Talk:United States/Archive 47

This is an archive of past discussions about United States. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 40

←

Archive 45

Reminder about primary sources

To those who claim that some of the sources presented by TVH, are 'Primary Sources' please be reminded that primary sources are authored by people who were close to or part of the event in question. The sources in question are modern day publications and not authored by persons involved in the acquisition and establishing of territories -- but for those of you who still insist or regarding them as primary sources WP Reliable Source policy says:

Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia; but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them.

The sources are reliably published and no one has attached new or different meaning to them.

Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation.

Again, no one has synthesized new meaning and made claims other than what the given sources state, that the territories are part of and ruled by the US/Federal gov. Besides there are other secondary sources that are consistent with what these sources maintain, and once again, no one has produced a RS source that specifically says the territories are not part of, or not ruled by, the US. We have the Sparrow source which Mendaliv, TVH, Collect and myself (RCLC and Amadscientist?) approve of. However the lede need not be sourced if the summary claims are supported by and cited in the text. In any event, the next step is to get these sources into the article, either way. There still may be some reservations about whether we should say federal republic, constitutional republic, or what have you, (all of which seem to be saying the same basic thing), but the important issue concerns territories, and as Golbez and others have maintained, we should make sure the lede is consistent with the rest of the article, and ultimately other related articles. Hat's off to the DRN volunteers and the editors who showed respect for the WP consensus process. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:09, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

"Hat's off to the DRN volunteers and the editors who showed respect for the WP consensus process." Interesting how you tacked that on to an edit that otherwise was about sourcing, not consensus. Are you saying that some editors did not show respect for the "consensus process"? --Golbez (talk) 12:24, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

If a U.S. government document says the disputed territory of Navassa is part of the U.S., then it is a primary source for the position of the U.S. government and a tertiary source summarizing what secondary sources say. Presumably the authors did not base their conclusions on a reading of treaties, UN resolutions, laws and court cases, but on what legal experts have said in secondary sources. In the first case all we say is that the U.S. claims the island. In the second case we are unable to determine the weight of the conclusions. It is preferrable to use an article in a reliable source that explains the conflicting views and the degree of acceptance each has.

BTW saying that a source says Puerto Ricans are U.S. citizens to argue that PR is part of the U.S. is synthesis. That has been the weakness of TVH's arguments all along - arguing a conclusion from information in sources that do not make the same conclusion.

TFD (talk) 18:10, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

insert The weakness is in your restatement of the argument. Since 1952 Puerto Rico is a part of the U.S. because Puerto Ricans said so in referendum, and six times over fifty years, the last in 2012. Editors may say islanders are incompetent to vote for themselves --- well, at least when they vote 4% for independence, 96% to be a part of the U.S.. Lawson and Sloane say PR votes to be a commonwealth for the economic advantage they would lose as a state. Self-interest may not be politically correct, but democracy is not predictable in a logically deterministic way. Congress will not make Puerto Rico a state, nor will Cuba, without permission of the people, however illogical the will of the people may seem to editors.

Lets forget about ideology straight-jackets, and write about the people today included in the U.S.. No one in PR voted in 2012 to stop Medicaid and join Cuba on the basis of Justice White's Insular Cases; they do not apply, PR is incorporated by organic act, referendum, and the "incorporated" union is observed to have been established in federal district court and federal circuit court. It is not for TFD to say Puerto Ricans have NOT said so based on a century-old court case superseded by statute and the people. Puerto Ricans (96%-4%) say they are a part of the U.S., most recently in 2012. Any counter-sources in the modern era? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:11, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

You need to read what the policy said more carefully. If a source says a river flows from north to south it is not "synthesis" to say it flows from a high elevation to a lower one and does not "advance a new position". i.e.If Puerto Ricans are US citizens because they live in Puerto Rico it is hardly synthesis to say Puerto Rico is part of the US because we are not advancing a new position. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:41, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

But if you're arguing that Puerto Rico is a part of the U.S. because Puerto Ricans are U.S. citizens, that had better be exactly what the sources support. In fact, they are citizens because the Congress said so. As such, the fact that they are citizens says nothing about whether Puerto Rico is a part of the U.S. older ≠ wiser 00:52, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

To say that P.R. is part of the U.S. is not advancing a new position. Look at the examples they give in the Synthesis section: The examples involve giant leaps to new positions. e.g.U.N. supports peace, but since it's inception there have been 160 wars.(!) This hardly compares to citing incidental items. i.e.Water flows from high to low, or P.R.'s are U.S. citizens because P.R. is part of the U.S., where one idea naturally flows into and supports the other and doesn't involve advancing a new position. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:00, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

If only it were as simple as an uncontroversial claim that water flows down. But precisely how Puerto Rico is or is not a part of the U.S. is a major part of what is controversial in this case. As such you cannot extrapolate that because they are citizens, therefore PR is part of the U.S. or older ≠ wiser 02:27, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

It's not "unconventional" to note P.R. is part of the U.S. because its citizens are U.S. citizens. Because this idea may be controversial to some is beside the point. We are only talking about how a particular source is being used, and again, no one has taken anything and advanced an entirely new position. e.g.The U.N. advocates war because 160 wars have occurred since its inception. (Synthesis/new position in bold.) -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:47, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

I set up a discussion thread at WP:NORN#Puerto Rico. TFD (talk) 04:29, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

They are citizens because Congress passed a law that made them citizens in 1917. The US Supreme Court decided in Balzac v. Porto Rico 1922 that granting citizenship to Puerto Rico did not make the territory part of the U.S. On the other hand, had they been incorporated into the U.S., there would have no need for citizenship legislation. TFD (talk) 03:15, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

And there you have it, Gwillhickers. The mere contention that they're citizens does not lead to a conclusion that PR is part of the country. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 03:22, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Not so fast. On what basis were they granted citizenship? Also, when you (TFD) say "...did not make the territory part of the U.S.", are you citing the actual minutes to the case (a primary source, btw), or is this your synthesis? (Answer to both questions appreciated)-- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:42, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Referring to primary sources without interpretation is not synthesis. Supreme Court decisions are reliable sources for what they say. However, I have provided sources already. See Sparrow, p. 233, for example, and you can read the sources provided for the article, and the case itself, by following the sources at Balzac v. Porto Rico. I do not know what you mean by the "basis" for the law but Congress has authority to legislate. TFD (talk) 07:17, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Quote from the case for completeness: "It was further settled in Downes v. Bidwell, [182 U.S. 244 (1901)], and confirmed by Dorr v. United States, [195 U.S. 138 (1904)] that neither the Philippines nor Porto Rico was territory which had . . . become a part of the United States, as distinguished from merely belonging to it . . . ." Balzac v. Porto Rico, 258 U.S. 298 (1922) (emphasis supplied).

Secondary source supporting the contention that Balzac held Puerto Rico wasn't part of the United States: "The petitioner in [Balzac] relied primarily on the Jones Act, the Organic Act of Puerto Rico, passed on March 2, 1917, to support their assertion that Puerto Rico was incorporated into the United States. The Court rejected the petitioner's argument and held that if Congress intended to change the relationship between Puerto Rico and the Union, it would do so explicitly." Alan Tauber, The Empire Forgotten: The Application of the Bill of Rights to U.S. Territories, 57 Case W. Res. L. Rev. 147, 165 (2006) (footnotes omitted).

Secondary source supporting that Balzac is still good law: "While some Warren Court justices questioned the validity of the Insular Cases, more recent decisions by the Rehnquist Court reaffirmed the continuing validity of the Insular Cases, Balzac, and, thus, the legitimacy of the Territorial Incorporation Doctrine." Carlos R. Soltero, The Supreme Court Should Overrule the Territorial Incorporation Doctrine and End One Hundred Years of Judicially Condoned Colonialism, 22 Chicano-Latino L. Rev. 1, 3-4 (2001) (footnotes omitted). A review of Shepard's Citations supports this conclusion. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 07:24, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Exactly, precisely correct. Read TVH's government sources and statutes in their entirety. All of them are of explicitly limited scope. And as I've been saying, are politically motivated. Do we say Kashmir is part of India because the Indian government says so? —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 18:34, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Insert : The opinion that the government sources in question are "politically motivated" is indeed an opinion, and WP policy is clear about what constitutes a primary source and does allow for their use: Primary sources are original materials. Information for which the writer has no personal knowledge is not primary... Also, do we say Kashmir is not part of India because 'Joe Blow' simply didn't mention it in his encyclopedia article on India? Isn't that also synthesis? Again, if you're going to challenge the gov sources we need more than the opinion that they're politically motivated. Again, government sources are used throughout WP, and since Sparrow also maintains this fact, I'm not quite understanding why you're so dead set against using any of the gov sources in the first place. Again WP allows them and they're used throughout WP. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:41, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Bad example. Kashmir is claimed by both India and Pakistan. I hope you do not intend to begin editing the India article. However both the U.S. and Puerto Rico claim that PR and the US are separate states. TFD (talk) 00:57, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Bad reply, India was used to demonstrate a point, any country could have been used to make the same point -- you can't assert an idea that is not expressed in any other way simply on the basis that no one mentioned the idea. That would indeed be synthesis to advance an idea not supported anywhere else. The fact that PR's are US citizens more than supports the idea that P.R. is part of the U.S. because they could not be citizens unless P.R. was indeed a part of the US. i.e.No new position has been advanced. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:00, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

So my passing judgment on federal sources is synthetic, but your claim that because Puerto Ricans are citizens means Puerto Rico is part of the Untied States is not? What kind of Bizarro logic is that? You got a source? Or is that too patently obvious to merit sourcing? If you think so, I have a bridge I'd like to interest you in... —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 03:02, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Actually you didn't synthesize anything to make the claim that gov sources are politically motivated -- you just flat out made the claim. In any event, P.R.'s couldn't be citizens if P.R. was not part of the U.S. Easy math. No synthesis. No new position advanced. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:47, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

By the way, read WP:PSTS, which is the controlling policy on sourcing, not the Primary sources article: "A book by a military historian about the Second World War might be a secondary source about the war, but if it includes details of the author's own war experiences, it would be a primary source about those experiences." Same deal here. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 03:23, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Exactly my point! The gov sources in question were not written by people involved with the acquisition of the territories, etc. If you feel one of them are, please cite the source, the material involved and the person/writer who was involved. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:47, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)C.J.S. and Am. Jur. both say that the territories and possessions are not part of the United States in all contexts. Black's Law Dictionary (9th ed.) defines the U.S. as consisting of the states and D.C., with no mention of the territories or possessions. Even if the lede need not be sourced, the claims in the lede need to be repeated elsewhere in the article, where they then must be sourced. The distinction between primary and secondary sources is not applied at the document level—a source may be primary for some purposes and secondary for others. I argue that because of the lack of sourcing or evidence of where the claim or interpretation comes from, using Sparrow's assertion that the U.S. unequivocally includes the territories should be regarded as a primary source. Even if Sparrow is okay for that point, then who cares about the other primary sources? Just source to Sparrow and be done with it. But it's not that easy... —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 18:22, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to make a suggestion, let's leave the lead alone, as there was some form of consensus formed on DRN, and let's focus on getting references to verify it.

After this, let us start working on a terminology section where the differing interpretations of how the United States is defined. This can allow all the verified to reliable source POVs room in the article space. Perhaps that will relieve some tension that is building here.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:44, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

The modern era U.S. should be discussed for the U.S. country-article. But the discussion above is dominated by a lockbox mindset ending 1935. More century-old court cases superseded by statute and living populations, and citizenship mandated 1917, now superseded by mutual consent in 1952, because why?, Island people do not know what they are doing today? But THE COURT SAID, "separate but equal" schools and "separate and unequal" territories today, tomorrow, forever? Sparrow says territory west of the Mississippi was not a part of the Treaty of Paris federal republic, but it became so in the "legacy of the Northwest Territory" by "democratic empire". Mention "empire" so now history must stop at the death of Queen Victoria? No sources, no good. --- Since 1952 Puerto Rico is a part of the United States because Puerto Ricans said so in referendum, and six times over fifty years, last in 2012. Some refuse to admit modern islander competence to vote for belonging to the U.S. --- only 4% voted for independence. Lawson and Sloane say PR votes for economic advantage they would lose as states. They get to vote any way for what ever reason they want -- that’s why democracy is scary to dictatorships of the right and left.

No disputes on the “political union” of N. Marianas Commonwealth with the U.S., they chose something constitutionally “equivalent” to states rather than the Chinese Hong Kong/Tibet model. Japan made no offers, Pacific tuna is near fished out so tradition-culture independence is no-go, the sea levels are rising. Where are you going to go? Hawaii, as a U.S. citizen with right of travel, California. N. Marianas get to vote any way for whatever reason they want. --- The “legacy of the Northwest Territory” is based on populace acceptance by convention or referendum, not just granted U.S. citizenship. “Union” occurs when the populace accepts constitution, congress, federal courts, AND the territory achieves fundamental (never state-same in U.S. history) constitutional protections, self-governing republican government, citizenship, right of travel, territorial Member of Congress.

Reductio ad absurdum is simple-minded. The argument for “a part of the U.S.” hinges on Congress AND the populace since 1805 as Sparrow describes, a social contract like the three U.N. criteria for “self-determination” (not independence) of minority colonial peoples within a nation-state. 1. Fundamental human rights, 2. full citizenship with local autonomy, 3. participation in national councils. Lawson and Sloane show Puerto Rico has met all three in the modern era (lacking presidential electors does not disqualify PR, it has a territorial Member of Congress). L&S did ask in 2005 for a referendum with “independence” on the ballot, it was on the 2012 ballot and got four per-cent. Democracy disappoints dictators of the right and the left, Cuba protested the validity of the Puerto Rican referendum held without consent of Congress (!?). In a democracy of the modern era, islanders get to vote any way they want for whatever reason. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:58, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

ugh you guys. I'm out, I'm tired of seeing literally the same arguments happening before the DRN as after. Burn it down all you like, let me know when it's time to clean up the ashes. --Golbez (talk) 12:24, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 8 March 2013

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Spain set up settlements in California, Texas and New Mexico that were eventually merged into the U.S. There were also some French settlements along the Mississippi River. Sito3 (talk) 20:34, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

You need to make a specific request for an edit. This is not an edit request, it is a statement. --Golbez (talk) 20:52, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Can we add language such as,

"In 1607-9, English at Jamestown and Spanish at Santa Fe established permanent settlements later incorporated into the U.S.[note-1] Dutch established trading posts at Albany and New York, French at Quebec, Natchez and New Orleans, Spanish at St. Augustine and Pensacola.[note-2] The European colonial powers ensured the North American continent would be as contested as Africa in a later century."

[Note-1] Kelly, James. et al., Jamestown, Quebec, Santa Fe 2007. ISBN 978-1-588-34241-6, [Note-2] Kennedy, Roger G., Mr. Jefferson's Lost Cause 2004, p.94 ISBN 978-0-195-17607-0.

Editors might enjoy an on-topic look real-quick at tri-fold photo-brochure, Three North American Beginnings Virginia Historical Society Exhibit, 2007-2009. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:05, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Does anyone have a source to cough up the Russians at Kodiak for Alaska 1790s? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:00, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Should look at the references used at the Russian America or Russian colonization of the Americas article; these sources should work (1, 2, 3). Also, the first permanent European settlement in what is now the United States is St. Augustine, Florida, perhaps that should be mentioned.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:16, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

I squeezed St. Augustine in the second sentence, as a trading post because of sources. I think simple surveys leave out the nasty business, it was Spanish, Brits take it, convert or die, slaughter, Spaniards retake it, convert or die, slaughter. Also, another free black community of the Atlantic world (Ira Berlin), black regulars in battalions as in New Orleans, escaped American slave maroon communities from Georgia and the Carolinas, etc. Too complicated.

Here is another crack at "encyclopedic style". The text can be re-oriented to "influencing U.S. growth". That would give us nice 3-3 east-west, 3-3 north-south parallelism and touch on Dutch, Spanish, French and Russian actors:

"Before the United States grew west, early European non-English settlements and trading posts were established in the 1600s and 1700s that would influence its growth. They left their mark in ethnic settlement and competing commercial interests from New Amsterdam, St. Augustine and Quebec in the east, to New Orleans, Santa Fe and Kodiak in the west." TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 20:39, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Can you please supply the diffs for these changes? I don't see them in this article; is it in the History of the United States article?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:22, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

I think I get your point -- not history article -- United States article might add,

“Early non-English European settlement of places which later became a part of the U.S. include Duch Albany and New Amsterdam, Spanish St. Augustine and Santa Fe, French Natchez and New Orleans and Russian Kodiak.”

Neutral point of inquiry. What does it mean, “Can you please supply the diffs for these changes?” Thanks in advance. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:33, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

If you go to the history tab to the article page, one can see the changes from the previous version, using the prev link, that will provide a url for the change in content.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:30, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Economy

The US median family net worth is very different from what most people think. Here is some information for the article:

http://middleclasspoliticaleconomist.blogspot.com/2012/07/us-trails-at-least-15-oecd-countries-in.html

Pipo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.109.203.72 (talk) 13:59, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

The source appears to be a self-published source.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:36, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

No, the article has a link to all its sources. Read it carefully. The source comes from Credit Suisse. In fact, if you click it, you will find this link:

https://infocus.credit-suisse.com/data/_product_documents/_shop/324292/2011_global_wealth_report_databook.pdf

Pipo

Just because a professor allegedly authors the content does not mean that the blog is a reliable source. Is this content published elsewhere in a reliable source, such as a peer reviewed journal, or editorially reviewed publication?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:43, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Have you rally read the source? This is incredible! Wiki is a pice of shit because of Nationalism! People who want to believe in their own propaganda and not on reality. Credit Suisse in the source, one of the most accredited finacial institutions in the world! the source is used by different papers, but the source is THERE! It goes against all the propaganda that you are swallowing up everyday, OK then, be happy, but this type of attitude damages the credibility of Wiki a lot! Here you have anotehr article using the same source of which you have a link above:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/20/countries-richer-than-americans_n_1687632.html#slide=1249606

Goodbye, I am serious person tired of dealing with THIS TYPES OF wikepedians.

Edit conflict, issue with "45000" figure?

Last night I tried to update the statistics in the Economy section, and actually spent several days trying to put the edit together. Well, I made a mistake by duplicating healthcare information in that section when there was already a "Health" section. I just tried to fix that, but I got an edit conflict with this entire revert of my edit from last night which has the summary, "Please take massive alterations to Talk Page first; Already have Health/Econ sections;some good changes but some contested propaganda lines (ie "45000")"

Could I ask that we please remove just the contested portions instead of undoing an update of several 5-10 year old statistics? I can't find any "45000" in the text I added, so I'm not sure what this is about. EllenCT (talk) 20:46, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Several points: The Econ section already talks about the ongoing economic mess, so instead of totally changing the "Personal Income" section, why don't you integrate what new material and metrics like employment you have into that paragraph? The Health section already mentioned US spending as a percentage of GDP, so I'm not sure any further commentary on that is necessary. I cited "45"k from memory because that PNHP talking point has been around a long time, and it was initially trumpeted as "45,000" deaths per year due to lack of insurance. Since then it's been updated to "48"k using the same heavily criticized methodology. Frankly that study is garbage. We just got rid of it last year. If you insist on putting it back, the page would have to allow counterpoints, including pointing out that the "Harvard" study's lead authors are co-founders of the pro single payer PNHP lobbying group, they didn't look at a single cause of death, failed to confirm whether those uninsured at a snapshot were still uninsured at time of death years later, didn't adequately consider alternative explanations, etc., blowing up part of an article that's already considered way too long by wikipedia standards. Back to income, you shoved the actual income portion of what was the "personal income" section from the top to near the bottom of the section. You also seem to have deleted the part pointing out that the US has a progressive income tax, and that the top 10% pay most of the taxes. Heck, the old version already read like an almost entirely one sided leftist propaganda screed, and, on balance, your changes made it even more so. Remember, this is supposed to be a generic encyclopedia country article, not a platform for heavily detailed, partisan disputes on the hot issues of the day. VictorD7 (talk) 21:15, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

I put an intro about the jobless recovery with unemployment and broad unemployment numbers (which were not included in the version before I started editing the article, and are not considered a liberal talking point; just the opposite) at the beginning because it segued from the previous paragraph in the enclosing section, and merged the remaining paragraphs to match the order in the heading. The income statistics follow at the beginning of the second paragraph in the section. You object to a statistical review of excess deaths, even though an updated version also passed peer review in a mainstream medical journal? What do you think would be better to say about the medical problems caused by lack of health insurance, or would you prefer to leave that out altogether? The version I started with did not say that the US has a progressive income tax, it said the "United States has a progressive tax system" which is not supported by the graph at right. The comment about the top 10% paying the most taxes was sourced to federal income tax only, which is not appropriate for an article on the US in general, which should describe all taxes, which as you can see are regressive at top income levels. EllenCT (talk) 22:09, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

No, your graph comes from a leftist outfit (ITEP) that actively campaigns for higher taxes (check out their website; it's not clear from that graph precisely what they're counting or omitting), and you also deleted a segment breaking down who pays the biggest share of revenue for some reason (and no, it was all federal taxes per the CBO, not just individual income; the source contains further breakdowns). Your graph focuses on alleged "effective tax rate". Two different things. You could have slightly changed the wording if you wanted or even adjusted the numbers to data that you thought more accurately reflected the prose, but there's no good reason to completely delete the fact that most of the taxes are paid by high earners, or that the US has a progressive income tax system. You now lead off what used to be the "income" section with a paragraph on general macroeconomic metrics that belongs and, as I just pointed out, was already mirrored by, the last paragraph in the "Economy" section. Why not just integrate it there as I said? Why totally transform the "Personal Income" section into a multifaceted, largely redundant monstrosity? Your second paragraph starts in on niche specifics, while the top line income information that properly used to lead off the section, contextualized with foreign comparisons, has been buried within a larger paragraph near the end.

