. St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands. Retrieved 2022-07-23.
  2. ^ "Facebook: US territories aren't part of the US". Pacific Island Times. Tamuning, Guam. November 26, 2018. Retrieved July 1, 2019.

I am not a regular Facebook user, but I see here that Giving Tuesday appears to be a facebook "Group" (whatever that means). I am guessing that the views highlighted above are related to the group more than they are related to Facebook, which hosts the group. I don't know to what extent this guess may be correct. This material appears to need clarification in that regard, more clarification overall, and citation of reliable secondary sources independent of the group if it is to appear in the article. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 16:16, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

I think GivingTuesday is the intended link; it's a very big deal in the nonprofit world. AFAICT that's just some random FB group that latched onto the name. I gather there's a concern that the quote from Bordallo is from an opinion piece in the Pacific Island Times; is there a similar concern about the VIDN cite?-- Visviva (talk) 17:25, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
Yes, GivingTuesday would be the proper link. It's the equivalent of Cyber Monday or Black Friday for the non-profit sector. The group making the criticism was Equally American, which advocates for treating U.S. territories more like U.S. states. The criticism is that Facebook as a technology platform encouraged the use of it's donation tools to support GivingTuesday activities, but because Guam, USVI, etc., aren't considered equal to U.S. states the tool was unable to work for charities active in the territories. The inclusion in this article, including the quote from Bordallo, highlight a way the territories are seen as alien to the rest of the U.S., which is the focus of that section of the article.
Although the lede on the Pacific Islands Times article isn't very journalistic, it's not labeled as an op-ed; it's reporting on Equally American's criticism, but doesn't go much beyond that. The Virgin Islands Daily Times piece does a better version of contextualizing the concern. I left the Pacific Islands Times ref in place as the source for the Bordallo quote (it would seem to be acceptable for the quote even if were WP:PRIMARY), but the VI Daily Times piece provides the WP:RS for the basics of the addition. —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 18:00, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
(edit conflict) (comment after seeing Visviva comment) Could be -- I'm out of my depth here. I do see the website www.pacificislandtimes.com and that led me to "Facebook: US territories aren't part of the US". Pacific Island Times. November 28, 2018. It doesn't look to me as if this belongs in the article even with improved sourcing; the topic of this article seems too general for these specifics. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 18:24, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
I am of the opinion that this material does not belong in the article at all. This is a general 'this is what a U.S. territory is' article and these specifics, now outdated, seem out of place. Broadly speaking, website drop-down lists (the ones I've seen over the past few years) generally now do include U.S. territories right along with the states. This change in how territories are treated/perceived by companies and non-profit organizations might be worth noting, if it can be reliably referenced ("Since the late 2010s, U.S. companies and non-profit organizations have …"). Drdpw (talk) 14:06, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
I am inclined to agree. Without some additional context, a single callout in 2018 that doesn't appear to have received any broader attention or followup isn't really suitable for a high-level article such as this. -- Visviva (talk) 01:17, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Territories_of_the_United_States/Archive_2&oldid=1182741973"