Oh, and that macroeconomic section, while neutrally worded and containing good additions, is hardly "the opposite" of a liberal talking point. Liberals would point to the emphasis on the 2007-2008 downturn while nodding approvingly and assuming Bush was somehow to blame, while conservatives would point to the worst recovery on record that's followed and approve inclusion. VictorD7 (talk) 22:53, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, your PNHP study is propagandistic garbage and should be deleted. "Peer review" doesn't mean that a study's conclusion on any topic should stated as proved fact. Studies have shown that most of the uninsured are only briefly uninsured due to transitory unemployment, underscoring the methodological flaws I pointed out. Huge chunks of the uninsured are young and healthy, rich and don't need insurance, or people who are eligible for Medicaid but haven't bothered to sign up yet, and you fail to even consider possible costs or negative impact of a government backed "universal" system, so I reject your POV premise that being uninsured is necessarily leading to net deaths. Wikipedia should avoid taking sides, as you matter of factly do, on highly controversial topics, particularly when using issue lobbying groups as your source. VictorD7 (talk) 22:46, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Okay, well, what do you think would be neutral to say about the health effects of lack of insurance? There are plenty of sources about how much more it costs when advanced cancer shows up in the emergency room compared to early stages with preventative care screenings. Do you want to pick a source and excerpt? Or a group of them and then I'll propose an excerpt? Or would you like me to propose a set of sources and you pick an excerpt? Or something else?

And similarly, how do you think it is fair to describe the overall tax incidence in the U.S.? Whatever you think of the ITEP (and why do you think they campaign for higher rather than more progressive taxation?) do you know of any sources which disagree with their incidence analysis?

The "Personal income" section already had poverty and wealth stats as well as household income before I started editing this article. I don't understand why you think it's more monstrous now. EllenCT (talk) 00:47, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

I don’t think the article should say anything about the effects of insurance coverage, even if people didn’t hotly disagree on them. That’s not the page’s role. This is a general country article, not a platform for pushing pet crusades. Look how vague the History section is. Most national wiki articles don’t even have a “Health” section. There are plenty of other pages that address specific topics. The main complaint I’ve heard since I’ve been here is that this article is way too long already by wiki standards.

You mention cancer, but that’s where the US shines. The most comprehensive cancer survival rate study was published by European doctors in 2007, and found the US had significantly higher survival rates than every European nation studied, in part because of better screening in America:

“5-year survival in the USA for all cancers combined was 66•3% (66•0–66•6) in men and 62•9% (62•6–63•2) in women; both of these percentages were significantly higher than those for Europe—ie, 47•3% (46•8 47•8) for men and 55•8% (55•3–56•2) for women, both p values <0•001).”

“With regard to the comparison between EUROCARE and US SEER data, the differences in survival were greatest in 2000–02 for the major cancer sites: colon and rectum (56•2% [95% CI 55•3–57•2] vs 65•5% [64•9–66•1]), breast (79•0% [78•1–80•0] vs 90•1% [89•6–90•5]), and prostate cancer (77•5% [76•5–78•6] vs 99•3% [98•9–99•8]), which probably represents differences in the timeliness of diagnosis. In the USA, 70% of women aged 50–70 years have reported that they have undergone a mammogram in the previous 2 years; 35 one-third of people reported that they had undergone sigmoidoscopy or colonoscopy in the previous 5 years; 36 and over 80% of men aged 65 years or older reported that they had undergone prostate-specific antigen, of whom 40% had been tested in the previous year.37”

"The differences in survival are due to a variety of reasons, including factors related to cancer services (eg, organisation, training and skills of health-care professionals, application of evidence-based guidelines, and investment in diagnostic and treatment facilities), and clinical factors (eg, tumour stage and biology). Survival represents the end result of the complex interplay of these factors, whose individual contribution to survival cannot be distinguished easily, although studies in the USA38 and the UK39 have shown that improvements in treatment and screening probably had a major effect in decreasing breast cancer mortality."

Given the emphasis already in the article on the raw number of uninsured, something should probably be added about census data (roughly consistent over the years) showing that only a small subset is involuntarily uninsured, much less for an extended period of time. 68% of the uninsured have incomes over $25,000, and 37% make over $50k a year. 19% make over $75k. 54.5% are 34 or younger, and generally in less need of regular treatment than older people. Millions on the low income end are eligible for Medicaid but haven’t signed up, or are illegal aliens.

Someone could conceivably also add “Economy/Taxation/and/or Welfare” to your title, perhaps even adding studies by Moynihan and others over the years on the destructive impact of too much welfare state on inner city culture, and its role in entrenching a cycle of poverty, but I left your income section changes alone for now. I’ll probably be busy with other things for the next few days, but soon I’ll develop some my edits of my own to add to yours. I’m fine with including things like “effective tax rate”, but do believe we should be clear and precise about what we’re saying, which is the only reason why I mentioned your graph’s leftist origin and opaque nature. Are we lumping in things like capital gains with regular income? Property taxes (based on assets rather than income, and can really complicate questions of "progressivity")? Including local/state tax (your graph does say, “state” and “local”, but I’m talking general rhetorical questions here)? Different outfits have used different methodologies even when discussing the same things. According to the Tax Policy Center, another left leaning outfit, the total federal effective tax rates are certainly progressive, with the top to bottom quintile arrangements 23.2%, 15.1%, 11.1%, 6.8%, 1% as of 2009.

At the very least the US federal tax system is progressive. Even your state/local/federal graph shows a progressive effective structure until you get to the top 1%, where elements like sales or gas tax might cause them to slip slightly below the preceding 19%, but remain above the lower 80%. In some states the effective total rate for the top 1% is much higher.

I think it’s worth restoring the breakdown of who’s paying what percent of the total revenue pie. Such information is at least as relevant as “progressivity”, particularly given the misleading impression left by all the “fair share” political talk, and since an overly skewed burden can lead to more volatile swings in revenue. On balance I'm inclined to leave your economic additions in place, though I might tweak the order a little. We can hash that out later. VictorD7 (talk) 22:05, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

I will reply to each point in order, at the end of this section. There are so many threads I think it will be less confusing to keep replies together instead of having them broken into two, as I did because I had composed my reply yesterday at the same time you added a paragraph to yours, so I got another edit conflict. So please see below.... EllenCT (talk) 04:09, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Also, life expectancy is already mentioned, and you explicitly tied it to healthcare spending (using the word "but"), a value judgement that's highly dubious given that first world differences in life expectancy are primarily driven by factors like genetics (including ethnic makeup), diet and other lifestyle choices, obesity, car wrecks, differences in counting infant mortality, etc.. Look at the huge variation in LE within systems like the UK between regions like England and Scotland, or Australia between whites and aborigines, for example. VictorD7 (talk) 21:33, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't agree that lifestyle choices or obesity (which is now the leading cause of death in the developed world) is unrelated to the health insurance and healthcare cost situation, and the NIH reference from 2013 I replaced the 2005 statistics with supports that with several facts. The comment about ethnicity and genetics is contradicted by the fact that less than two generations ago the US had among (within a few years from Japan's outlier) the longest life expectancy in the developed world. What is your source for "differences in counting infant mortality"? I see that more and more often, but I don't know where it comes from. EllenCT (talk) 21:38, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is obese simply because they lack healthcare coverage (especially briefly), but it doesn't matter because these are very complex issues and a Wikipedia country article isn't the place for hashing them out or pushing a political agenda. You're also ignoring the changing ethnic makeup of the US, the sharp rise in obesity in just the past couple of decades, and the highly likely relationship of that to women working/sky rocketing fast food consumption/decreased childhood exercise. I've posted expansive information here before on infant mortality, using the CDC as my source, but it was deleted in common agreement when the pre-existing text motivating it and implying causation was altered. You didn't address the examples I cited of wide LE variance within nations or between nations with similar so called "universal" coverage. And should we get into the economic impact of a government healthcare system by, for example, pointing out that Americans have around a 20% higher per capita GDP (PPP, IMF 2011) than Canadians, Australians, and Swedes? Or are only left-wingers allowed to choose the parameters of in article debate? How about a new section on tort abuse and how the US is an outlier in regards to loser pays laws? Do you have any idea what this page would turn into if both sides just started spamming talking points on issues from their sides' think tanks and other sources? VictorD7 (talk) 22:46, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

The NIH report says that many people are obese because they avoid preventative care and physicals where they would be counseled. If you have sources for any meaningful change in ethnic makeup affecting longevity or a URL for the information you've posted about infant mortality, would you share them please? And I've never seen a scoring of even a radical tort reform proposal which amounted to more than a tiny fraction of healthcare spending. I'd love to read the one you're looking at. As for life expectancy, do you have any problems with [2]? EllenCT (talk) 00:44, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Both EllenCT and VictorD7 have a better handle on economics than do I, but I hope there is a way y’all, yuz-guys, can show the difference between a. the progressive federal tax in the big-print summary, b. the progressive but less so -- effective -- federal tax after deductions and exclusions, rich and poor, adjusted for audit estimated variations, VERSUS the comparatively regressive state and local taxes on a. income, b. real estate, and c. sales, luxury and gas, food and medicine.

Two good online sources, Brookings Institution and Heritage Foundation, periodically publish on the related topics with updates, but I have not followed them in parallel for a while, getting old. They generally fold in research from "the literature" including reliable studies from less-well-known sources, left, center, right -- that feature is a part of their street-cred effecting national and state policy making ... TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:00, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

I don’t think the differences between first world life expectancies have much to do with healthcare system differences, and even if they do there’s no good way to quantify that impact because there are too many variables at play. Scottish men live 2.7 years fewer than English men, despite living under the NHS, while aboriginal Australian men live 11.5 years less than non-aboriginal Australian men. Japanese live 3.2 years longer than Brits. Are these differences due to the healthcare systems?

Your NIH meta-study was a highly speculative (full of words like “might” and “may”), scattershot, 400 page call to left wing action that offered shallow insight on a huge array of topics from firearms to voter participation, and spent a whole chapter openly cheerleading the “social democratic” model exemplified by Sweden (despite incredibly, if briefly, conceding that Sweden ranked better in metrics like infant mortality long before establishing its welfare system, and while conveniently ignoring the large number of nations in the world with expansive, centralized governments that are hell holes), but even it admitted that the life expectancy difference is due to life style factors like those I mentioned earlier (along with drug/alcohol abuse, homicides, etc.). Essentially it’s caused by risky behavior. Americans are a different people than Western Europeans and Japanese, with a different culture. Your piece spent much time vaguely endorsing the notion of “intervention”, but I didn’t see a fact based argument in favor of “preventative” healthcare for obesity.

However, in addition to echoing what I said about the US having the best cancer screening in the world, it conceded that Americans are more likely to have their blood pressure and cholesterol checked, and to access related medication than Europeans. Those factual points truly illustrate preventative healthcare. The belief that more “counsel(ing)” would somehow reduce obesity assumes that people don’t know large amounts of junk food and lack of exercise make you fat. It’s not like doctor’s offices are the primary venue for public information campaigns, or like the obesity epidemic is limited to the involuntarily uninsured. It also ignores the fact that culturally similar nations like Britain and Australia are rapidly catching up to the US in obesity, despite their government healthcare systems. Rather than an artifact of America’s semi-private healthcare system, the obesity epidemic is an international phenomenon. The US was likely on the trend’s vanguard because it’s the richest country with the cheapest food.

Your own source mentioned ethnic differences as one of many factors contributing to life expectancy differences, and added a note about different nations counting infant mortality differently. Those “coding” differences are a minor factor (why I listed other stuff), but my edit last year used CDC and other sources to point out that the infant mortality difference is largely due to premature births, which in turn is largely due to the USA’s higher rate of teenage pregnancy, conclusions echoed by your NIH study. The CDC also points out that the premature American babies have a higher survival rate than premature European babies (though there are more of the former). Again, these are symptoms of culture and lifestyle choices, not the healthcare system per se. Actual healthcare quality is probably better illustrated by survival rates and the fact, repeated in your piece, that Americans over 75 have a higher life expectancy than those of the same age in other nations, since people that age are less likely to engage in stat skewing risky behaviors. In fairness that could also be at least partly a function of selection, though it’s amazing how often the world’s oldest person is either American or Japanese.

I mentioned tort abuse as a hypothetical new section about the litigiousness of American society in general, not specifically regarding health, but since you bring it up tort reform advocates over the years have claimed frivolous suits significantly impact healthcare in a variety of ways, from compelling doctors to practice unnecessary and costly defensive medicine, to driving up premiums, to forcing biomed companies to maintain liability reserves greater than their R&D budgets. They might also be contributing to the growing US doctor shortage. I’m not sure what the purpose of your last blog and question are. VictorD7 (talk) 22:05, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

VictorD7, although US GDP PPP is higher, according to the IMF, 2011 GDP per capita was $50,496 (Canada), 66,371 (Australia), and $57,638 (Sweden), compared with $48,328 for the U.S.[3]. ITEP is not "left-wing", nor does it advocate higher taxes. And the connection between receiving timely health care and longevity is uncontested. Of course there are other factors relating to high mortality in the U.S. such as higher levels of poverty, violence, substance abuse and obesity. TFD (talk) 16:02, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

PPP is the standard for international comparisons because it smooths out currency distortions. ITEP is dedicated to promoting tax increases on “the rich” and attacking conservative policies, so it’s fair to call them left wing. Of course the premise that Americans don’t receive timely care and that the alleged discrepancy results in the LE gap is contested. Do Japanese receive significantly timelier care than Australians and Brits? What about English versus Scottish? As for “poverty”, even the NIH report (briefly) concedes that Americans have a lower "absolute" poverty rate than Europeans, though it spends far more time obsessing on the absurd Marxist construct of “relative poverty”. “Relative” poverty increases when, all things being equal, someone else does too well. VictorD7 (talk) 22:05, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

On cancer: We agree that the US has the best cancer survival rates, but I think that does not warrant inclusion because of the low overall life expectancy (as shown in the graph I had tried to ask you about), which is offset in part because of the larger cancer incidence in the US. But I asked about cost ("how much more it costs when advanced cancer shows up in the emergency room compared to early stages with preventative care screenings") which we all pay for in increased hospital charges because of the uninsured.

On the uninsured: I agree that we should describe the uninsured, but I disagree with your apparent contention that "illegal aliens" are "involuntarily uninsured." In fact, they and all the other nominally uninsured are insured de facto by the funds from our higher hospital costs because they all obtain universal coverage at the emergency room, but not preventative care. A de facto universal coverage system which explicitly excludes preventative care is absurd from both conservative and liberal points of view.

On tax rates: I wasn't proposing to include the ITEP graph above, but if you think we should then I do too. Yes, it does include state and local, property and sales, capital gains and estate, and the carried interest exemption. I object to stating that some upper percentage carries most of the tax burden, because that is skewed by the top 1% for whom overall rates and income tax rates (because of shelters) are both regressive, and have been becoming more regressive over time. Picking some cutoff income level and saying how much more the people making more and less than it pay in taxes obscures these facts to the point of giving the reader the opposite impression overall. The statement "the US federal tax system is progressive" is false for the top 1% and above because of their increasing use of tax shelters. Income at the top 1% is so many times more than, e.g., the top 95th percentile, that it would seriously mislead readers to suggest that their taxes are progressive.

On life expectancy: Suppose obesity is entirely responsible for the US's failure to keep up with other industrialized countries in life expectancy, and obesity is entirely due to an ostensible good such as inexpensive food. Is that really any reason not to mention that the US has fallen behind in life expectancy? Most Americans are not over 75, and time will tell how well the retiring baby boomers end up doing. I am still interested in reading your source about how ethnic makeup has changed life expectancy in the US since the 1980s.

On infant mortality: Regarding your "edit last year used CDC and other sources to point out that the infant mortality difference is largely due to premature births, which in turn is largely due to the USA’s higher rate of teenage pregnancy, conclusions echoed by your NIH study" -- could you please tell me the URL to the edit or the sources, and the page number for the NIH study?

On tort reform: I read the source you linked to, and I can't tell how much in dollars per year they think tort reform will save in total. But it's not a neutral source. The CBO has scored several tort reform bills, usually around $25 billion if I remember right, and with serious caveats about the effect on quality of care. Centrist think tanks generally agree with their figures, as far as I can remember.

On whether more progressive taxation is liberal: I have found a sharp difference between Republicans who no longer depend on donations from the rich, such as Bruce Bartlett, Paul O'Neill, David Stockman and Sheila Bair and those who are still in Congress or work for the RNC or other organizations dependent on donations from the very wealthy (e.g. Heritage and Cato.) For example, see this Sheila Bair NYT op-ed from a month ago. Most Republicans who no longer depend on the rich -- and aren't rich themselves, and truly grass-roots Tea Partiers, all think the economy has become too top-heavy as far as I can see. If you know of counter-examples I would like to read about them.

On US poverty relative to Europe: I think you will find that the US has far more poverty, especially extreme poverty and child poverty, than Western Europe and Scandinavia, but that Eastern Europe has enough to offset the "European" average to which you referred. EllenCT (talk) 06:26, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

This article should be a collection of summaries of other more specific articles on the various subjects that fall within the scope of this article, perhaps all this content belongs in one of those articles, and a balanced and neutrally worded summary (as briefly as possible of course)(say a paragraph or two) can be included.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 14:24, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

On cancer I cited the USA's superior survival rates to illustrate actual healthcare quality, as opposed to incidence (determined by genetics, environment, lifestyle, diet, etc.), and emphasized higher US screening rates to undermine the assumption that Americans somehow aren't getting preventative care.

On the uninsured Arguably, or one could counter that the superior American preventative care exhibited by things like the aforementioned higher screening and survival rates could be diminished if the current system was replaced by a centrally planned, government system, making what problems the US does have worse on net, especially if the underlying cultural factors actually driving the LE difference aren't magically fixed. It's a controversial issue, and the current article keeps that can of worms bottled up with a simple statement declaring that it's a "major political issue."

On taxes I just said I'd be fine adding effective tax rate distribution (federal and/or overall) if you wanted to when I restored the revenue burden breakdown you deleted (with updated numbers). The CBO, Tax Policy Center page I linked to, and other sources disagree with your statement about the federal system not being progressive. A progressive tax is one with rate gradation. It's arguable whether "effective rate" even necessarily matters to the classification, though even the federal effective federal rates are progressive. I'm not sure exactly what new edits I'll introduce, but it'll be a few days from now, and of course you or anyone else will be free to express concerns or disagreements. Clear descriptions of the numbers given should alleviate concerns over readers being misled.

On life expectancy The article already gives US life expectancy, its world ranking, and a comment about how that ranking has fallen some in recent years. People can look at facts here (and hopefully elsewhere) and draw their own conclusions. My objection was to your inclusion of a value judgement tying spending to life expectancy, with the assumption that one should necessarily follow the other. Much of US healthcare spending is on high end, niche treatments (cosmetic, vital, quality of life, athletic, etc.) that drive innovation (benefiting the world) but can't be assumed to offer a one to one improvement in LE without diminishing returns. And, not that this should be in the article either, but spending per GDP is a red herring. There's nothing inherently wrong with high aggregate healthcare spending. The actual problem is price per treatment, but that's a debate for another day, and not for this page. The bottom line is that this is a highly speculative and controversial issue. Your own NIH source cautions against statements of certainty, though it makes it clear that the uninsured phenomenon is not primarily if at all responsible for the LE difference.

On infant mortality I meant to add smoking/drinking while pregnant, obesity, and other lifestyle choices to teenage pregnancy, the point being that's it not due to healthcare per se. There are also huge racial disparities. I'll let you read through your own source, but here's a CDC source for the primary role premature births play:

CDC (2009) "If the United States had Sweden’s distribution of births by gestational age, nearly 8,000 infant deaths would be averted each year and the U.S. infant mortality rate would be one-third lower. The main cause of the United States’ high infant mortality rate when compared with Europe is the very high percentage of preterm births in the United States."

On tort reform I explicitly identified them as "tort reform advocates". I'm extremely skeptical when any think tank or individual self identifies as totally "neutral" or "centrist". Such people are usually either disingenuous or too ignorant to recognize their own leanings. I'm also skeptical of precise future forecasting claims by any side. The poor CBO has to per its mandate, while openly acknowledging its own (often artificially imposed) limitations, but its predictions are frequently wrong and it rarely considers every important factor. Most of the costs of tort abuse are impossible to quantify since it alters behavior in so many ways with effects that ripple throughout society. I'm not sure how this is relevant though. Again, I wasn't seriously proposing an edit, but cited tort status as a hypothetical new section (not just in relation to health) merely to illustrate that alternative, non-leftist article format agendas were possible, and that there were areas where liberals are glad the US is dramatically different from the rest of the first world. I also could have mentioned things like school choice, the high US education spending per pupil with increasingly dim public school K-12 results, charitable giving (by ideology and religious belief), the sociological problems with the sharp rise in single parent homes, the general migration from high tax states to lower tax states, the impact of public unions, the rate and effects of abortion, and a host of other issues. There's a lot more to a country than "economic equality", global ranking of execution frequency, and cherry-picked aspects of its healthcare system compared to the rest of a hand-picked group of nations.

On whether more progressive taxation is liberal The New York Times, even its guest op-ed page, is a poor source for insight into conservative or libertarian philosophy. Bair is arguing for a capital gains tax hike, a tax Democrat Clinton and a Republican Congress cut to positive effect in the 1990s, and that the UK recently raised to disastrous and counterproductive effect. Clinton cutting the tax rate didn't mean it became a liberal thing to do just because he was a generally liberal guy. What matters is what direction you're trying to pull the country in. A tax hiking program is a liberal one. You're confusing "Republican" with "conservative", and you listed a few Republicans who have either always been on the moderate to liberal side of the party or have moved there in recent years. Other Republicans and some Democrats have moved in the opposite direction. Grassroots conservatives, much less Tea Partiers, don't generally rely on donations from anyone, and most certainly do not support tax hikes on "the rich", small businesses, or anyone else. Certainly most small business owners ("rich donors"?) are hostile to various proposals to hike their taxes. Replacing the income tax with a sales tax or enacting a flat tax are ideas that still have enormous populist and intellectual cache among regular conservative and libertarian citizens. The premises behind "progressive" taxation and redistributive government policies have certainly been anathema to libertarians since Socialist politician Eugene Debs and other progressives thrust them into the national conversation over a century ago. These are competing world views, no donor conspiracy theories required. Besides, Democrats have plenty of rich donors. After all, a wealthy guy won't be hurt by a tax hike. He can always just splurge a little less in luxury purchases, maybe lay off an employee or two, cut back on some worker hours, maybe reduce an investment, or avoid funding a risky venture.

On poverty relative to Europe Here's what your NIH report says (pages 171-172):

“Absolute poverty is a basis for comparing incomes across countries against a common benchmark (such as a given level of income in U.S. dollars). Analyses that have used a common data set to compare countries in terms of absolute poverty find that other countries seem to have higher rates than the United States (Kenworth, 1998; Sharpe, 2011; Smeeding, 2006). This finding reflects the higher overall standard of living in the United States (Smeeding, 2006). For example, in one analysis, the U.S. absolute poverty rate was lower than 8 of 10 high-income countries (Gornick and Jantti, 2010)." VictorD7 (talk) 00:59, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

I'll try to be brief and wrap this up as much as possible, and simply skip the topics where I don't see any discussion of changes to the article and where I don't want to thank you for pointing me to specifics. (Taxes:) If we include the incidence chart, as happened today when someone else added a new "Government finance" section and I objected to a statement about "one of the most progressive systems of taxes in the world" sourced to an op-ed and an OECD report that pretty much said the opposite in terms of income inequality, then I don't object to including a statement about paying more taxes at different levels; I only ask that the top 1% be included so that it's obvious how skewed their income and taxes are. (Infant mortality:) Thank you for clarifying that with the link. I believe that poor access to health care and poverty in general is one of the primary reasons for the large number of premature births. (Whether more progressive taxation is liberal:) Here's another long-time conservative Republican, Peggy Noonan, in a Wall Street Journal editorial this month, saying much the same thing as Bair ("It’s not a debt and deficit crisis, it’s a jobs crisis.") I believe we will continue to see such transitions because of the record low Republican party favorability rating. (Poverty:) Thank you also for pointing me to that extract. Absolute poverty is not adjusted for purchasing power parity and the relative poverty rate on page 342 of Gornick and Jantti, 2010 shows the situation in terms of median incomes, which have been falling in the U.S. as it is. EllenCT (talk) 06:02, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

I'll develop a tax edit when I get a chance in a few days. Regarding infant mortality, I reject the premise that pregnant women don't know they shouldn't drink or smoke while pregnant, especially if they watch tv or have talked to any random person on the street about it. The warning is on every freaking box of cigarettes and alcoholic beverage they buy. Some just don't care. I think some people are just irresponsible. It's reasonable to assume that irresponsible people are more likely to be poor than responsible people are. That's not an indictment of all poor people, but a statement on tendencies. However, your report repeatedly made it clear that the risky behavior issue far transcends the medically uninsured, and is a sub cultural phenomenon. I'm not sure why you posted the Noonan column. Conservatives have always stressed that it's a "jobs crisis", and she blasted the federal tax code and regulations (explicitly naming Obamacare) as drags on the economy. She's always been more of a speech writer than an ideologue or policy expert, and she's taken some shots at her own side in the past, but not in that piece. Regardless, a Republican supporting a particular tax hike might still be a generally conservative guy supporting a liberal policy. A foundation dedicated to advocating tax hikes generally at a variety of levels in a variety of ways is a liberal outfit. As for favorability ratings, those swing like a pendulum. On taxes in particular polls typically show a majority support "higher" taxes on "the rich" (though they support spending cuts even more strongly), but most people don't even realize what the top rates are. An early 2012 survey found that when asked what the rate should be on families earning $250k or more, 88% of Americans said 35% or lower, 75% said 30% or lower, 61% said 25% or lower, and 38% said 20% or lower. 56% said the top corporate rate should be 25% or less. Of course when the media finds the question wording that gets the results they want, you see a thousand dully repetitive polls conducted over the next year, each one enthusiastically covered as "news", but I don't think I've seen another survey actually asking people what they think the top tax rate should be. Regarding poverty, adjusting for PPP should generally boost US rankings, and median income has fallen in many countries recently. Europe, having embraced the so called "balanced" approach of tax hikes plus (mostly promised future) spending cuts, has dipped back into recession. VictorD7 (talk) 22:27, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

ADDITION - I went ahead and deleted the chart because the internal federal component had wildly different numbers than other outfits like the CBO and Tax Policy Institute. They both show the top 1% with around a 30% total federal rate alone over the years. In fact the TPC is now forecasting that to spike to 35.5% 2013 and higher in the coming years. Seattle Times Tax bill for rich, Their federal numbers State/local numbers are likely even dicier given the abundant variation and numerous methodological options. VictorD7 (talk) 06:31, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

You may be using the nominal rate instead of the effective rate due to deductions and tax shelters. See [4] or [5] for example. [6] has historical averages. They do vary somewhat from year to year, as shown in the graph above. EllenCT (talk) 11:42, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Hey all, I have no idea what the conflict is here, but I just wanted to point out that references 218-221 are broken at present. All these are in the Economy section, and I really have no idea where they got broken or how to fix them. Could someone involved in this dispute take a look at it? —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 16:49, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

I fixed one that was my fault (sorry) but the other four broken refs are from Pepesia and I don't know where they are supposed to go. I'll ask on Pepesia's talk page. EllenCT (talk) 17:53, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

I found one ref to cover three of the missing ones, and the other one was redundant (referring to a ref which was almost right next to it) so these are all fixed now. EllenCT (talk) 19:19, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Tax incidence section break

My sources are marked "effective" (or "average") tax rates, and show a negative liability for the lowest quintile in some years. Are there any sources that independently show results similar to the ITEP numbers? Your CBO source is dated but seems to echo mine, and the other one (the one written by an Obama donor named Thomas Hungerford at the height of a campaign, and later withdrawn by the CRS after being widely panned as an infantile economic analysis that ignored numerous pertinent variables) focuses on the top "0.1%" and "0.01%" rather than the "1%". VictorD7 (talk) 19:54, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

I saw that, but I doubt it's actually referring to the effective income tax rate. see page 10 here, for example. Since the 2000s tax cuts, the effective rate on the top 1% went down from that. [7] says 20.6% for 2007, [8] says 23.4% (with the top 1%'s group share as 37.4%) for 2010, and [9] says "average" is 24.01% for 2009. None of them match the CBO blog post for 2006 at 31.2%, which, if you look at the beginning of the sentence, is probably just the non-sheltered "average rate" just like the TPC table for 2004. EllenCT (talk) 20:23, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

No, it looks like those are just referring to the individual income tax, rather than all federal taxes. TCP gives a total effective federal rate of 31.3% for the top 1% in 2006, very close to the CBO's 31.2% (there's a link to the PDF in the blog post; TCP and CBO generally track over time), and says it includes corporate, payroll, and estate taxes. The 2012 NY Times brief also mentions payroll taxes, but it's not clear what else is included or precisely what "2007" CBO data set they're using. VictorD7 (talk) 22:03, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Here's a good explanatory piece: [10] VictorD7 (talk) 22:44, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

That Peter G. Peterson Foundation piece appears to charge corporate taxes to securities holders instead of consumers. Do you think that is reasonable given corporate profit trends, e.g. [11]? EllenCT (talk) 00:27, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

I think it's a complicated issue. One can argue that in the long run everyone pays any tax on any part of the economy. But that PGPF piece simply uses the Tax Policy Center as a source (laid out with clear charts), and the TPC's methodology is similar to the CBO's, independently producing almost the same numbers over time. The TPC is the liberal equivalent of the conservative Tax Foundation, the former a joint venture between the Urban Institute and Brookings Institute, both left leaning think tanks, so it's not like it has a right wing agenda. As for corporate profitability, that's recently mostly been driven by overhead slashing (lay offs) and a cautious posture on domestic expansion due to a terrible policy environment. I was amused by The Atlantic describing profits as a "bite" out of the economy though. VictorD7 (talk) 04:37, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Are you saying that the TPC attributes corporate taxes to the securities' holders, too? I don't see that in their tables, or in the Tax Foundation publications. If you believe that markets are relatively efficient, prices are relatively elastic, and there is usually sufficient competition, then corporations would be expected to split their tax burden with their customers, but with increasing asymmetric information, consolidation, and rent seeking, I would be more inclined to suggest that you are confusing cause and effect. Poor business investment in the face of astronomical profits is primarily because you don't get the low corporate rates shown at right without keeping cash tied up in a Caribbean post office box, typically 80% of profits for any company able to hire a tax attorney part time. No business investment means no hiring. I agree that is a terrible policy environment. So, what should the article say and/or show about tax incidence, and about these related topics we've been discussing? EllenCT (talk) 05:35, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Sure, having the highest corporate tax rate in the world makes for an uncompetitive environment, especially when the US taxes globally rather than territorially like most other nations do, prompting companies like Apple and others to leave over a trillion dollars they'd prefer to bring home overseas. [12] I'm not sure what cause and effect you feel I'm confused about. I'm also not sure why you're still confused about these effective rate breakdowns. The PGPF piece just used TPC data. I only linked to it because it explained things clearly (complete with charts!). Here's the TPC page it cited: Tax Policy Center; Average Effective Federal Tax Rates 2011. They attribute a 7.7 effective corporate income tax rate to the top 1% (30.4% overall). The numbers are identical to the PGPF page. If you don't like them your argument is with them, the CBO, and the various studies conducted. As to what the article should say, I haven't decided yet and will get back to you. I just felt obligated to take a little time and explain why I deleted the CTJ/ITEP chart.VictorD7 (talk) 06:14, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I see now that [13] attributes the "employer’s share of ... corporate tax liability" to employees, and not even the owners. I'm pretty sure at least some portion is borne by customers and securities holders. That would make [14] look much more like the CTJ/ITEP bar chart above. In any case, thanks again for the discussion and I'll wait to see what you come up with. EllenCT (talk) 06:32, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

TPC "TPC assumes that....owners of capital bear the burden of the corporate income tax in proportion to their income from capital (in the form of smaller returns on their investments)..."

CBO "Corporate income taxes are distributed to households according to their share of capital income."

I tend to agree with you that corporate income taxes are passed on to consumers and others, but then I think other taxes are at least partially passed on in various ways too, as I illustrated earlier with my income tax hike on the rich guy comments. That said, if one is going to develop effective tax rate incidence charts, then corporate taxes should be imputed to the owners, since they're the ones most directly paying them. VictorD7 (talk) 07:47, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Sheesh, I'll take another look at that and the "employer's share" pages again in the morning. Also, I just wanted to show you one more thing, [15] which goes all the way back to life expectancy and maybe even the mortality cost of lacking health insurance, in a round-about way. I'm not asking any questions about it because I don't want to prolong the discussion until we've both had some time to think of proposals for inclusion in the article, but I just want to make sure you think about it. I'm pretty sure we can come up with something that we both agree is accurate and fair, maybe even on more than one of the topics we've been discussing. But for now I need to catch up on sleep. I just want to say again how much I've appreciated this discussion. EllenCT (talk) 08:11, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

While the Washpo article makes some unwarranted causal assumptions, even it admits the LE divergence transcends insurance coverage, and echoes the responsibility themes I mentioned earlier by pointing out that people in the poor county are far more likely to smoke, more likely to be obese, and less likely to follow doctors' orders than those in the wealthier county. It also touched on the growing doctor shortage I mentioned earlier, though I'm not sure if the actual "desert" phenomenon is much more real than the debunked "food desert" myth some liberals tried to peddle in the past. One could probably find an income/LE correlation within government healthcare nations too (e.g. Scotland/England; aborigine versus white Australian). Regardless, it's fair to say that this is a highly speculative, extremely complex and controversial issue. Look at how much discussion we've had over mere tax incidence, lol, and that's a far simpler issue hinging on relatively basic facts. I agree; it's been a fun conversation. VictorD7 (talk) 18:45, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Territory issue needs formal Request For Comment (RFC)

How to proceed here may be to have those that believe the territories are not a part of the US to write out their proposed text below with the secondary references formatted as inline citations as it would be in the article. Then below that add your bullet pointed reasoning or supportive primary or tertiary sources. Those believing that the territories are a part of the US should do the same.

I know we have already done something similar (we may have done it several times) but I think the best thing to do here is as a formal RFC. Please guys, if we cannot come to terms with a dispute, the answer is to turn to the wider community. Please make your bullet pointed arguments below and I will copy them into a formal RFC with the question begun as "A dispute over whether or not the United States of America includes DC and the territories needs outside input. Blow are the arguments from both sides. Please indicate which proposal you support directly below the one you agree with."

Bullet point argument for the US including DC and territories as part of the country

Proposal as it would appear in the article with secondary sources formatted as inline citations to replace this text.

Bullet point argument for the US excluding DC and territories as part of the country

Proposal as it would appear in the article with secondary sources formatted as inline citations to replace this text.

the remaining territories of the U.S. are considered unincorporated (not part of of the U.S.) under U.S. law, as determined by the insular cases
as a result, the whole constitution does not apply to them, although most rights have been extended by statute, and Congress may cede or grant independence without a constitutional amendment
the U.S. listed the inhabited countries with the U.N. as non-self governing territories by the U.S., although several were removed after the U.S. said they were separate states in free association with the U.S.
in international law they are dependencies with the right to self-determination

(Disclaimer. *THIS IS NOT THE RFC!* Editors, do not add support !votes until this has been formalized.

--Amadscientist (talk) 11:46, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure a formal RFC is appropriate, at least not as framed here. As shown above, that there are arguments for even excluding DC indicates that at least from a legal standpoint, the definition of the United States is very complex, and for sure, my own view doesn't fit under either of the above subsections. My belief is that the Insular Cases set the baseline level, that the territories aren't included unless Congress includes them. Since then, Congress has included the territories for certain purposes (as some laws' definition sections evidence). I feel fairly confident that we have or are nearing a consensus that the actual status is complex. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 12:27, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I do not see that an RfC would be helpful. I can imagine the reponses: they speak English in Puerto Rico, it's called "American" Samoa, I don't need a passport to go to USVI, etc. We never determined the criteria - is it a legal issue? Also, no one has argued that D.C. is not part of the U.S. Since its area was originally part of existing states, it cannot be removed from the U.S. except through constitutional amendment. TFD (talk) 12:45, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Generally agreed. Perhaps that's where an RFC would be helpful though—in determining the criteria generally for saying what a country is. While I don't disagree that opening the floor would invite misinformed responses, there's nothing to say this article would be bound by such responses. As a linguist, my personal belief is we should go by the common usage, whatever that is. Legal usage is important in some contexts, but as the legal history and laws show, it's a big damn mess. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 12:50, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

We can frame this to include a third option or even a fourth, but clearly this is still dragging on and editors here alone are unable to resolve the issue. I only offered this to editors to allow them to frame their own arguments themselves but if no one is interested in this collaboration I will boldly create an RFC from the supplied arguments already presented. Now...if the actual reason to avoid an RFC at this point is because editors prefer formal mediation or arbitration then please state that and we can move in that direction. If I am simply misreading the above and editors have resolved the issue...that is great!--Amadscientist (talk) 12:55, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

This all belongs in a terminology section, in the DRN discussion, I believe that many of us there agreed that the lead needed to be brief, concise and ambigious and in the body of the article a terminology section would be included that evenly, neutrally, and in a verifiable manor provided content about U.S. with territories, U.S. without territories, and the other differing definitions that can be verified.

Why can we not begin working on a draft version of such a section in a talk sub-page, and then once it has consensus, written neutrally, and is well cited, it can then be moved into the article space.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 14:14, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm generally good with that. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 14:23, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Like as well.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:06, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm a little confused; since when was there a dispute over whether or not the U.S. includes DC? --Golbez (talk) 00:50, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

No, you're not confused. I saw a small debate above but I believe it was just being used as an example, There have been some disputes in the past about it but only in a technical sense.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:13, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

I cannot see any debate about DC., the whole dispute was about the territories. TFD (talk) 06:40, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

I just brought it in as an example to illustrate that the situation is complex. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 12:49, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Could you change the two options then? TFD (talk) 14:12, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the options can be changed in any manner you feel is correct. I don't feel I should be required to so it. Anyone may after discussing it. If you would like, please feel free to do so, but I thought the editors didn't like the idea of this format.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:53, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

supported by France

Why did you revert this precision with references? The article says :The new country defeated Britain in the Revolutionary War, which became the first successful war of independence against a European empire. This sentence suggests that the United States defeated the British empire's army alone. That's false. French Navy was alone against British at the Battle of the Chesapeake and there was more French soldiers than Americans soldiers at the Siege of Yorktown. We don't speak about the United States of today, in 1778, US are colonies which have not the military capabilities of the European powers. There is no really organized army, no navy, money and the guns came from France.--Monsieur Fou (talk) 19:35, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Because the British also did not act alone, so it needed more discussion before unilaterally implementing. --Golbez (talk) 19:43, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

It is not comparable, the British largely dominated their coalition and their allies were few. While on the other side, the majority of soldiers were French. Even in Continental Army there were French soldiers (see Marquis de Lafayette)--Monsieur Fou (talk) 19:51, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

That's why Thomas Jefferson said Every man has two countries - his own and France and John J. Pershing said Lafayette, we are here. when he set foot in France during WWI. Do not see the 1778 world through the eyes of today.--Monsieur Fou (talk) 19:58, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

The various allied contributions to the American Revolutionary War does not need to be included in the lead section of this article. As I stated in my movement of content into the body of the article, to include it would give undue weight to the contributions of an ally when the article is about the entirety of the subject that is the United States; furthermore, there are entire articles that focus on the subject including the article for the American Revolutionary War which is wikilinked above.

I understand that Monsieur Fou meant well, but this article (especially the lead) is not the place to go into detail of the allied contributions towards the efforts of American independence.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:23, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

False. Britain had treaties with various German states who supplied around 30,000 soldiers for service in North America, a huge percentage of total British side forces, and others for the British cause elsewhere. This source is an interesting read: ([16]). German participation was both mentioned in and helped motivate the Declaration of Independence in the first place. Most of the local Indian tribes also sided with the British over the Americans. What's more, the UK enjoyed this allied support from the beginning, with Germans in particular fighting in battles throughout the war, while the Americans were pretty much on their own until after they captured the entire northern British army at Saratoga, inspiring the French to join. There were also more American than French ground troops at Yorktown, and certainly throughout the war (at least in North America, where the most important battles to American independence were fought). The French contribution was extremely important and is singled out for mention later in the article, but forcing it into the intro would either create a skewed impression that the UK fought alone or require mention of the various allies on both sides, making the sentence unwieldy. VictorD7 (talk) 01:41, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Another editor appears to be attempting to force the issue, please see this diff. I have done enough edits, and don't want to appear to be reaching 3RR, can some other editor please revert the addition? There is already mention of allied contributions in the body of the article, and I still retain the opinion that going into unnecessary detail regarding alliances during the American Revolutionary War is unnecessary in the lead.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:40, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

I reverted the edit and asked the editor to come in the talk page. --Monsieur Fou (talk) 10:46, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

The ambiguous sentence bothers me more than the reference to France or to US allies. This sentence suggests that the United States defeated the British empire's army alone. That's false. It's not because the article speak only about the United States that it should suggest something inaccurate. That's like suggest that France defeated Germany during the WWI, That's false. France would have done nothing without the entry into war of the United States in 1917. This sentence seems more neutral and appropriate to the context of the American Revolution : The American Revolutionary War which ended with the victory against Great Britain became the first successful war of independence against a European empire. Excuse my poor English, it's not my native language and I don't live in an English-speaking country.--Monsieur Fou (talk) 11:26, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

That's not bad, needs punctuation work, but not bad. How about this:

The American Revolutionary War, which ended with the recognition of independence of the United States from the Kingdom of Great Britain, was the first successful war of independence against a European colonial empire.

What do others think about this phrasing?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:19, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

ok for me--Monsieur Fou (talk) 18:47, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't get back earlier. I was fine with the old phrasing (since it's true), but can live with variations along the lines y'all are proposing too. How about....

The new nation secured its independence from Britain with victory in the Revolutionary War, the first successful war of independence against a European colonial empire.

? VictorD7 (talk) 05:27, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Agree with VictorD7 last post. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:08, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

a simple solution

Is there a statement from:

The Office of the President
The United States Congress
A higher court than the one that ruled in the Insular Cases

that explicitly states that the territories in question are incorporated?

If not, anything else is synthesis and original research. A third party source cannot change the extent of what a country says is part of that country, no matter how well researched it is or how many sources you have. Period. This is why I was against this sourcing game the whole time, and why you should be too. --Golbez (talk) 15:58, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

The reason I can't follow this solution entirely is because I don't agree that the United States is the final arbiter of the linguistic meaning of the phrase "United States". Yes, we should talk about the official relationship... but it should not be our only source given there are very real political reasons for that status in particular contexts. This is why I very strongly oppose the use of statutory definition sections to argue inclusion: the reason you have to enact such definition sections is because without it, either (1) the natural presumption would be the statute has no effect in the territories and possessions, or (2) it would be a reasonable argument to make in court that the statute has no effect in the territories and possessions. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 16:22, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't mean statutory definition sections, those are worthless. I mean an explicit statement from Congress, either in a law or otherwise, saying PR etc. are incorporated or otherwise part of the country. And this isn't about the phrase United States, this is about the country United States. We aren't writing an article about what is commonly thought to be the country; we are trying to determine what that country defines itself as. And that cannot be dictated through third party sources, only recommunicated through them. For example, the Republic of China defines itself as including a very large portion of mainland Asia; we mention this, while noting that they haven't controlled it in decades, and that in 99.9% of common parlance, "Republic of China" refers only to the free area of Taiwan. What "United States" means in common parlance is different from what the United States says is part of the country. Don't get confused in trying to handle both questions at the same time. We don't need third party sources to tell us what they claim; they can do that quite ably themselves. --Golbez (talk) 16:32, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Okay, that makes sense. That said, I disagree with that means of definition. Perhaps it's my background in linguistics, but I prefer to go by scholars' definitions that describe actual usage. On the other hand, the only scholarly sources that discuss the definition of "United States" that we've seen deal with the political status of the territories within the scope of the Insular Cases and similar things... not dealing with my preferred linguistic usage definitions. So... I guess I can live with what you propose, Golbez. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 16:47, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

There is a difference between "what the country actually is" and "what it says it is". Scholars can have a reasonable debate on what it controls, or even what it is (for example, Taiwan claims Mongolia but that doesn't mean Mongolia is part of Taiwan), but I don't care how learned scholars are, they cannot change what that country defines itself as. Period. There are simply some facts that are only adequately answered by a first-party source. For example, many sources say Barack Obama is a Muslim, but that is insufficient for our article to say he IS one. We can say they REPORT he is one, but he himself denies it, and third party sources certainly cannot make the man a Muslim. Likewise, third party sources cannot change how a country defines itself, in any way. They can define the level of control or legitimacy of that claimed extent, but they cannot say "Argentina has not claimed the Falklands" because that is simply false. Now, they can have argument over whether or not, legally, the Falklands belong to the UK or Argentina, but that's not what we're dealing with - we're asking, what does the United States say is the United States. Period. And unless I see a contradictory statement from a higher authority than the insular cases court, that United States consists solely of incorporated territory. --Golbez (talk) 17:01, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

I think we should be guided by WP:DISAMBIG. Articles are about topics not terminology. This article is about the nation called the U.S., which is defined by international law, which fortunately agrees with both U.S. domestic law and the U.N. I do not know how we could objectively determine what the term normally means when people use it. Would someone outside the U.S. say "I am going to the US, I lived in the US, I was born in the US" if they were going to, lived in or were born in American Samoa?" The only source that somewhat addresses the issue is Am Ju which implies the main definition of the US is the territory bounded by the fifty states. TFD (talk) 17:07, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

It is defined by itself, not international law. International law can say that it controls another area completely, but unless it claims that area as part of itself, we cannot say that it is part of itself. Period. You're also straying here, yet again: It doesn't matter what an American Samoan would say, don't rely on proposed anecdotes like that, whether or not they would help your cause. Instead of getting distracted by all this nonsense, simply keep it simple: What does the government of the country in question say? At current, absent a source as requested, it says the territories in question are unincorporated. (And it's a separate question as to whether "unincorporated" still means "not part of", which is a little more complicated, but again, absent a higher ruling we're forced to say "no"). And by even mentioning a third party source, you're kind of sabotaging my argument while purporting to support it. --Golbez (talk) 18:16, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

More simply, it comes to a question of what sources do we look to when trying to define the country? I believe that looking to the meaning in common usage of the phrase "United States" when referring to the country, as found in scholarly sources dealing with linguistics or lexicography; basically, what's the WP:PRIMARYUSAGE? The problem is, I don't think there's such a source in this instance. So what's the next best means? I guess legal definitions, but which one? As Evatt held, there are a few. I think we've been getting close to accepting the Insular Cases still govern. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 18:37, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Will this be one of the paragraphs in the terminology section?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:21, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

I was hoping to cover Evatt in the terminology section, yes. As you may recall, Evatt is the case primarily cited by both Am. Jur. and C.J.S. for the definition of "United States", and held there were at least three competing definitions depending on context. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 01:49, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

So, anyone? Can anyone find a higher source from the government that explicitly states that the territories in question are incorporated? --Golbez (talk) 16:54, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Note that, absent any objection, I will take this as a sign that, in fact, no one can, and thus the previous DRN is null and void, since it was founded upon false assertions (that a third party source can change a country's self-definition) and I will act accordingly. --Golbez (talk) 15:43, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 29 March 2013

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please change the link in Footnote 135 (on the text "the original") from http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/population/012496.html to http://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/archives/population/cb08-123.html to fix a dead link. Avarson (talk) 19:02, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Done. Thanks! --Golbez (talk) 20:09, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

A simple proposal

That the term "United States" cover any place where the laws of the United States are paramount. Even an uninhabited island can be part of a nation, folks, so the "Insular Cases" of a century or more ago are of nugatory value in this discussion. If a person doing something somewhere is subject to the laws of a specific nation, then they are in that nation. If their acts are not subject to the laws of that nation, then they are not in that nation. This also ends some irredentist claims of independence - if a nation's laws apply in an area, then the area is in the nation regardless of whether the nation acqured the land rightly or wrongly. The common name of an area does not disappear (thus the island remained "Puerto Rico" regardless of what nation it has been in). Collect (talk) 12:42, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

U.S. citizens abroad are subject to the laws of the United States. So if I live in Tokyo, then Tokyo is part of the United States? —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 12:45, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Nope - if you are in Japan you are subject to the laws of Japan as the paramount laws affecting you. Not the laws of the US. Cheers - but that cavil fails. Collect (talk) 16:36, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Also, presumes without justification that old legal precedents are somehow of less value. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 12:54, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

The authority of a government can extend beyond its territory. For instance, the territorial waters of the United States only goes so far, however the Exclusive Economic Zone goes out multiple times further. A U.S. flagged ship in a foreign port operates under U.S. laws, as do U.S. registered aircraft, but it is also subject to the laws of that foreign port or the airspace which it is flying in. Sure in a manor every U.S. owned embassy, consulate, diplomatic facility, overseas military base, etc. can be said to be the United States, but at the same time they cannot be.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 14:21, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Weirdly enough - the embassy is US territory - but such trivial bits should not affect what we tell readers at all. Heck, Australia has a tiny bit of Hawaii - but it is not normally considered significant <g>. `Collect (talk)

That is a myth. U.S. embassies overseas are in the countries where they are. However, international agreements over diplomacy provide immunity to diplomats, hence their homes and offices are treated as foreign territory. That explains why the Iranian Embassy at Hyde Park remained derelict for many years until the council repossessed it. TFD (talk) 01:27, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Nope. Embassies are "foreign territory" by convention and not as a matter of "legal territory" vide the fact that new embassies can be built on other land, and the old embassy then not being "foreign" any more -- the concept of "territory" does not include "portability" LOL! The reasoning for the "foreign" rule is practical and developed over a great many years, and is not related to it being a defined part of the mother nation at all. [17] History of Embassies from 1855. In fact, many ambassadors live in rental buildings which do not become part of the "embassy" as "foreign soil" in any case. I fear you rely too much on The Man Who Knew Too Much. [18] makes this clear: Althought there may be in the public mind an image of embassies and consulates representing foreign soil as an exercise of extraterritorial jurisdiction, modern international law does not support this position, as the Radwan case demonstrates. Clear enough? Now please stop using non-germane arguemnts here. Collect (talk) 11:33, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Collect, you just essentially repeated what I said then wrote, "Clear enough? Now please stop using non-germane arguemnts here." TFD (talk) 14:19, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Collect, could you please provide a source that makes that argument, because it is not my understanding of public international law. It would mean that colonies of the European empires were/are part of the European states. RCLC, under common law, nationals are subject to the laws of their state when they enter terra nullius. So Gilligan etc. were all subject to U.S. law even though the island was not part of the U.S. TFD (talk) 14:37, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

"Paramount law" is from MArbury v. Madison - it is what the Supreme Court stated to be a defining characteristic of the US that the consitution is "paramount law" in the US. Thus it is reasonable from that to aver that any place subject to the US Constitution as its paramount law is reasonably part of the United States for that purpose. West's Law Dicitonary states : Sovereignty is the power of a state to do everything necessary to govern itself, such as making, executing, and applying laws; imposing and collecting taxes; making war and peace; and forming treaties or engaging in commerce with foreign nations.. As the Constitution expressly gives certain such powers to the republic, and area which is thus subject to such powers by the republic is part of the "sovereign state" and if it lacks such powers, it is not a "sovereign state." So Marbury appears quite dispositive of this AFAICT by using "paramount". Unless a place has something which overrides the Constitution as the supreme law - it is not "sovereign". Collect (talk) 16:36, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

So Marbury matters today, but the Insular Cases don't? —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 17:22, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

As Marbury is one of the core decisions, yes. The Insular Cases were limited in scope, and rendered irrelevant by later actions (Philippine independence, commonwealth status for PR etc.) That which was "true" in 1910 is not applicable today because the underlying facts have changed. Collect (talk) 11:33, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Actually when I said that I was thinking about federal sex tourism laws, but I guess that's a slightly different matter. The way 18 U.S.C. § 2423 is worded, it criminalizes someone's movement in commerce for the purpose of engaging in illicit sexual conduct. So the crime is, by statute, complete once you move in commerce, not once you engage in the sexual conduct overseas. And those laws are in place primarily to enforce treaty provisions. I'm actually not too clear on extraterritoriality then. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 14:51, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

U.S. treason laws apply to nationals wherever they happen to be. That is why I was interested to know if Americans can renounce their nationality. TFD (talk) 16:54, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

A bit far afield when THAT WAS NOT THE CLAIM I MADE. The US "paramount law" (as stated by SCOTUS) is what is important -- is the US Constitution PARAMOUNT LAW anywhere other than in the US? Unless you can show that your aside is irrelevant utterly and completely here. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:53, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Can you provide any sources that support your unique interpretation? (If you want examples, there is Guantanamo Bay, and any other areas that the US has occupied.) TFD (talk) 10:47, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Guantanamo is not claimed as US territory and your bringing it up after it was pointed out that it is a leasehold is getting tendentious. It is not relevant to this discussion. Collect (talk) 11:33, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

You just asked "is the US Constitution PARAMOUNT LAW anywhere other than in the US?" Yes, in Guantamo Bay, which as you correctly point out is not part of the U.S. TFD (talk) 14:16, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

And the "paramount law" for the leasehold is the treaty which established the lease. You seem remarkably tendentious on this bit - but the US constitution is not the "paramount law" at Guantanamo - the treaty is. Cheers - now can you get back to reasonable discussion instead of saying that people said what they did not say, and that up is down? Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:43, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

The Supreme Court ruled against you in Boumediene (see below). TFD (talk) 17:59, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Interesting:

Until Boumediene, few commentators would have guessed that the Insular Cases were going to form the basis for a holding that constitutional rights apply extraterritorially, whether in Guantánamo or anywhere else. The Insular Cases, a series of Supreme Court decisions handed down between 1901 and 1922, have long been reviled as the cases that held that most of the Constitution does not “follow the flag” outside the United States. These decisions, which dealt with the status of the then-recently annexed territories of the Philippines, Puerto Rico, and Guam, introduced into the Court's jurisprudence on the territories an unprecedented distinction between “incorporated” and “unincorporated” territories: Incorporated territories were known as such because they had been “incorporated into” the United States and thereby made an integral part of the United States (even if they had not yet been admitted into statehood); unincorporated territories, in turn, “belonged to” but were not “a part of” the United States (and might never become states of the Union). Previously, the “territory” referred to in the Constitution's Territory Clause—which empowers Congress “to make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States”—had been considered part of the “United States.” But with the Insular Cases came the unincorporated territory, a place that was, in the Court's tortured formulation, “foreign to the United States in a domestic sense.”

Christina Duffy Burnett, A Convenient Constitution? Extraterritoriality After Boumediene, 109 Colum. L. Rev. 973, 982-83 (2009) (footnotes omitted) available at http://web.archive.org/web/20110902105702/http://www.columbialawreview.org/assets/pdfs/109/5/Burnett.pdf. Might be worth reading more of this article. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 14:56, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

The judgment also relies on common law, mentioning that English courts could send prerogative writs to UK colonies, even though the colonies were not part of England, or the UK for that matter. TFD (talk) 15:06, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

All writs were in the name of "The Crown" and not in the name of the "United Kingdom." Queen Victoria was not "Queen of India - her title was Empress of India. She was Queen of Canada and so the writs were in the name of the Crown in Canada, and Elizabeth II is also "Queen of Canada". She was "Queen of Kenya" also. And "Queen of the Bahamas". In short - your claims are inapt, incorrect, wrong, and blatantly not on point. Collect (talk) 11:33, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Then I suggest you write to the Supreme Court and tell them their reasoning was faulty. And in fact the writs were not in the name of the Crown in Canada because (a) they were issued by English courts and (b) the concept of the "Queen of Canada" was not legally accepted until 1982. TFD (talk) 14:40, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Right. So Boumediene at least supports the idea that the Constitution has some extraterritorial effect. Burnett is quite a source by the way. Holy crap. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 15:18, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

It does. So the argument that part of the constitution applies to PR, therefore it is part of the U.S. fails, because it applies equally to Guantanamo Bay, which is part of Cuba. TFD (talk) 16:22, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Makes sense. Any other views on this? —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 17:23, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Except for the fact that the treaty with Cuba states it is a "perpetual lease" which is not the same as transfer of ownership -- or did you all forget that tiny legal detail? Collect (talk) 19:57, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

So what? —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:47, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

And Puerto Rico is an separate nation in free association with the U.S., according to the governments of both countries. While you do not respect PR's right to self-determination, the U.S. government does. TFD (talk) 00:55, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi, TFD. Remember when we would get annoyed at TVH accusing us repeatedly of wanting to disenfranchise island people, etc etc etc? You're doing the exact same thing here. Stop it. --Golbez (talk) 14:34, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

where in hell did you find me saying any such thing whatsoever, or is this simply a matter of your argument style again? Collect (talk) 11:38, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

I will phrase it differently. Collect, do you believe that unlike states Puerto Rico has a right to self-determination? If so how is that consistent with incorporation into the U.S. TFD (talk) 15:51, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Note: I would like a genuine cite for the claim that the US considers PR a "separate nation" under US law. Collect (talk) 11:39, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

~~Nobody's making that claim. However,~~ the Insular Cases held that Puerto Rico was not part of the United States, but was merely owned by the United States. See generally Christina Duffy Burnett, A Convenient Constitution? Extraterritoriality After Boumediene, 109 Colum. L. Rev. 973, 982-83 (2009). —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 12:54, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

See "Study of W. Michael Reisman, Myers S. McDougal Professor of International Law, Yale Law School and Robert D. Sloane, Associate Professor of Law, Boston University School of Law", U.S. Congress, 2006, p. 120, "The accomodation reached in 1953 stressed Puerto Rico's existence as an international entity separate and distinct from the United States."[19] TFD (talk) 14:02, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Has it occurred to you that PR's status has been altered since 1953 - including by popular referendum therein and by Acts of Congress? Or is this article about defining the US in 1620 or 1776 or 1802 or 1861 or 1897 or 1923 or 1953? I suggest that this article is set in 2013, and your cavils seem absurd on their face. Cheers. 14:47, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Assumes without justification that any of that abrogates the Insular Cases. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 15:07, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

The source I used was published in 2006 and if the status has been altered the writers were unaware. Perhaps you could point out which specific treaty, law or judgment affected the status. TFD (talk) 15:17, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Popular referendums do not change laws. It's ridiculous that this keeps emerging as some sort of argument. CMD (talk) 15:29, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Agree with CMD on that point. I have seen nothing in the literature supporting the contention that the referendum changed the relationship between the United States and PR. Furthermore, arguing on this point does nothing for the other territories and possessions, and brings us no closer to resolving the wording of the lede. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 15:54, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps one should note that the US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit ... holds court in Puerto Rico (made on same level as other such courts in 1966 it appears)? That the Ninth Circuit has jurisdiction over Guam? Thus making clear that the US Constitution is now paramount in both places? Such was not the case in 1922, nor had Congress enacted acts then making this clear. As for the statement that 1953 was not altered as a date in a 2006 edition of a book dealing with those dates -- that is a "d'oh" level of argument. The question is whether those territories are now subject to the Constitution directly (the cases about export tariffs to PR seem pretty much moot now). Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:18, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Collect since the reference to the 1953 accomodation is prefaced, "Yet Puerto Rico remains an international issue in a number of senses, and the record reflects a certain set of international conceptions that frame the current debate," a reasonable reading is that they are referring to the current debate not history. And you need to provide a source for your constitutional theory, otherwise it is just OR. TFD (talk) 17:54, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Please recall the Insular Case “domestic sense” of the U.S. are the states, not district, nor territory. No territory has had rights equal to states until becoming states. Territory taxes regulation have never been the same as states. Insular Cases note alien Spanish-speaking were not citizens, outside protections of constitution, and would remain so until expressly incorporated as citizens by Congress, as Congress had done in the Treaty of Guadeloupe Hidalgo.

Constitutional protections follow citizenship as in Insular Case, Rassumussen. Recent District courts do not overthrow Supreme Court, only observe Congressional action, which Insular Cases concede is a Congressional political prerogative --- to extend fundamental constitutional provisions, full citizenship, republican government, Member of Congress. Territory stage one – possession, stage two – unelected governor, Stage three, “preparation for statehood” (Sparrow). TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:32, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Although "domestic" excluded unicorporated territories, it included the district and incorporated territories, such as Hawaii and Alaska. Indeed had the Treaty of Guadeloupe Hidalgo not incorporated the New Mexico into the U.S. it would not have become part of the U.S. when it was ceded, and would have had the same status as Puerto Rico, until Congress decided to incorporate it. It appears too that constitutional protections, at least the 5th and 14th amendments follow the U.S. government, not citizens, hence are applicable to detainees at Guantanamo Bay. TFD (talk) 16:40, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

As noted a number of times now Guantanamo Bay is not owned by the US, it is a leasehold. Thus sinceit has never been claimed by anyone at all to be part of the United States, noting that it is not part of the United States is a "d'oh" example of logic. Collect (talk) 16:56, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Exactly. TheVirginiaHistorian's argument was that since the 5th and 14th amendments extend to Puerto Rico, PR is part of the U.S. However they extend to any territory where the U.S. has jurisdiction, including Guanatamo Bay, which I am happy to see you and TVH agree is outside the U.S. TFD (talk) 17:08, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

TVH argument is that WITH a) Territorial petition, b) Congress offering and c) populations accepting in referendum, legislature or convention, IF (1) fundamental constitutional rights, (2) full national citizenship in autonomous local republican governance, (3) territorial Members of Congress for participation in national councils, THEN the modern era organized territories are “a part of the U.S. federal republic”, as confirmed in several reliable secondary government and scholarly sources over the last 20 years.

This is a) historically within the U.S. “legacy of Northwest Territories” incorporated on the path to statehood (Sparrow and Levinson), and b) fulfilling the U.N. expectation for “self-determination” for once-colonial peoples in a modern nation-state(Lawson and Sloane). Referendums establish constitutions that are superior to law. Editor may fix upon "empire without consent" and "territory without people" but neither is political union in a federal republic. In a social contract there are two parties, in this, one national, one local.

From 1947-1969, Trust Terr. of Pacific Is. were under U.S. jurisdiction. After 9-years negotiation, N. Marianas began U.S. citizenship by the Commonwealth Covenant. “On Nov 3, 1986, the N. Mariana Is. became a Commonwealth in political union with the United States. ” Stanley O. Roth, Asst. Secy Dept. of State, House International Relations Committee testimony October 1998. Congress offered free association to other Trust Terr. in 1982. In 1986, Fed. States of Micronesia and Rep. of Marshall Is. accepted a Compact for 15-years. Until Rep. of Palau ratified eight years later, its 50-year compact did not begin. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:35, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Lots of facts, no explanation of relevance. TFD (talk) 23:16, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Good point, were one to address TFD posts. TFD said, TheVirginiaHistorian's argument was that since the 5th and 14th amendments extend to Puerto Rico, PR is part of the U.S.. That is a careless reductio ad absurdum of the sort which TFD throws out so frequently they cannot be all countered.

To be a part of the U.S. federal republic, U.S. territories must ** petition, ** receive Congress organic act, ** accept constitution, congress, federal courts by referendum, legislature or convention. Each territory requires a) fundamental rights, b) full citizenship in autonomous republican governance and c) Members of Congress to be a part of the U.S. federal republic. This is unfairly reduced to the 5th and 14th amendments extend, so an explanation is required. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 17:29, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

I provided sources that incorporated is achieved unilaterally by act of Congress, and a) and b) then follow because it is dictated by the U.S. constitution and c) is provided to territories even before incorporation. Have you got any sources that support your criteria? TFD (talk) 18:42, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Of course. Every state history includes the progress of its territorial status with elections, legislatures and conventions. You have no source that incorporation is achieved without popular consent. To the contrary, territory acquired without local consent is by definition unincorporated until **local petition to congress, ** congress organic act, ** local ratification. There have been about five different ways, all valid WHEN the people's representatives ** mutually in Congress and in the territory, a) incorporate the territory or b) admit the state.

All territories incorporated west of the Mississippi have hinged on the over-5000 inhabitants voting for acceptance, beginning with Louisiana. Congress is always about the contract theory of government, consent by free, informed democratic process of the people. It's the 1800s-born judges who make "incorporated" territory from uninhabited places of palm trees, sea gulls and guano pits without congressional statute. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:37, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Lousiana because part of the U.S. by treaty with France. (See the Louisiana Purchase.) No consent of the governed was obtained prior to incorporation. TFD (talk) 08:44, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

The acquisition and possession of the Louisiana Territory was made by treaty. That is not perpetual political union in a federal republic. The incorporation of the French, Spanish, Creole, American filibuster populations into the Union was made by organic law consented to by a majority of the territorial population. The reason the machinations of Hamilton, then Wilkinson, then Burr had a plausible change was because they all were premised on acting BEFORE 5,000 inhabitants in their legislature or by referendum accepted the US constitution, congress and federal courts.

The Spanish, unhappily discomfited at developments, removed all records of land titles to Havana. Ask a lawyer what that did. Hence the land swindles known in Washington DC as Louisiana Territory "Bowies", the forgeries misspelling the same Spanish words on hundreds of documents, Bowie getting squatters to claim Spanish title for resale to in-migrants, the Bowies taking realtor's commission. Yes, Alamo hero Bowie family, long story. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:11, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Missing wars/conflicts

I see that no other conflicts such as the Quasi-War or War of 1812 are not mentioned in the history section, and the next conflict mentioned after the American Revolutionary War is the American Civil War. Is there are a reason why these are left out? For instance the Mexican-American War lead to the almost full completion of the Continental United States, minus the Gadsden Purchase, under the control of Washington.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:53, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

The reason why anything is left out of this specific article is that including everything would make this article much too large, which is why we have other articles that DO cover these topics. --Jayron32 01:34, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

The elements omitted in the narrative can be included in a section of "See also", subsection wars, perhaps?

[Aside: There was once a five-editor, one-sentence consensus previously on the War of 1812, but there is considerable resistance to U.S. sources, the War of 1812 as fought over kidnapping naturalized citizens, and the Treaty of Ghent providing U.S. citizens will be respected on land and sea. The Crown stopped kidnapping U.S. citizens at His British Majesty's pleasure surely, following the only repeated defeats suffered by the British Navy in 400 years, and the repulse of victorious Napoleonic War veterans in a surprise attack at New Orleans, ordered forward during peace negotiations, of course.

Nevertheless, and be-that-as-it-may, in 1814 the U.S. and U.K. began an uninterrupted military alliance world-wide, beginning explicitly to stop the international slave trade in ARTICLE THE TENTH. "Whereas the Traffic in Slaves is irreconcilable with the principles of humanity and Justice, and whereas both His Majesty and the United States are desirous of continuing their efforts to promote its entire abolition, it is hereby agreed that both the contracting parties shall use their best endeavours to accomplish so desirable an object." Which I thought merited mention. cheers.] TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:21, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

You don't find anything POV about your phrasing? Jayron32, America's early wars against France and the U.K. are probably not of great significance in a short article about the U.S., hence each is sometimes called the forgotten war. The main significance in my opinion is that they were among the few declared wars that the U.S. has entered and of course that they were against major powers. TFD (talk) 13:55, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Horsefeathers! The War of 1812 defined the very existence of Canada, and was of primary importance in the history of Canada and the northern US, the status of the Iroquois Confederation crossing national boundaries, the denial of any British claim to Louisiana (remember the Battle of New Orleans?), was responsible for the wording of the Star Spangled Banner (Then conquer we must) etc. Not of great significance? One of the odder claims I have ever seen anyone make in any talk page in the history of Wikipedia!

I am not saying the war was insignificant, just that it is of minimal significance for a brief article about the U.S. This is not an article about Canada or the national anthem, the Battle of New Orleans occured after the war, the right of Iroquois to enter the U.S. was settled by Jay's Treaty 1794. In other words it is important for things which are not even important for this article. TFD (talk) 14:27, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Parsing? You said it was not of great significance. We have a full sentence about "Hurricane Sandy", which, I suggest, is of less historical value by far. The British who were trying to take New Orleans did not know of the end of the war - so that is a really, truly, exceptionally weird argument to make -- the British wanted to take territory which was never British in the first place! And the Iroquois Confederation crosses national borders with Canada which the US claimed which was one of the reasons for the War of 1812 if you ever read up on that war in other than a gloss. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:26, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

The scales of WP:DUE shouldn't be influenced by WP:RECENTISM. The War of 1812 is far more historically significant than Hurricane Sandy and the US involvement in Libya. I'm not saying we should give a full paragraph to 1812 in this overview article, but I think there's some balancing we need to be doing. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 16:40, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Collect, I said it was not of great significance in a short article about the U.S. Your views on the threats posed by the Iroquois and the British in Lousiana are greatly exaggerated and in any case nothing changed. There are still Iroquois in New York and New Orleans is still American. I agree that recentism can be a problem. Mendaliv, agree there is too much recentism. I would just point out what is significant - a declared war against a major power. TFD (talk) 17:52, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps, a mention of the War of 1812, and the Mexican-American War should be included, wedged in the existing sentence. They are very significant, one having a major impact on the U.S.'s relations with the British Empire, and the second (following the annexation of the Republic of Texas) saw the United States extend to the Pacific Ocean.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:42, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Of course, you'll not that no one is trying to wrestle your keyboard away from you as you try to add a sentence or two about any wars between the Revolutionary War and the Civil War, as you note is a deficiency above. That is, if you see a problem, you don't have to file any forms to get permission to make an article better. You do know that, right? The answer to "Is there any reason why..." some aspect of a Wikipedia article is substandard is ALWAYS because you (specifically the person who asked the question) has not fixed it yet. So, to return to your question, if you want a better answer, to your questioon "Is there are a reason why these are left out?", the answer is because you (specifically you RightCowLeftCoast) has not put it in there" Now, if someone down the road disagrees with your fixes, we can talk it out here. But until you attempt to make an article better, you have no one to blame but yourself that it isn't as good as it could be. --Jayron32 02:54, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

I'd certainly support a restoration of the old War of 1812 consensus sentence. I'm not sure when it was removed. VictorD7 (talk) 05:32, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Consensus, November 25 "The War of 1812, a "second war of independence", secured U.S. territorial claims against the British Empire and guaranteed Canadian integrity. The United States then embarked on a vigorous program of expansion across North America through the 19th century. During the territorial expansion …"

The intent of the language is to say BOTH: --- The War of 1812 -- a "second war of independence", secured U.S. territorial claims against the British Empire AND --- The War of 1812 -- guaranteed Canadian territorial integrity.

Considerations for the language choice: (1) Event significance per DancingPhilosopher, TVH. The war’s small scale may seem tragicomic today, but it settled borders, ended kidnapping, increased trade, friendship, and initiated joint U.S.-U.K. war on African slave trade. (2) Proper chronological placement per Golbez. American historians count the War of 1812 as the “coming of age” of U.S. nationalism. (3) Canadian perspective per Sudoghost. Both U.S. and Canada claim the War of 1812 as a victory. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:51, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

That sentence presents a number of opinions as facts. "...guaranteed Canadian integrity" is misleading, because Canada at the time meant only the southern parts of the current provinces of Ontario and Quebec. The boundary between British North America and the Western U.S. would not be settled until later. Do historians say that had the war never happened, history have unfolded differently? Canada btw was at the time a territory of the United Kingdom. TFD (talk) 14:19, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Actually - the American Revolution had a profound effect on Canada - including the influx of loyalists into eastern Canada and Quebec. The War of 1812 was also key to that nation (which was not simply a "territory of the United Kingdom" by the way). You should also likely read up on the Maritimes and their apparent desire to join the US at the time -- tons of books out there. Collect (talk) 15:29, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

You're right, it wasn't a territory, it was a colony. Two, in fact: The Province of Upper Canada and the Province of Lower Canada. --Golbez (talk) 15:38, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

The term "non-self governing territory was adopted after the Second World War to refer to colonies. There is no doubt whatsoever that if the Canadas had retained their 1812 political status until then that they would have been classified as territories of the United Kingdom. The "profound effect" on Canada of the war has no relevance to this article. The U.S. has had a profound effect on multiple countries. TFD (talk) 23:35, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Dear me! "Would have been" but weren't is your problem here. "No doubt whatsoever" requires some semblance of a source, which you ain't providing. In short - you are averring that you WP:KNOW the WP:TRUTH but the RS sources therefore must be "wrong." Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:44, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Under the UN resolution, European powers listed all territories that remained colonies. Most sources accept that the U.K. had colonies in Canada. BTW although Upper and Lower Canada were separate colonies, they shared a Governor General of The Canadas. Anyway you are diverting the conversation into orthoginal topics. The War of 1812 was of limited relevance to the U.S. While it may have been relevant to Canadian history, it is not utile to argue whether Canada was one or two territories or whether the term territory iss anachronistic. TFD (talk) 00:02, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

War of 1812 was of limited relevance to the U.S.. More wondrous factoids about US history? I'll ask again. TFD where do you stumble upon them? You have assured me that you do not simply make them up for WP:Talk; your discourse is peppered with them, 1860 Texas legitimately seceded, Americans got what they wanted before the Revolution. But here, the War of 1812 is seen by most US historians as the beginning of "nationalism" associated with the general government evolving independently and apart from the "patriotism" which was associated with each state. The word 'country' changes from meaning Virginia to meaning United States, the Federal Republic. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:57, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

You need a source that says it was significant. Of all the wars the U.S. has entered, how would you rank this one in terms of importance to the U.S. today? How come the press is filled with "on this date in history 200 years ago" the same way they were with 1776 in 1976? TFD (talk) 17:15, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

New Orleans has a GREAT Battle of New Orleans festival every year, why are you hating on New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina?

New Orleans was significant enough that Jefferson believed without it, the Ohio-Mississippi River valley would secede and join the Spanish. Jon Meacham, "Thomas Jefferson: the art of power", 2012. David O. Stewart, "American Emperor: Aaron Burr's Challenge to Jefferson's America" 2011. Napoleon stole Louisiana from the Spanish, US bought the stolen goods, funding the gold payments through New England banks who otherwise would not have gone along with the steal or the Indian wars, and then let the slave-power expand into the western lands, Roger G. Kennedy "Mr. Jefferson's lost cause: land, farmers, slavery and the Louisiana Purchase, 2003.

As you well know, Britain would have held onto the choke point controlling the trade of the interior North American continent just as it has Gibraltar. At the time, many French Catholics were not disposed to US citizenship, and Wellington had demonstrated in Portugal and Spain that the British could respect Catholic religious practice and shrines in a way that the US had not. Jackson had to institute martial law in New Orleans for weeks after the battle for fear of local support in the event of a second attack which was scheduled ... later stood trial for it, more duels, assassinations in the woods, Indian wars funded by Brits and Spanish, messy business, all for cotton, New England and British factories and British commercial houses, leading up to the American Civil War? --- not quite like the annual write-ups on Ft. McHenry and the Star Spangled Banner, I suppose, I dunno, what do you think? On the other hand, the intellectual historians say the War of 1812 was the real beginning of US nationalism, the Era of Good Feeling leading up to Manifest Destiny of the 1840s. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:20, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

'New Positions' v 'Incidental observations'

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.

There seems to be some confusion distinguishing synthesis / new positions from 'Incidental comments', which I think can best be addressed with a simple model:

Source 'A' says 'Apple Trees have been grown on Green Hill'.
Source 'B' says 'Pear trees have been grown on Green Hill'.

Incidental comment: 'Fruit trees have been grown on Green Hill.'

Synthesis/new position: 'Green Hill can not produce orange trees.

Incidental comments can be derived from primary, or any, source. If a secondary source can corroborate such comments, as is the case with Sparrow and the gov sources, all the better. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:21, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

What is to be "United States" as a definition. The problem is not logic, it may be an anachronistic habit of mind. If a wp:pov editor is ideologically driven, logic and evidence is of no help, all opposing arguments are absurd, evidence need not be weighed, no counter SOURCE need be found. To the ideologue, each editor picks their own wp:madeup fantasyland, timeframe snapshot for 'America mainstreet' or 'Amerika gulag'. Do not confuse with sourced facts, democracy, time passing, too messy that, find a direct answer without nuance or ambiguity to meet ideological inevitability. A sourced position defining the U.S. federal republic by 1. fundamental constitutional protections, 2. full citizenship and autonomous republican government, and 3. territorial Member of Congress -- U.S. constitutional practice for two hundred years AND the three-element U.N. criteria for "self-determination" of minority colonial (1945) peoples in a nation-state --can be made absurd.

All it takes is to deny the legitimacy of republic-citizenship, using territorial examples from monarchies without representation, or empires without referendums, or indexes citing century-old references in a lexicographic methodology without reference to any peoples or events of the last half-century. It may be a lack of historical context which Sparrow hopes to redress in political science, or it may be willful ignorance. The argument for territories as “a part of the U.S.” hinges on Congress AND the populace. Territory west of the Mississippi was not a part of the Treaty of Paris federal republic, but it became so in the "legacy of the Northwest Territory" by "democratic empire". The territories became a part of the federal republic before statehood by territorial republican government, citizenship, Member of Congress. YES, that was denied unjustly to 1898 territories, but they were made constitutionally “equivalent” to incorporated states by 2010 regardless of race, just as other "legacy" territories before them. "Today, the U.S. includes territories in the Pacific and the Caribbean." ANSWER ad absurdum: citizenship of people does not make a territory part of a country, territories are not states, territories are not a part. (!?!?)

But the same editors say territories were incorporated before statehood in 20th century Arizona and New Mexico 1910, and Alaska and Hawaii 1960. Modern U.S. territories have more privileges than the previously incorporated territories. Without becoming states they are also a part of, included in the U.S. today, as cited, directly quoted and linked. Regardless of the context, sources or argument, TFD drums on about 1917 PR citizenship, reductio ad absurdum, ad nauseum AFTER I have stipulated PR is not a part of the U.S. until after 1950s congressional and territorial statutes and local referendum. Can this be in wp:good faith? Mention "empire" and he insists world history must stop at Queen Victoria’s reign 1901, or maybe the death of once-colonial-PI-insurrection-governor, William Howard Taft 1930, or Insular Cases 1901-1904. U.S.V.I. with elected governor and Member of Congress MUST be like B.V.I with royal governor and no MP, because republic territories MUST be like empire territories -- no source, no good. Nothing from the U.S., U.N. or island peoples since 1962 can be put forward without misunderstanding, misrepresenting or misstating. But it is always dismissed without counter-sources. This is not a problem of logic, but at best, an anachronistic mindset. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 15:12, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Two relatively recent law review articles saying Balzac is still good law, nothing to overturn them, therefore still relevant today. Judicial opinions do not have an expiration date, as you seem to be asserting. Most of your argument is incomprehensible. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 15:51, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Seconding the incomprehensible observation. Indeed, the entirety of Sparrow et al. as well as most of the sources proffered by TVH that directly examine the issue agree that the status of these territories is complex and unsettled. There are various arguments and suggestions put forward as to how things should be, but such opinions need to be considered separately from the analysis of the current status. older ≠ wiser 15:59, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

The issue was whether saying because Puerto Ricans are citizens that PR is part of the U.S. is a synthetic statement, which must be sourced or whether it is true by definition. Since the Supreme Court decided that the extension of citizenship did not incorporate territories (see Sparrow, p. 232), one would think it is a synthetic statement, unless of course William Taft and the other eight justices lacked reading comprehension skills. TFD (talk) 16:04, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Very well. Note, no sources can be quoted to reiterate Balzac within the last 50 years, the last time we relied on tertiary sources we got “reversed” when the case said “upheld”, “upheld” and “remanded”. And again islanders are not competent to determine their own future?, there is NOTHING the Puerto Rican people can do to escape the wiki-inevitability of their independence after fifty years’ unwavering 96% votes to be a part of the U.S. in 80% turnouts – is the 4% the “Party of 2012”, who ARE they, and do they meet wp:importance?

There is no source I use to say the status of these territories is “complex and unsettled” requiring wiki-editor ideological deconstruction and synthesis. A citizen with English as a second language (ESL) can understand the declarative sentence, “The United States now consists of 50 states, the District of Columbia … the territories of Guam, American Samoa, and the U.S. Virgin Islands, and the commonwealths of the Northern Mariana Islands and Puerto Rico.” Some may believe things should be territorial independence, but that is not what U.S.G. or the populations believe the status to be, U.S. territories are “included” in the U.S.

Sparrow, [see p.232:] first sentence after the forward, “The United States is not a nation of states and never has been. Even at the founding … And at present, the U.S. includes the Caribbean and Pacific territories, the District of Columbia, and, of course, the fifty states. … The political development of the continental territories largely followed the legacy of the Northwest Ordinance, passed under the Articles of Confederation.

Are we really going to debate whether The Court of Plessy v. Ferguson, “William Taft and the other eight justices” lacked reading comprehension skills? They lacked the ability to see the effects of the disembodied law on the people, now U.S. citizens, so they were overturned in Brown v. Board. Now blacks and islanders have full citizenship, and you insist on attaining no independent judgment apart from that Court, imposing your willfulness on the U.S. country-article? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 21:00, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

There is no source I use to say the status of these territories is “complex and unsettled” BS. Anyone making a fair and objective reading of the sources can easily see what the sources actually say. I urge editors to do so and not accept one editor's persistent misrepresentations. Unless I'm completely off-base, I don't see how anyone could review the material that directly addresses the issue of the current status of territories and conclude that the matter is settled or that it is anything other than complex. older ≠ wiser 21:15, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

[insert] No sources, no good. (Is o≠w' BS adolescent infatuation with scatology? right here on wikipedia talk pages in front of everyone? Grow up.) The only Bunk and Silliness here is "older"-not-wiser persisting in arrogant dismissals without sources that serve as wp:personal attacks without sources. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:30, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I call BS exactly what it is. And I challenge for other editors to draw any other conclusion from reviewing the sources that you yourself cite. older ≠ wiser 11:41, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Agree, wholeheartedly. You aren't off-base in the least Bkonrad. And frankly, while I want badly to assume good faith, TVH's final paragraph above, itself lacking good faith, serves to demonstrate that he has an axe to grind. Wikipedia is not about righting great wrongs. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 23:27, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Nonsense. [1] I make a sourced reference with a direct quote. [2] An editor with an-axe-to-grind misstates it. -- No source to contradict the scholar directly or his body of work. No source to contradict the substance of his words. Just this in a repeated cycle: [1] I-quote-with-source, [2] you-deny-unsourced, and you-personally attack. I let it go until it comes up again, [1] I-quote-with-source...

The right-great-wrongs problem is for those who will not let go a one-hundred-year's-old injustice, and for today accept the judgment of the living islanders who have voiced their will to be a part of the U.S. -- now sustained for fifty years. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:30, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Note, no sources can be quoted to reiterate Balzac within the last 50 years I think you need to check your own reading comprehension skills. I quoted two sources above within the last 20 years that do just that. And in reviewing Westlaw I saw several more. Balzac is still good law, even if academics hate it. Deal with it. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:20, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

[insert] No source, no good. A recent tertiary publication cataloguing 100-year-old case without updating its previous edition is not a reliable source in the face of government and scholarly sources since 1962. There was no quote.There was no source.

Your persistent referrals to "all sources" and "two recent articles" are NOT sources. Another reference to a tertiary super secret sauce source "Westlaw" which cannot be directly quoted even by you who misquote "upheld" as "overturned" when I found the published case - which you denied was published.

No source, no good. Legal references DO NOT say what law is still in force, as any law reference service will tell you. You were in the discussion the last time I used it when you questioned whether anyone but you had begun research on a subject we knew nothing about by using tertiary sources. I explained I had in a law library, with links and sources on how to use them. I will refind the link for you on request. I certainly have asked for your sources numerous times. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:30, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

I provided unambiguous citations to every single source I've used in this entire discussion. With all due respect, if you don't have the wherewithal to read even the most basic legal references that even a dump of a law library in the most dismal backwater has on its most prominent shelves, I don't think you should be raising your voice on this issue anymore. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 13:25, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

[insert] unambiguous citiations, nonsense. You generally refer to three tertiary digests for the novice, without referencing any one in particular, not an article name, edition nor page number. This is hardly "unambiguous" anything. No seminar student could submit a paper sourced by tertiary digests without reading the literature --- slap-dash is a non-credit grade. Let's look to secondary government and scholarly sources as WP editors for this article WITHOUT tertiary sources ** confusing "upheld" as "reversed" and ** mayors as governors.

I note the one U. Chicago Law Review article Mendaliv referenced states the Insular Cases are good law today, viz., territories are not states, their tax regimes need not meet the uniformity constitutionally required among states. But Congress MAY make citizens to incorporate territories of island populations that the Spanish had NOT made citizens one hundred year ago, without the Judiciary --- so that "today, the US includes" the five organized territories according to secondary government and scholarly sources. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 17:30, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

No, Congress may extend citizenship to territorial residents, as they have for four out of five territories, and they may incorporate territories into the U.S., but they are separate actions. TFD (talk) 18:26, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Incorporation and citizenship are separate. Insular Cases say alien [not-citizen] populations are not incorporated by US possession alone, so citizenship and incorporation are connected. The Court in Rassmussen ruled a territory, NOT "expressly incorporated" by organic act of Congress, --- WAS retroactively “incorporated” judicially by clear Congressional intent --- at Congress making citizens. They are not strictly separate, one requires the other. Treaties provide for incorporation of individuals at Congressional discretion of Mexico, Spain, Germany, Denmark, not the territorial places, not non-citizen populations --- because borders -- and citizenship -- are to be determined by Congress.

Legacy organic law in preparation for statehood must have mutually agreed citizenship, but also, ** allegiance to constitution and congress, ** self-government and a ** territorial Member of Congress. The American people in Congress is the "first branch" of the nation-state. US Census now defines “native-born Americans” as those born citizens and nationals in states, DC, N. Marianas, Guam, Am. Samoa, US Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico.That is geographically, the extent of representation in Congress the US federal republic. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 19:21, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

The court decided in Downes v Bidwell that even though Congress had extended citizenship to Puerto Ricans, PR was not part of the U.S., because only an incorporation act could do that. Consequently, the continental territories, Hawaii and Alaska were considered incorporated by act of Congress, while the insular territories were not. Organic laws do not require that territorial residents are citizens - they merely provide for local government. People who are born citizens in American owned territories are of course native born Americans. John McCain for example was born in the Canal Zone, which was not part of the U.S. TFD (talk) 20:09, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

context from Sparrow

Sparrow in Sparrow and Levinson, 2005, [see page 233:] These were states as John Marshal saw, “in embryo”, under the tutelage of the U.S.G., “never regarded as mere possessions.” With the territories in the Caribbean and the Pacific eventual statehood did not obtain. The Insular Cases were the proximate divergence of the U.S. insular territories from the legacy of the Northwest Ordinance. [see page 234:] “Behind the Insular Cases, though, was the matter of race … the McKinley, Roosevelt and Taft administrations, Congress and the American people were not inclined to accept these non-English-speaking, non-Protestant, and non-white inhabitants as citizens of states or states-to-be.” [tvh note:] in the modern era, half of all self-identified Puerto Ricans in their three millions are now citizens of continental states, three are elected to Congress from NY, OH and ID. So much for Mr. Taft and "the matter of race".]

[see page 240:] “The reality of the U.S. possessions has not been integrated into thinking about the American political system.” Rather, the consistent premise has been that the U.S. federal system is “constituted in its entirety by its component states”. [see page 241:] James Bryce: “Every American citizen lives in a duality of which Europeans, always excepting the Swiss [republic], and to some extent the Germans [federation], have no experience… animated by two patriotisms and owns two allegiances.’ William Riker: “both kinds of governments rule over the same territory and the same people, each has the authority to make some decisions independent of the other.” Sparrow: “The U.S. is NOT the simple aggregate of the states, as the existence of the territories, public lands and federal district – [DC] -- makes clear.”

[see page 242:] Later-arriving states had the advantage of joining an already “viable polity”, but the disadvantage of bargaining as unequals over annexation terms. Donald Meinig describes the U.S. as a democratic empire. “Democratic” because voters via congress set public policy of expansion, development and trade. “Empire” because jurisdiction extended over people who not did not have fundamental constitutional protections, full citizenship in republican self-government or a voice in territorial representation. “The fact of federalism combines democracy and empire.” As policy is determined by local elected politicians, “the U.S. is federal in process”. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 21:00, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Please read what I wrote, The issue was whether saying because Puerto Ricans are citizens that PR is part of the U.S. is a synthetic statement, which must be sourced or whether it is true by definition. Analytic statements do not need evidence. Synthetic statements need evidence, which is why you have just re-presented evidence that you have already provided countless times. For example if one wants to know if a bachelor is an unmarried man, one does not provide examples of bachelors who are unmarried. TFD (talk) 21:23, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Analytic statements do not need evidence. Synthetic statements need evidence, which is why you have just re-presented evidence. Nonsense. You cannot dismiss my sourced contribution as inadmissible BECAUSE I have a source. ! ? ! ? --- 1. Analytic statements require secondary authority, not ideological purity or editor-original research, 2. synthetic statements are not to be admitted at all. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:10, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

I suggest you look up the Analytic–synthetic distinction. I will explain it without lingo. The editor who began this discussion thread said that because Puerto Ricans are citizens, PR is part of the U.S. by definition, just as bachelors are by definition unmarried men. To say otherwise would not only be wrong, but self-contradictory. TFD (talk) 18:46, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

[insert] Because Puerto Ricans are citizens. Acceptance of fundamental U.S. constitution in territorial organic act, supremacy of congress and federal courts, fifty-year participation in U.S. citizenship, electing autonomous territorial government and a Member of Congress CANNOT be fairly reduced to “citizenship” alone in the discussion. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:14, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

[insert]

Again, while it may be true, as you claim, that granting citizenship to Puerto Ricans incorporated the territory into the US, it is not true by definition. Texas for example is part of the U.S., but not by definition, because it is possible to conceive of Texas as being separate from the U.S., as in fact it has been. On the other hand that the State of Texas is a state is true by definition. TFD (talk) 14:53, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

[insert] Lawyers use the concept of "settled law" to make moot your possible to conceive of Texas as being separate from the U.S.. Since 1865 or so, it is settled law in the U.S. that once the local population has accepted constitution, congress, federal courts, ratified citizenship and elected a Member of Congress, that place is perpetually incorporated into the United States. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:34, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Texas could secede through a constitutional amendment, unlike unincorporated territories, for which only an act of Congress is required. It is ironic that you are quoting settled law from 1865, while you claim that the insular case of the early 20th century are too old to be considered valid. And of course it is "possible to conceive" of things contrary to settled law, otherwise there would have been no need to settle the law in the first place. TFD (talk) 10:52, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

There is no source for Congress undoing the Constitution, there is no provision for stripping an entire territorial population of its citizenship or representation in Congress. No court will admit a petition to remove a territory from the Union which has accepted the constitution, congress and citizenship. Insular Cases are good law in that each territory is NOT required to have the same uniform tax regime as states (Vignarajah).

But the Insular Case premise that Congress need not extend basic constitutional rights, make citizens or initiate republican government forever into the future (Vignarajah), is made moot by the Congress subsequently extending rights, citizenship, self-government and Member of Congress, rights once extended which are "irrevocable" according to the Supreme Court. It is ironic that you would say the Court has authority to allow Congress to make citizens of the republic at its discretion in the future, but then you deny that Congress has, when a subsequent Court said Congress has, "irrevocably" done so. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:27, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

What does any of that have to do with anything? Congress, not the courts, determines what is part of the U.S., and of course may cede unincorporated territory, as they did in the case of the Philippines and the three "associated" states. Indeed Congress has extended rights by statute that are not mandated by the constitution, and they can take them away. That is why the U.S. has a bill of rights. TFD (talk) 12:20, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Both courts and congress are bound by the constitution. The Courts have extended rights not mandated by Congress because individual protections of the constitution follow citizenship (not the flag). You have already stipulated territories may be incorporated while they are not states, with fundamental individual rights but not state-only privileges, without state-uniform tax regimes.

But that does NOT exclude territories from the federal republic once ** the territory lawfully petitions, ** the American people in Congress offer and ** territory democratically accepts constitution, citizenship, self-government and Member of Congress --- that is, preparation for statehood in the legacy of the Northwest Territory, once denied to non-Spanish, non-US citizens in overseas territories a century ago, who are now included in the US federal republic. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 23:34, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

That is original research and contrary to what your source says. Congress can and has extended birthright citizenship to areas outside the U.S. because the constitution allows them to. And some parts of the U.S. constitution apply anywhere the U.S. has jurisdiction, hence the detainees at Guantanamo Bay have the same constitutional rights as American citizens in Puerto Rico. TFD (talk) 00:18, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

The source says what I said, citizenship is one of three elements preparing a territory for statehood. You are mistaken, Congress may NOT constitutionally make citizens outside US possession, though citizens may do so, by birthing them. Guantanamo has no population petitioning congress for US citizenship, despite your vigorous discussion of the topic.

The discussion here relates to five organized territories of the modern era, a part of the US federal republic. No source says, Modern organized US territories are not a part of the federal republic. Instead Congress lists territorial Members of Congress alphabetically in its online directory by state, a primary source supporting government secondary and scholarly sources proving their inclusion. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 06:25, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Again, you are confusing the terms "organized" and "incorporated", and the fact that there is a constitutional requirement that persons born in the United States with the extension of citizenship by Congress to persons born outside the U.S. Whether or not Congress can extend citizenship to persons in areas not possessed by the U.S. is irrelevant - no one has claimed that the unincorporated territories of the U.S. are not its possessions. The U.S. may control territories with local governments, without their becoming part of the U.S. and the U.S. may incorporate territories that do not have local self-government. TFD (talk) 00:30, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Territories are not states. Those with military governors, without population citizenship are organized --- NOT incorporated. Congress organizes --- incorporated territories --- with citizenship, self-government, Member of Congress into the federal republic. One-hundred years ago island territories were NOT incorporated under appointed governors --- but today five organized territories and DC have Supreme Court "irrevocable" rights and privileges "virtually the same" and "equivalent" to states, constitutionally incorporated in the US. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 18:22, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Again, "organized" merely means that there is a local government, while "incorporated" means to be part of the U.S. No continental territory was ever unincorporated, although there were initially unorganized. TFD (talk) 20:26, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Your unsourced speculation is not US history. Sparrow shows territory after 1783 Treaty as unincorporated possession, the “empire” in “democratic empire”. Then unincorporated territories are organized with military governors without citizens, from the first, Jefferson’s Louisiana Territory with General Wilkinson governor. THEN incorporated territories are formed with 5000 residents eligible by Congress, agreeing to citizenship, self-government and Member of Congress. At Downes v. Bidwell, we have a good history lesson from 1901, in this case a primary source to support the Levinson-Sparrow 2005 scholarly source:

"Although the treaty might stipulate for incorporation and citizenship under the Constitution, such agreements by the treaty-making power were but promises depending for their fulfillment on the future action of Congress… The territory acquired by the Louisiana purchase was governed as a mere dependency until, conformably to the suggestion of Mr. Jefferson, it was by the action of Congress incorporated as a territory into the United States, and the same rights were conferred in the same mode by which other territories had previously been incorporated, that is, by bestowing the privileges of citizenship and the rights and immunities which pertained to the Northwest Territory [tvh: not states]." TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:16, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Louisiana is an anomaly, because the treaty said, "The inhabitants of the ceded territory shall be incorporated in the Union of the United States and admitted as soon as possible." There was indeed a short period between the signing of the treaty and Congress fulfilling its responsibilities to France. It is not comparable to the 1898 treaty with Spain, where there was no promise to incorporate the territories, and in fact the Philippines was subsequently granted independence. TFD (talk) 19:55, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

syllogism for “a part of”

Is a territory “a part of the U.S.”? Provide examples of previous territories “a part of the U.S.” in the 20th century.

Arizona, New Mexico, Alaska, Hawaii with fundamental rights, citizenship, republican self-government and Member of Congress, never "expressly incorporated".

See Sparrow et. al. in Sparrow and Levinson, as cited, quoted and linked above.

Is a territory “not-part” of the U.S.? Provide examples of previous territories “not-part” of the U.S. in the 20th century.

Alien peoples of foreign cultures without republican institutions or constitutional rule of law at the time of Balzac -- no fundamental rights, no citizenship, no republican self-government and no Member of Congress, never "expressly incorporated".

See Sparrow et. al. in Sparrow and Levinson, as cited, quoted and linked above.

Are modern era organized territories “a part of the U.S.”, viz., N. Marianas, Guam, Am. Samoa, U.S. Virgin Is. and Puerto Rico?

Compare them with previous territories “a part of the U.S.” AND previous territories “not-part” of the U.S.

[1] Modern era organized territories have all five characteristics of 20th century territories “a part of the U.S.”

See Lawson and Sloane as cited, quoted and linked above. AND

[2] Modern era organized territories share none of the characteristics of territories “not-part” of the U.S.

See Lawson and Sloane as cited, quoted and linked above.

THEREFORE, modern U.S. territories are a part of the U.S.

See Congressional statutes interpreted by State Department, Homeland Security, Government Accountability Office, and Census as cited, quoted and linked above. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:29, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

No original research. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 13:39, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

This is the Talk page. We talk at Talk, every phrase is not to be sourced and defended as for a doctoral dissertation. --But now they are added, per your request. -- An editor asked for help. TFD wondered how to think about territories, For example if one wants to know if a bachelor is an unmarried man, one does not provide examples of bachelors who are unmarried. He missed the mark, I helped out.

The sources say Today, the United States includes the 50 states, DC and the five organized territories. That is all that is needed, there is no counter by government or scholarly source to say, "Modern era U.S. territories are NOT a part of the U.S." I understand some would like to leverage off of century-old court cases as primary documents by unreliable tertiary digests. They would deny the full-citizenship, elected government, and free elections in modern era U.S. territories -- but still no secondary sources for that -- apart from editor-synthesis of primary sources and tertiary digests for non-citizens of 1910 that do not apply to citizens of 2010 as a part of the U.S.. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:10, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

You don't know what a law review article is, do you? —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 14:38, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

The title on the cover of the magazine says, "Law Review"? The article is in the Table of Contents? The article is found inside printed in its entirety? It is well sourced in footnotes and peer-reviewed in an accredited law school?

I hope "law review" would not be the same as the tertiary digest summarizing a case as "reversed", which on inspection reads, "i. upheld, ii. upheld and iii. remanded". We suffered that during the conflict resolution discussion. Those embarrass us.

Instead, see K. Vignarajah in University of Chicago Law Review, The political roots of judicial legitimacy which Mendaliv supplied us. Good strong historical context to show territories are not states in the matter of revenues as the Territories Clause power has been interpreted by Courts and practiced in Congress and executive (interaction of the three is K.V.s thesis on legitimacy over time). TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:31, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

And we're back to the start

At this point the narrowness of the supporting sources has been extensively noted, along with note of the complexity of the situation. Furthermore, we have recent sources saying that the Insular Cases are still applicable law. Meanwhile, the argument that the territories are part of the country is becoming increasingly focused on the inhabitants being citizens, with a jump then being made to the incorporation of the territories, including the constant citation of referendums in Puerto Rico as evidence and the demand that this article be written based on these results. This seems to leave us at the starting point; although many people would want the territories to be incorporated, both in the academic sphere and in those territories, the country has yet to do so. CMD (talk) 01:54, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

[insert] The country is the congress, the representatives of the living people, including territorial Members of Congress. Unlike Balzac and Downes from the court which made second-class citizens of blacks and islanders -- in the modern era, Congress made blacks and islanders equal citizens. Although TFD asserts international law recognizes only common law citizenship by kingdom, not by naturalization nor statute which can be withdrawn at will in the U.K. Parliament. But it cannot in the U.S., it has a different constitutional practice which binds lawmakers in a way unimaginable to most Europeans outside the Swiss and Germans (James Bryce).

This is not the start: 1. We have an unbroken pattern of six months, tertiary references without secondary or primary, about the Insular Cases on alien peoples status, which never applied to citizens (Alaska, Rassmussen Insular Case), and now does not apply to islanders born on territories with blood of the soil. 2. We see clear formulation of the ‘exclude territories’ must uphold the Insular Cases to dismiss the voiced will of the islander people alive today and ignore the modern era Congress expanding privileges for the last fifty years. 3. We have constitutional status of territories as “equivalent” to incorporated states both in government and scholarly secondary sources, no counter-sources to date. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:52, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Agree broadly, though I still prefer a lede phrasing that leaves open the possibility given the complexity of the situation and the sources indicating ambiguity. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 02:09, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

The sources seem to imply that as time went on they became treated in many ways as if they were incorporated, even though they have not been. That complexity is much better handled in the text at some point however, possibly in the Political Divisions section. CMD (talk) 02:36, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Oh, of course, we shouldn't attempt to cover this in any detail in the lede. My point is we should prefer lede wording that doesn't foreclose the possibility that the territories and possessions are part of the US. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 02:50, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

[insert] Thank you. This kind of fairmindedness and evenhandedness is why I value Mendaliv and Golbez contributions in spite of all else we do continue to disagree on. Now CMD seems to have a reasonable streak. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:52, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Here's another recent source (more recent than Sparrow), discussing the Insular Cases in greater detail, noting they're still valid today, plus a pretty important paragraph.

By a 5-4 vote, a fractured Supreme Court rejected Downes's view in a decision that produced five separate writings and no clear majority opinion. On its surface, Downes held only that the heavier duties imposed upon Puerto Rican imports were valid, leaving US territories outside the Constitution's Uniformity Clause. But the basis of the ruling was crucial, for the Court reconceived of Puerto Rico not as foreign or domestic, but rather as "a territory appurtenant and belonging to the United States, but not a part of the United States." Or as Justice Edward White famously put it, Puerto Rico was "foreign to the United States in a domestic sense." In effect, the Court endorsed Congress's authority to govern Puerto Rico as a satellite colony, formally validating the territory's hybrid status somewhere between foreign nation and domestic state.

Krishanti Vignarajah, The Political Roots of Judicial Legitimacy: Explaining the Enduring Validity of the Insular Cases, 77 U. Chi. L. Rev. 781, 790 (2010) (footnotes omitted) (citing Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244, 287, 341 (1901)), available at http://lawreview.uchicago.edu/sites/lawreview.uchicago.edu/files/uploads/77.2/77-2-PoliticalRootsOfJudicialLegitimacy-Vignarajah.pdf. The same article also notes that Balzac unanimously reaffirmed the view expressed in Downes (so we can put to bed any argument about the first sentence of Vignarajah's paragraph. Id. at 790 n.29. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 04:37, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

TVH, when you refer to what I have written, could you please ensure that you reflect it accurately. I did not say, "TFD asserts international law recognizes only common law citizenship by kingdom, not by naturalization nor statute which can be withdrawn at will in the U.K. Parliament." I merely observed that international law recognizes nationality, while citizenship is part of domestic law. Also your continued references to the racist and "apartheid" nature of the insular cases is trying. It would be racist for the U.S. to dismiss the right of self-determination of its insular nations and unilaterally incorporate them into the state. TFD (talk) 17:28, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Seconded. TVH has been misrepresenting my own positions, sources, and motivations quite egregiously. The three law review articles I've cited are not tertiary sources. TVH's single district court case is useless as a source, and my possible substitution of "abrogated" for "overruled" or vice versa, which was based on my own mistaken misreading of a citator signal, not any of the tertiary sources I've cited since I joined this discussion. And TVH's attempt to apply some segregationist guilt-by-association logic (essentially Reductio ad Hitlerum) to valid sources (and if you read the law review articles I've cited, at least one, if not two of them try to argue the abrogation of the Insular Cases). —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 17:42, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Well look at this: "Even though, to the best of our knowledge and research, no current scholar, from any methodological perspective, defends The Insular Cases, they remain good law . . . ." Gary Lawson & Robert D. Sloane, The Constitutionality of Decolonization by Associated Statehood: Puerto Rico's Legal Status Reconsidered, 50 B.C. L. Rev. 1123, 1146 (2009). All Lawson and Sloane say is that the current status of PR is probably unconstitutional and in violation of international law. Even assuming their contention is correct (and it may be), that does not change PR's status. Throw in Sparrow and you've got support for a statement that "PR's status is legally complex." Boom roasted. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 18:58, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

What we seem to have is the situation where the territories' status is quite well legally defined; an unincorporated territory with only the US laws that congress has extended to it (which are quite a few), but that this legal definition may not be completely, well, legal. Given that' it may be best to take the lead back to the status quo ante, and take note of the situation in the main article, and link this to expansion on a more focused article, say Territories of the United States. CMD (talk) 00:48, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

By secondary source Vignarajah, Insular Cases only reiterate the historical case described by Sparrow. The territories held by the U.S. are not states, Congress has and may choose varying degrees of local autonomy, less-than-a-state, not statehood on a deadline. With local population acceptance of constitution, congress and federal courts, and "the country" i.e. congress granting fundamental constitutional protections, full citizenship, local autonomy in republican self-government, and Member of Congress, the "legacy of the Northwest Territory" takes hold, and the U.S.G. meets its obligation to a colonial minority population in a nation-state per U.N. resolution: basic human rights, full citizenship, local autonomy and participation in national councils (Lawson and Sloane).

Lawson and Sloane in Boston College Law Review tells us the modern era territories have, "regardless of the theoretical" implications of the Insular Cases, "local autonomy" and a constitutional status “equivalent” to incorporated states.
Reisman-McDougal-Sloane reference, Most in the U.N. see U.S.-PR commonwealth as “acceptable”, or “benign” ,“adequate under contemporary law”. Only a “small minority [sees it] as unlawful per se.”
Now, Vignarajah in the U. of Chicago Law Review, In the Insular Cases, the court found that “Puerto Rico was not a state but rather a territory held by the United States”, likewise Hawaii and Philippines.
In Vignarajah, "the literature" includes both Torruella, and Sparrow using the very articles previously cited. Expanding the federal republic beyond 1783 Treaty of Paris boundaries, the U.S. expanded from the Mississippi River to the west coast until "today the U.S. includes territories in the Caribbean and Pacific." (Sparrow). TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:26, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

And? That it has rights equivalent to an incorporated state doesn't make it incorporated, that it's legal (or illegal) doesn't make it incorporated. Sparrow, as noted, includes the territories in the United States by discussing the United States as an Empire, much like Kenya was in Britain, when Britain was an Empire. None of this shows incorporation, which we have legal sources noting hasn't happened. CMD (talk) 10:45, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

[insert] The American "empire" outside the federal republic at 1805 and after, is the territory not a part of the U.S. at the 1783 Treaty of Paris, which is incorporated as you have conceded for 20th century Arizona, New Mexico, Alaska and Hawaii. Kenya was not given representation in Parliament, it was not admitted to the U.K. “on an equal footing” with Scotland, England and Wales “when Britain was an empire", as were Arizona, New Mexico, Alaska and Hawaii in the American “democratic empire” (Sparrow). The parallel does not hold. And, I have not finished reading Vignarajah in the U. of Chicago Law Review, which discusses the Insular Cases in historical context, which I value greatly, and it is a source -- there is no source for U.S. Arizona Territory = British Kenya colony, is there? I'm going to finish reading Vignarajah, a source, versus more madeup. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 20:40, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

I'll address your points one-by-one:

Here are the two Lawson and Sloane quotes you use, in context:
In practice, whatever the theoretical scope of congressional power over Puerto Rico under the Territories Clause and the Insular Cases doctrine, the United States has in fact vested Puerto Ricans with (or recognized judicially) virtually the same constitutional rights and privileges enjoyed by citizens of the several states. The consistent trend since 1952, even if only as a matter of policy, has been to expand this category. The Supreme Court has held, for example, that due process and equal protection apply to Puerto Ricans, although it has--probably deliberately--declined to specify whether these constitutional principles apply by virtue of the Fifth or Fourteenth Amendment.
Gary Lawson & Robert D. Sloane, The Constitutionality of Decolonization by Associated Statehood: Puerto Rico's Legal Status Reconsidered, 50 B.C. L. Rev. 1123, 1162 (2009).
Professor Helfeld speculates, plausibly, "that the Court wished to avoid the implications of grounding its decision on either the Fifth or Fourteenth Amendments" because "[i]f it had relied on the former, it might have given the impression that Puerto Rico continues to be a territory," whereas, had it relied on the Fourteenth Amendment, "that could have been interpreted as the equivalent of defining Puerto Rico as a state of the union." [David M. Helfeld, How Much of the United States Constitution and Statutes Are Applicable to the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico?, 110 F.R.D. 449, 456 (1986).]
Id. at 1162 n.213. In sum, what this means is that Puerto Ricans are equivalent to citizens of the several states, not that Puerto Rico is equivalent to the several states.
I'm not sure what reference you're talking about re: Reisman, McDougal and Sloane. Just searching by your quotations, I could not find it on Westlaw. Please provide a reference to the journal, volume and page number or range.
Your quotation comes from a paragraph having to do with Dooley:
The two final installments decided the following term did little to dislodge this overall result. In Dooley v United States, the Court took up the issue of the constitutionality of the Foraker Act itself. The Act fixed duties on imports into Puerto Rico, and was challenged as a violation of Article I, § 9 of the Constitution, which states that "no tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any state." The case again hinged on whether Puerto Rico was a domestic state, foreign sovereign, or something in between. Finding that Puerto Rico was not a state but rather a territory held by the United States, the Court upheld the Act's constitutionality.
Vignarajah at 795-96 (footnotes omitted). The specific language you quoted merely means that Puerto Rico is not a state but a territory.
Merely because source A cites source B for point X, and source B also contains point Y, does not mean that source A endorses point Y. Furthermore, the point in Sparrow that you cite just supports the concept that the current practical status of Puerto Rico is complex.

So basically, there's no real counter to the point that the Insular Cases are still good law, and that the Insular Cases establish that Puerto Rico is, as Justice White put it, "foreign to the United States in a domestic sense." Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244, 341 (1901) (White, J. concurring). I don't personally consider that to be a particularly just position for Puerto Rico, but that doesn't change either the political or practical realities of Puerto Rico's status. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 17:48, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

[Insert] Thank you for the fair hearing, and taking my understanding at face value. Thank you. You are correct, I am persuaded that Insular Cases are good law in permitting statute and administration of U.S.G. to govern the modern era U.S. territories UNLIKE a state in the matter of imports and taxation – I would add from Sparrow, as it has for all previously “incorporated” territories such as AZ, NM, AK and HI.

“Foreign to the United States in a domestic [admitted state] sense” is the same 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica usage of U.S. as 50 states only, without DC or territories of any description, still gotta see what the take of Vignarajah is in the U. of Chicago Law Review. Since Downes, Puerto Ricans have learned English, practiced republican three-branch government, accepted citizenship in 1952, and elected a Member of Congress for fifty years.

U.S. population in Puerto Rico are not a state, but islanders enjoy full citizenship which is not anticipated anywhere in Downes, is it? unless Congress exercises its political function TOGETHER with island populations beginning 1952? I am reading Vignarahah as fast as I can…GREAT source, thank you. Ah, ‘the political or practical realities” of constitutional status of the modern era U.S. territories. Is the Government Accountability Office report on Insular Territories 1995 a reliable (admissible) source? Are Lawson and Sloane in the Boston College Law Review? You are correct, neither contradicts the premise that U.S. territories are not states, but Downes does not deny Congress the ability to extend rights and privileges of previous territories? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 20:40, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

The case TheVirginiaHistorian is referring to is Examining Board v. Flores de Otero 1976. As written in Human Rights and Non-Discrimination in the 'War on Terror' pp. 150-151, "...although this question has not yet been finally settled by the US courts, there is a strong case that not only international human rights law but also fundamental constitutional rights, including the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendements, are applicable in military commission trials--even if the trials are held at Guantanamo....In its previous case law, the Supreme Court has made it clear that the government may not act inconsistently with the Constitution, whether within US territory or abroad. It has also repeatedly held that fundamental consitutional rights extend to territory where the United States has governing authority--it is the exercise of jurisdiction and control, rather than nominal sovereignty, that obligates the United States to recognise fundamental rights.[20]

The U.S. constitution does not bestow rights on citizens but prevents the government from depriving people of rights, whether citizens, nationals or aliens, regardless of where in the world they happen to be.

TFD (talk) 18:49, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

I think you missed the mark. No modern era organized U.S. territory is ruled by a military governor (Sparrow Phase I), nor an appointed governor (Sparrow Phase II). All have elected governors (Sparrow Phase III) in preparation for statehood, including fundamental constitutional protections, full citizenship in self-autonomous republican government, and Member of Congress. Wasn't the Reisman, McDougal and Sloane article in University of Missouri Law Review? I'll try to find it for you tomorrow morning. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 21:27, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Unlike incorporated territories, the outcome could also be independence by act of Congress. TFD (talk) 12:24, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Correct, incorporated territories are not made independent by congress. Unincorporated territories such as Philippines may be made independent by ** mutual Congress and Territory legislation. After unincorporated territories are incorporated by ** mutual Congress and Territory legislation, AND ** ratified by the territory's populace by referendum, legislation or convention, THEN ** a territory cannot be made independent but by a constitutional amendment --- certainly not by civil war. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 06:35, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

From the perspective of the U.S. Census Bureau, past and present

Perhaps another way to determine the status of territories in terms of 'include' v 'exclude' is to approach the matter from the perspective of the U.S. Census Bureau. The Census Bureau has for some time regarded the (former) territories much in the same way they do the states, and when accessing the population of the country they also include that of the territories and have been for some time.

Statistical View of the United States: Embracing Its Territory, Population ...(1854)

United States Vacant Lands, Located by States, Territories, Districts and Counties ...(1915), p.3, it reads :
The public lands of the United States are included within the States of Alabama, Arkansas, California ... and the territory of Alaska. Each of these States and Territories comprise one or more land districts.

Territories and Dependencies of the United States: Their Government and Administration, (1905)
As dependent territory to this, but none the less under the sovereignty of the United States, are the vast territories of Alaska 'm Porto Rico ' Guam (etc.)

A Historical Atlas Of The United States And Its Territories (2004)
These island territories add about 4,000 sq miles of land to the United States' total area.

Here is an assortment of other publications that may help bring added perspective to all points of contention.

-- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:18, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

I'd generally respond to this with the position I've been advocating since the start: the phrase "United States" is ambiguous, depending on context, as to whether the territories are implied by that phrase. 77 Am. Jur. 2d United States § 1 and 91 C.J.S. United States § 1. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:03, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

That allowance for "United States" is ambiguous, depending on context, may be all that can be fairly asked for, given this page's history on the subject -- as long as 1. the possibility of variable levels of autonomy is admitted, 2. including the U.S.G. representations for itself on the matter and 3. as qualified by other reliable sources. ---

U.S.G. makes a comprehensive claim including all five organized territories. But Puerto Rico's history alone is complicated by federal courts ruling it a part of the U.S. without express language using "incorporated" in statute -- which Justice White recommended to Congress -- and another federal court ruled a territory "incorporated" without express statutory language before in Rassmussen for Alaska(!) -- with citizens and a tax district alone! The primary sources are way to complex for summary encyclopedic language without secondary sources.

Let me finish Vignarajah in the U. of Chicago Law Review, way too complicated in the weeds without him or other secondary sources. Northern Marianas has "political union" since 1985, but Guam, American Samoa and U.S. Virgin Is. are under international investigation ... rather than settling all on a Wikipedia page, --- Can we let the page admit the various iterations of autonomy from several reliable sources? It just doesn't seem right to disqualify U.S.G. when only "a small minority" of the U.N. General Assembly believe the U.S. Puerto Rican Commonwealth is unlawful. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 21:05, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

What does the possibility of varying levels of autonomy have to do with anything? It's totally irrelevant to the discussion at hand, as are sources about Alaska unless they relate themselves to the situation being discussed. As for the USG position, here's the state department page listing the territories as dependencies. CMD (talk) 11:21, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

varying levels of autonomy refers to the U.S. constitutional practice of giving territories less right-privilege than states until their admission on an equal footing as states, AZ, NM, AK, HI in the 20th century, and now, the five organized territories.

Alaska is "totally irrelevant", Alaska, like the modern five territories, was not in the federal republic originally, it was not "expressly" made incorporated by statute. But in Rassmussen the Court said Alaska WAS incorporated. Congress had made a) citizens and b) tax district there. So. Modern era territories like Alaska with a) citizens and b) tax district, are incorporated without "express" incorporation, just like the Court said in Rassmussen for Alaska Territory.

As for the U.S.G. position, the tertiary list shows dependencies as a part of the U.S., just not states. We have secondary government sources that the U.S. INCLUDES organized territories -- from 1. State Department, 2. GAO, 3. Homeland Security and 4. Census Department. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:19, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

You've not shown what the US constitutional practice of giving territories less privileges than states and the various rights Alaska had when it was incorporated have to do with whether the territories in question are incorporated or not, that entire premise relies on your own OR and synthesis. As has been pointed out many times, the secondary government sources included them for the purposes of the lists involved, which they had to clarify in the beginning (there's never any need to clarify whether the 50 states and DC are in the US). Mendaliv's sources on the other hand explicitly note the territories are unincorporated. CMD (talk) 12:32, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

[insert] The premise is that Wikpedia editors should use a) secondary government and scholarly sources supported by primary documents, --- rather than b) tertiary editor synthesis in lists and digests with contradicting primary sources. Confusion at the CMD 8:32 post. Tertiary sources make lists of “U.S. government” on .gov webpages include both states and territories, with no statement, “territories are not a part of the U.S.” Twelve other .gov-related usages here at Talk (will repost on request), show territories included with states and DC, without separation between them. Secondary government sources are preferred, they write in complete sentences within interpretive narratives, “the U.S. includes territories.”

CMD is correct, U.S.G. secondary sources have clarified that “Today, the U.S. includes” the five organized territories. Correct again, as U.S.G. says the U.S. includes a., b., and c., there is never any need to clarify a. and b., --- AND there is no justification to exclude c., the territories, because clarification to include them has been made in secondary Government (State, GAO, Homeland, Census) and scholarly (Lawson and Sloan, Juan R. Torruella, Levinson and Sparrow) -- sources, as cited, directly quoted, linked and archived above. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:58, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Pamphlets issued by the USG are not secondary sources. Can you please explain why a reasonable person would prefer a statement in a pamphlet for immigrants to official statements by the USG or legal articles and textbooks on public international law? Instead of searching for sources to support your views, you should identify the best sources and run with what they say. TFD (talk) 01:12, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

[insert] Unsupported tertiary sources with editor synthesis referenced without proper citation are OVERRULED by direct quotes from named secondary government references, supported by properly sourced scholarship --- in 70x longer pamphlets, constitutional reports to Congress and Foreign Affairs Manuals --- vetted by USG attorneys for State, GAO and Homeland before publication by the US Government Printing Office --- interpreting Congressional statutes in their entirety, in force currently for use by US diplomats, Representatives and immigrants applying for citizenship. ** Contrary to tertiary editor synthesis, ALL law review articles you source DO support "include territories", NONE deny it in a direct quote for any territory as organized after 1985, three decades ago. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:54, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Government pamphlets are tertiary. Presumably the authors based their writings on secondary sources. How do you know that they were vetted by constitutional lawyers? And government pamphlets do not overrule presidential orders, congressional legislation and international law. The only "constitutional reports to Congress" that have been presented claim that the unincorporated territories are not part of the U.S. TFD (talk) 20:00, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

In 1854 the U.S. only had incorporated territories. Since the insular cases determined Alaska was incorporated, one would expect that a 1915 source would refer to it as part of the U.S. It is interesting that the 1905 source refers to Alaska as a "dependent territory", i.e., owned by but not part of the U.S. However that was the same year as the Rasmussen case that determined Alaska was part of the U.S. This whole approach is however wrong - searching for obscure, ancient references that support a specific view. TVH, your comments on the U.N. are wrong. While the USG claims that Puerto Rico is a separate state in "free association" with the U.S., Cuba and 30 other states claim that it remains under U.S. control and should therefore be returned to the list of non-self governing territories. Note that the USVI, American Samoa and Guam remain on the list, having been placed there by the USG. TFD (talk) 12:13, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

I have asked you to help me get more sourced counter-U.S.G. takes on the U.S. territories to balance the article, in footnotes if need be, but without blocking sourced U.S.G. claims.

Searching for obscure, ancient references that support a specific view. That would be your a) Insular Cases used NOT relative to their federal taxing discretion--still good law, but misapplied to modern local republican government as 1910 alien peoples unacquainted with U.S. law and custom, b) referencing undated international claims made a half-century ago, without sources,

Comments on U.N. are wrong, may be so, but I sourced it to a scholar in a reliable source. c) You claim without a source, 15% of U.N. General Assembly (30/193) want to add more U.S. territories to the non-self governing list. That merits adding to our territory counter-claims of Haiti, Cuba, et al. But without sources the 15% does not rise to the level of wp:importance, because they failed again this session to get their motion on the agenda for a vote in the U.N. General Assembly. Lets get some additional sources. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:41, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Since the position of both the U.S. and its opponents is that the territories are not part of the U.S., there is no reason to add their views for balance. No idea why you say "without a source" - you brought up the UN resolution without a source, I assume you are familiar with it. The insular cases are hardly obscure compared for example with an 1854 geography book, and are valid law. Most importantly, I am using contemporary legal articles that refer to the ancient cases. Note also that the consistitution is even older yet is still good law today, and we are allowed to use current legal textbooks that interpret it. TFD (talk) 13:03, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Here is a link to the draft resolution that was passed by the Special Committee on Decolonization. Upon reading it again, I see that the number "30" refers to the petitioners, but the proposal had the support of the Non-Aligned Movement, which represents 120 states. Notice the wording in the report: "the United States considered the island to have decided freely and democratically to enter into free association with it...." It does not say that the position of the U.S. is that it has incorporated PR into the republic. TFD (talk) 13:28, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

The committee report did not make it to the U.N. General Assembly agenda for a vote again this year. However, it should be folded into the Counter-U.S.G. note sources just as soon as we have a scholarly source. The Cuban delegate did say there should be a review of status, but the petitioners should find a mutual agreement between PR and U.S. under international law. Then the November 2012 referendum followed with only 4% for independence.

The U.N. Committee report is a primary document. What does it mean? Apart from editor-opinion, to date, we only have Reisman-McDougal-Sloane to say, Most in the U.N., elites and majority, see U.S.-PR commonwealth as “acceptable”, or “benign”, “adequate under contemporary law”. Only a “small minority [sees it] as unlawful per se.”, according to the secondary source at hand. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:30, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

You are misrepresenting the nature of the dispute. The committee is not in dispute about whether or not the territories are part of the US because the USG claims that they are not part of the US. The dispute is about whether the US respects their right to self-determination which is the stated position of the USG. If anything, the Cuban position is closer to your reasoning, that the USG has illegally incorporated the territories. TFD (talk) 13:02, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

[insert] The USG claims that [U.S. territories] are not part of the US. no source, only wp:madeup, versus sources that say "include". This last post is puzzling. You suggested the Lawson and Sloane law review article. The TFDs scholars demonstrate PR is a part of the U.S. by U.N. Res. 567 tests for self-determination of a colonial minority population in a nation-state (not independence, self-determination -- the explicit U.N. goal at its creation for colonial peoples world-wide). FIRST, “PR manifestly … enjoys virtually complete autonomy over its local affairs (p.1160). SECOND, in practice -- whatever the theoretical scope of the Insular Cases doctrine -- the U.S. “has in fact vested Puerto Ricans by statute or judicially, "virtually the same constitutional rights and privileges enjoyed by citizens of the several states. The consistent trend since 1952 … has been to expand this category.” (p.1162) --- The U.S.G. says the U.S. includes modern territories, and scholars say both they are included in the federal republic (Sparrow) and they have achieved self-determination by U.N. standards (Lawson and Sloane).

The 96% [commonwealth or statehood] vs 4% [independence] has no impact whatsoever, because Cuba does not say so? I stand with the Puerto Ricans, regardless what editors may believe the "inevitable" may be. While there are yet nation-states, Puerto Ricans choose the U.S., not other popular vacation spots, spending U.S. dollars in Cuba or Guatemala. The Puerto Rican autonomous legislature made a Joint Resoluton to U.S. Congress 11 December 2012 to be admitted as a state. TFD has already proclaimed his wish for PR to be a state or independent. Let's not start a list of failed U.N. counter-USG resolutions which are never voted on in the U.N. General Assembly. We could not the PR Joint Resolution for statehood, however. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:08, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Merely because some US Government publication says something doesn't mean we blindly accept it. What matters is what scholars say. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 14:27, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Merely because some publications say the American Union is illegal, WP does not blindly dismiss what U.S.G. secondary sources from State, GAO and Homeland say --- because --- they interpret Congressional statutes. --- we do not have to rely on original editor synthesis. We do not rely only on U.S.G. secondary sources, we also use what scholars say, a) Today, the U.S. "includes" organized Pacific and Caribbean territories. b) modern U.S. territories have a constitutional status "equivalent" to states, and c) their populations have freely expressed their will to have paths to full U.S. citizenship. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:08, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Whether the U.S. relationship with its territories is irrelevant to whether or not they are part of the U.S. TFD (talk) 14:22, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

When the US relationship with its territories is self-determination (united nations, international law) and federal Union (constitution, congress), is relevant to whether or not they are "a part of the US". Decolonization webpage viewed March 20, 2013 ref. Gen. Assy. Res. 1541 (XV) of 1961, There are three ways in which a Non-Self-Governing Territory can exercise self-determination and full measure self-government: ** By free association in a free, informed democratic process; ** By integrating with “complete equality between the peoples” of Territory and State; ** By becoming independent. The "virtual equivalence" of peoples in US territories and states does not require territories to become states. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 06:45, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Interesting...

What do we think of this line? "The United States is . . . entirely separate and distinct from the District of Columbia." 91 C.J.S. United States § 2 (citing Randolph v. District of Columbia, 156 A.2d 686, 688 (D.C. 1959)). This isn't a highly cited case, but the point is that even in some contexts, for very real legal purposes (in this case, double jeopardy) the United States does not even include D.C. But then again... "The boundaries of the United States conform to the external boundaries of the several states, including all areas subject to the jurisdiction of the federal government wherever located, such as overseas territories." 91 C.J.S. United States § 4 (citing State v. Bob Manashian Painting, 782 N.E.2d 701, 705 (Mun. Ct. 2002)).

I'm reminded of an unrelated case that I've had to read a lot lately, Frazier v. Cupp. In 1964, Martin Rene Frazier was convicted of the murder of Russell Anton Marleau, in part on the strength of evidence police uncovered when they searched a duffel bag in the possession of Frazier's cousin Jerry Lee Rawls. When he was arrested, the police asked Rawls for the clothing he had worn on the day of the murder, and led police to the duffel bag, which was in his bedroom at his mother's house. Both he and his mother consented to the police search of the duffel bag, which did contain some of Rawls' clothing, but also contained Frazier's clothing, though possibly in a separate part of the bag. Frazier argued that Rawls' authority to consent to a search of the bag did not extend to that separate compartment. Writing for a unanimous court, Thurgood Marshall refused to "engage in such metaphysical subtleties in judging the efficacy of Rawls' consent." 394 U.S. 731, 740 (1969). In the spirit of this, I humbly suggest that we are getting into metaphysical subtleties of our own. It's flat out not possible to craft a single, concise sentence that adequately and accessibly expresses the relationship of the territories to the United States, which makes a lot of our above discussion (admittedly, even or perhaps especially mine) rather academic.

So where do we go from here? Some of us argue that the territories are not part of the country, some of us argue that they are, and I think all are generally in agreement that addressing any ambiguity in the lede is not feasible. So what do we do? —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 13:27, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

I think we should define the U.S. as it is normally defined and mention that the term is sometimes used in a broader sense, which is what Am Ju says. In Randolph v. D.C., the term U.S. is used in a very narrow sense to mean the U.S. government. What the court said about DC is equally true of any state (or territory). Both the federal and state governments may prosecute persons on the same facts, while each government may only prosecute once. Curiously, the cases cited by Am Ju referred to all three definitions, but Am Ju only mentions two. Some illuminati conspiracy theorists claim DC is outside the US and would probably seize on this case.

I do not think that a municipal court decision is a good source. The case cites Hooven & Allison Co. v. Evatt for the statement,[21] just as Am Ju does. It is a clear error because it is interpreting the Citizenship Clause which of course does not apply to territories. If it were true then American Samoans would be citizens.

TFD (talk) 14:22, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Of course we should not use individual court cases alone, they are primary sources, they should only used with care to illustrate secondary sources. Does the tertiary source show the Citizenship clause applied because that is the court's understanding of the constitution, citing superior court precedent? TFD is uncertain as to any authority which might be derived from a reading a tertiary source.

But TFD unsourced, says which of course does not apply to territories. TFD insists on a parallel universe, taking onto himself what the Supreme Court says cannot be done, as citizenship is "irrevocable". Naturalized American Samoans returning (one-year residence in Guam or Hawaii) are full U.S. citizens. Their children born on Samoa are full citizens by blood. In-migrating U.S. citizens in permanent residence on Samoa do not loose their status; their children are citizens. More wp:madeup unsourced TFD. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:46, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Again, if the territories were part of the U.S., there would be no need for Congress to extend citizenship to them because the Citizenship Clause would apply. If American Samoa were part of the U.S., evey person born there would be citizens at birth, just as they are in any state and D.C. While it is true that children of American citizens born in American Samoa are American citizens, that is also true of children born to American parents in Canada and Mexico, but does not incorporate those countries into the U.S. TFD (talk) 12:53, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Missed the mark again. If the territories were STATES, there would be no need to extend citizenship to them. Congress has extended variable status to populations in incorporated territories. The 20th century saw various citizen, national, domestic alien, resident alien status in Arizona, New Mexico, Alaska and Hawaii, --- encompassing in-migrant, aboriginal, Mexican, Russian, Spanish, German and Dutch populations. That the American Samoa population has more rights and privileges than previously "incorporated territories" does not make American Samoa "unincorporated". It is another proof the modern U.S. territories are included, as the U.S.G. secondary and scholarly sources say they are, as cited, quoted and linked, as "a part of the U.S." TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:25, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Do you have any sources that Congress extended citizenship to Arizona and New Mexico and why the Citizenship Clause was not sufficient. TFD (talk) 14:30, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Contrasting -- delayed -- extension of citizenship is well documented in Julian Go's article in Levinson and Sparrow, as you well know by now, as cited, quoted and linked on these talk pages. Do you have any sources to say Arizona, New Mexico, Alaska and Hawaii are "incorporated" into a federal republic of living persons by 1854 -- before there are territorial names chosen or boundaries enacted, 5,000 U.S. citizens resident, or territorial Member of Congress?

Where did you get that remarkable factoid, All present U.S. is incorporated by 1854? You have assured me before that this American history of yours is not wp:madeup. I am prepared to believe you for the sake of discussion. Where is it to be found? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:11, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I did not know you were referring to the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo 1848, which incorporated conquered Mexican territory into the U.S. and predated the creations of the New Mexico and Arizona territories, and of course the citizenship clause. Of course after a territory is incorporated, there is no need to extend citizenship, because incorporation bestows citizenship on the inhabitants, at least those born after incorporation. The "factoid" is drawn from the insular cases that determined that only those territories obtained from Spain in 1898 were unincorporated. If you have any examples of unincorporated territories acquired before that time, then please provide them. Again, If American Samoa were part of the U.S., evey person born there would be citizens at birth, just as they are in any state and D.C. TFD (talk) 13:46, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Every person born in U.S. territories of MP, GM, PR and VI are citizens at birth, so all four are incorporated? Then agreed those four are a part of the U.S., and we are left with the ambiguous status of Samoa, the "last overseas territory" according to the U.S. State Department. Let’s plunge forward without your giving me the courtesy of a reply, assuming good faith.

At Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, ARTICLE IX. The Mexicans who, [in ‘territories previously belonging to Mexico’, not] citizens of the Mexican Republic, … shall be incorporated into the Union of the United States, and be admitted at the proper time (to be judged of by the Congress of the United States) to the enjoyment of all the rights of citizens of the United States, according to the principles of the Constitution ...”

So here at this treaty which you agree should be governing in our discussion, ‘incorporation’ is citizenship of persons, not express statute organizing territory. Prior to the establishment of the New Mexico territory with an at-large territorial Member of Congress in 1850, and the establishment of Arizona in 1863, resident Spanish-speaking aliens are “incorporated” by the promise of eventual “enjoyment of all the rights of citizens of the U.S.” as “judged of by the Congress”.

Are not territories in the modern era incorporated by actual “enjoyment of all the rights of citizens of the U.S.” by Congress for fifty years, i.e., MP, GM, PR, and VI? On what grounds do you accept Mexican citizen ‘incorporation’ five years before the fact in AZ and NM territories, but you would deny islander ‘incorporation’ fifty years after the fact of their full U.S. citizenship, incorporated into the Union of the United States? On what grounds? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 19:52, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Territories become absorbed into the U.S. when Congress incorporates them. Before they are absorbed, Congress may enact any laws whatsoever regarding territories, except as prohibited by the U.S. constitution. All your facts may be reasons that Congress should incorporate the territories, or alternatively that Congress has put them on the same level as states. But is not the same thing. And here is the difference - the constitution does not extend in its entirety, Congress reserves the power to dispose of the territories, foreign nations do not recognize the territories as part of the U.S. and the indigenous populations retain their indigenous nationality and right to self-determination. The U.S. is aware of its international responsibilities to citizens of its possessions and continues to report on those that remain on the list of non-self governing territories. TFD (talk) 21:56, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Very well, although we agreed on four territories ‘a part of the U.S.’, you have second thoughts. Now we agree on two certainly ‘a part of the U.S., as N. Marianas and Puerto Rico are not under investigation as ‘non-self governing’ territories. This leaves an article requirement for "U.S. territory ambiguity" in three levels of autonomy. a) USG self-described “last overseas territory” American Samoa, b) USG claimed ‘included’ Guam and Virgin Is. under U.N. ‘non-self governing’ investigation, and c) USG claimed ‘included’ N. Marianas and Puerto Rico. Let’s plunge on assuming good faith.

Internationally, I use TFD source Lawson and Sloane. By U.N. Gen. Assy. Res. 567 “self-determination” as a minority in a nation-state requires a) fundamental human rights, b) full citizenship and self-governance, c) participation in national councils. U.S. territories meet that under U.S. “constitutional practice”: a) fundamental constitutional rights, b) full citizenship and republican self-government, and c) territorial Member of Congress. Lawson and Sloane demonstrate regardless of the “theoretical” limits of the Insular Cases, U.S. territories have achieved “virtual equivalence” of states for their citizen rights and privileges, "self-determination".

There are a “small minority” of U.N. nations described in a TFD source which do not recognize US territories as a part of the USG; Syria may change its alignment on this question shortly. But wp:fringe should not govern an editorial policy to a) automatically dismiss everything published by the USG concerning itself in secondary sources, nor should b) USG view necessarily taint the assessment of reliable secondary scholarly sources that Today, the U.S. includes five organized territories, constitutionally equivalent to states in protections for their populations in fundamental rights, full citizenship, autonomous governance, and national legislature. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:52, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

No nation in the world, including the U.S. and the territories themselves have ever recognized the territories as part of the U.S. and I certainly did not agree you on any of them. N. Marianas and Puerto Rico are not under investigation as ‘non-self governing’ territories because the U.N. accepted the U.S. claim that they are separate nations in free association with the U.S. Lawson and Sloane do not talk about minorities and here is a link to the UN resolution. Can you tell me what you are referring to? TFD (talk) 09:14, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

You have agreed territories are a part of the U.S. for the purposes of Congressional representation, defense, transportation, energy, education, health, citizenship, census "natural-born" American and all U.S. federal code "as states". BUT your answer to every citation is that although each is true for its own sphere, the inclusion of law, administration and jurisprudence in each of these matters is not comprehensive in all respects of statehood, and so a territory cannot exist in any aspect of nation-state for a federal republic.

To what am I referring? I'm referring to the secondary source of published academic scholars in a reliable journal. Surely we can now move away from dueling primary sources. Today, the U.S. includes five organized territories according to secondary government and scholarly sources. You still have no sources to say the U.S.G. does not include its autonomously self-governing territories as a part of its federal republic. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:54, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

You said that according to Lawson and Sloane, Resolution 567 referred to "“self-determination” as a minority in a nation-state". The link I provided to the resolution shows that it says no such thing and Lawson and Sloane do not make that claim. Perhaps you were confusing the resolution with something else. And I did not say "a territory cannot exist" in a nation-state or a federal republic. Clearly it can as an "incorporated territory." Both Canada and Australia have incorporated territories for example. (Although they are not technically "republics".) Obviously if a country has territories, it will exercise some degree of jurisdiction over them and may allow them some degree of self-government, but that does not incorporate them. TFD (talk) 16:24, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Not your interpretation of a 1952 primary source, in a peer-reviewed in a 2005 law review, to the scholar's satisfaction, today Puerto Rico has "self-determination" in a U.S. territory as intended by the U.N. -- without becoming a state. The U.N. never required an 1860 Texas independence by force of arms, but population 'self-determinatiion' in a. basic human rights, b. full citizenship in self-governing autonomy and c. representation in national councils (Congress). In the Lawson-Sloane view, U.N. allows for latitude in constitutional practice, including that of modern era U.S. territories "equivalent" to states, without becoming states.

Exercising sovereignty over a people does not incorporate them, their acceptance of political union does. From 1947 Northern Marianas were a part of the UN Trust Territory of Pacific Islands . Then in 1978, the people of the Northern Mariana Islands opted for an association making them U.S. citizens. In “1986, the N. Mariana Is. became a Commonwealth in political union with the US”. -- Stanley O. Roth, Asst. Secy Dept. of State, House International Relations Committee testimony October 1998. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:39, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I assumed that you were providing an incorrect cite. Since you say you are not could you please provide the page no. where Sparrow says that Resolution 567 refers to "a minority in a nation-state" or where in the resolution it says that. Incidentally, "in political union" does not mean part of. Associated states for example are in union with each other, yet you do not claim that Palau is part of the U.S. American states are in union with each other yet are not part of each other. TFD (talk) 16:31, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Your source for Lawson-and-Sloane uses Res. 567 to document their (secondary) scholarship that the U.S. meets its international obligations for Puerto Rico's "self-determination" in 2005 with a constitutional status "virtually equivalent to states" --- as a U.S. territory without statehood. --- On the other hand, Sparrow integrates historical perspective of U.S. constitutional practice incorporating territories "in preparation for statehood" to show that, Today, the U.S. includes organized territories in Pacific and Caribbean which are in the "legacy of Northwest Territory" once denied Spanish colonial peoples a century ago. Try asking your question again.

The three associated states with the U.S. are Micronesia, Marshall Is. and Pelau; these are not U.S. territories, a part of the U.S. with full citizenship with Members of Congress. You've referred to this wp:madeup political union U.S. factoid before without sourcing it for modern era U.S. territories and Texas. Where does anyone besides TFD unsourced, assert political union in the U.S. federal republic does not make Texas and N. Marianas "a part of the U.S." in the modern era?

Please do not logic away about involuntary empires of the past --- without sources to link their constitutional practice to modern era U.S. territories with full citizenship, referendums to determine their constitutional status, territorial Members of Congress, and autonomous locally elected governors and legislatures. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 17:09, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

You are saying that Sparrow argues that because Puerto Rico meets its obligations for Puerto Rico's self determination that PR is part of the U.S. In fact he argues the exact opposite - that Puerto Rico is part of the U.S. "empire" because the U.S. does not respect its self-determination. Why do you think he uses the term "empire" if not in reference to "involuntary empires of the past" - there was nothing voluntary about American annexation of any of its territories - all of which were obtained from other empires, not by the consent of the inhabitants. TFD (talk) 18:15, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Sparrow uses the term “democratic empire” which you have a demonstrable inability to comprehend, hence your insistence on truncating his term and misstating his meaning. The consent comes NOT from your feudal dead-hand-of-the-past, and 24-member subcommittees unable to force a UN General Assembly vote, it comes from the LIVING people there in the territories. “In three referenda, the Puerto Ricans have voted for a continued association with the US, rejecting the options of independence and the status of a state within the US.” --- See TFD source, International Law: A Dictionary on pp. 38 ff.

Once is not forever. Sparrow says that Puerto Rico in 1905 did not THEN achieve self-determination, the U.S. does not respect its self-determination. in 1905. But a century later at the 2005 University of Texas forum, ** NOW territories can be seen as included in a federal republic, and ** Today, the US includes Pacific and Caribbean territories. A sentence you also refuse to acknowledge, because it does not say what you wish it to say, sort of like "democratic-empire", which you will not say, perhaps because you have not read. Oh, maybe this is it: the italicized quote at the top of the article is a provocative attention-getter, not the article thesis --- it is attributed to an imperialist congressman in 1905, not to Sparrow in 2005. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:17, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

A search of his writing does not return the sentence, "NOW territories can be seen as included in a federal republic," although it does say the territories are "outside the sphere of its federal republic."[22] Sparrow does not call the U.S. a democratic empire but merely quotes Meinig approvingly. As you said above, it is an empire because "jurisdiction extended over people who did not have fundamental constitutional protections, full citizenship in republican self-government or a voice in territorial representation.“ It is democratic in the sense that citizens in the states do have those rights. Of course I have read the article. TFD (talk) 08:25, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Then you recall the "outside the federal republic" is outside the US of 1783 at the Treaty of Paris, where Britain and the US went behind the joint-victor French to deny them any share of the N. American lands. And EVERY state made west of the Mississippi was ** first an unincorporated possession "outside the federal republic" of 1783, ** then incorporated as a territory with citizenship, republican government and territorial Member of Congress, ** THEN admitted as a state with constitutional sovereignty, congressional representation, presidential electors of -- states. I found my copy, so I'm not limited to online view.

At the time of the Revolution, then French ally Spain had done good work fending off British incursions via Pensacola, protecting the US southern flank at a time of uninterrupted British victories throughout the southern states, where with a victory or two comparable to Virginia's Rangers up the Mississippi into KY and IL, Britain might have asserted right to the interior, as the coastal colonies were all limited by the Proclamation Line of 1763 at the outbreak of hostilities. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:53, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

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