Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States/Defining the United States of America

Over the last few months, there has been extensive discussion at Talk:United States, which I came to after a request for editor assistance looking for more policy-aware editors. After participating in this discussion for a few days, and doing some research of my own, I have concluded that any outcome, even keeping the current state of affairs at Untied States, has wide-reaching implications for many if not most of the articles within the WikiProject.

As such, I have drafted the following proposal as a long-term plan to follow with respect to the articles in question.

The issue

While the boundaries of the United States conform to the external boundaries of the several states, the meaning of "United States" is broader when the issue concerns United States' sovereignty in reference to other nations. In the latter context, the United States includes all territories subject to the jurisdiction of the federal government wherever located.

77 Am. Jur. 2d United States § 1 (citations omitted)

"United States", as a term, is ambiguous. It can refer to any of the following:

1. The sovereign nation, The United States of America, as a peer in the greater "family of nations",
2. The geographical extent of the sovereignty of the United States, or
3. The collective states that have united.

The boundaries of the "United States" extend to the external boundaries of the states, but the meaning of "United States" is broader in the first sense, where it includes all territories subject to U.S. federal jurisdiction. See generally 77 Am. Jur. 2d United States § 1; 91 C.J.S. United States § 1.

The issue for the article United States is in that this article, by necessity, must provide a broad and simple overview of the subject. The lede section of that article thus cannot, while providing due weight to all other issues, address this distinction sufficiently. The problem with this is whether a particular usage of "United States" is intended to refer simply to the 50 states and the District of Columbia, or whether it's intended to include all territories and possessions (such as Puerto Rico and the United States Virgin Islands). This has been historically contentious (consider the citizenship situation of people in the Philippines).

Why a proposal here?

The current United States article has been a focus of discussion, apparently since November. This discussion has stretched some four pages of the archives, and there has been no resolution. One recent point has been that we should follow the pattern in other articles, or at least look to them, such as Territories of the United States. However, much of the structure of that article has been shaped by the editors on one side of the issue, and thus I'm not sure following that example would reflect a true consensus, rather than simply passing the buck and letting something else stand.

Furthermore, United States is an article of top importance to the United States project, and as such, changes to it will optimally trickle down to other articles (out of a desire to maintain consistency between articles), and potentially result in the imposition of one article's structure on another.

Finally, summary style is an important standard to be followed on high-level articles like this. I am concerned that unless other articles move along the same lines as the United States article, we may indeed be left with inconsistencies between articles.

Proposal

• United States should ultimately be restructured to refer, at a high level, to the ambiguity in what the term "United States" refers. Below that level, it should be sectioned into individual discussions of the country as a geographical entity (i.e., the 50 states and D.C.), a sovereign entity (all lands, territories, and possessions), and as a governmental entity.
• Sub-articles should be restructured to reflect this overall concept of ambiguity where necessary (i.e., Territories of the United States), or make note of the definition used where appropriate (while avoiding unnecessary self-references).

Support

1. Support —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/
2. dci | TALK 23:20, 17 February 2013 (UTC). Interesting points have been brought up in the above section; although the use of the term "United States" generally implies the sovereign nation, the ambiguous nature as defined here is a good impetus further article/project development.

Oppose

1. Oppose Put yourself in the reader's shoes. When going to the United States article, the reader will not be looking for high-level information on the semantics of the term "United States"; that material will be meaningless and confusing for them. What they will want is information relating to all three uses of the term mentioned above, particularly the first two (which are fairly similar). — This, that and the other (talk) 00:11, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

   I should clarify, what you're suggesting as an alternative, that we cover all three uses, is essentially what I'm hoping to happen. At present, a locus of the debate has been that only one of the three definitions is being represented in the lede and used overall in the article, whereas other articles may be using another definition. When I say "high level", I mean at a higher level of the article outline, not a high level of complexity. That is to say, I suggest three major divisions of the U.S. article, discussing the United States as a sovereign entity among other sovereign entities, as a geographical entity, and as a governmental organization, respectively. Hope that helps. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 01:27, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

   It's difficult for me to actually work out what you are proposing. I don't support a major restructure of the United States article, however I am certainly open to more minor changes in the name of consistency. — This, that and the other (talk) 07:03, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

2. Strongly oppose We should acknowledge U.S. constitutional practice. In the 21st century, the three usages of "United States" all coincide for places with organized population and nine uninhabited possessions. In an encyclopedia for general readership, no forking need be attempted for the main country article as proposed based on 100-year alternative usage among jurists referenced in Black’s Dictionary. We should look to either the internationally recognized country itself, or secondary sources. The U.S. federal republic extends to U.S. citizens and nationals under its republican government in five organized territories, each with their own "autonomous" local government "equivalent to rights and privileges of states" by secondary sources. The nine uninhabited places are directly governed by the Fish and Wildlife Administration.

   _ _ Discussion below by sub-headers to allow related replies variously. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk)

3. Oppose; seems drastic. Unlike the Netherlands, Denmark, New Zealand, etc., the U.S. doesn't seem to look at things split up that way. There is the country, and there is its sphere, but the line between the two is blurrier than in the cast of the others. It's also original research; while it's easy to find scholarship on the extended realms of the others, you won't easily find it on the U.S., or the UK for that matter. The only question here is, what is the country? Does it include the territories or doesn't it, and if so, which territories? I don't think a drastic reorganization is required to answer that, especially a unique reorganization that doesn't really exist for any other country that I can think of. --Golbez (talk) 14:51, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
4. Oppose Under international law, which is accepted by the U.S. and the U.N., unincorporated territories lie outside the U.S. TFD (talk) 14:28, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

• This should probably stay open for a while. All interested parties might not be looking at WP on a regular basis. When you do get ready to close this, post a notice at WP:AN/RFC. and and an uninvolved editor will close it and recap the consensus, or lack of one. — Maile (talk) 23:14, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
  • The way I've seen it on other discussions, editors usually leave a comment next to their vote. If there are any comments that need to be made of extended length, editors usually put them in a section like this. Or if they want to comment without making a vote on either Support or Oppose, it would be here.
  • Also, on these kinds of discussions, some editors have voted with things like "Support", "Strong Support"., "Weak Support" or "Oppose", "Strong Oppose" or "Weak Oppose".

  — Maile (talk) 23:25, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

• The United States can be either a singular or plural term, and that impacts the intended meaning.
  • As a singular term ("The United States is...") it refers to the whole nation either as a geographical construct (the 50 states, DC and the territories) or the national government.
  • As a plural term ("The United States are...") it would refer to just the 50 states as a collective grouping, excluding the federal government, DC and the territories.
• Any discussion about the definition should include this singular–plural distinction. Imzadi 1979 → 23:59, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
  • The term "the United States are..." pretty much does not exist anymore. It was officially rejected in 1902, when a congressional committee stipulated that "the United States" is singular, not plural - but it had been going out of use for 40 years. (According to legend, usage went from "the United States are" to "the United States is" because of the Civil War).[1] For at least the past 100 years, "the United States is..." refers to the country, and the individual states may be referred to as "the states are..." There is almost no circumstance nowadays where someone might say either "the United States are..." or "the united states are..." . --MelanieN (talk) 05:05, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
• This proposal stems from my effort to make a sourced contribution to describe the U.S. as the U.S.G. describes it in 2013, supported by four academic scholars and two federal judges writing in law journals and others, see “Include territories” summary for mediation and others on current Talk. The shorthand is "include territories". Over a four-months discussion, there are no secondary sources to "exclude territories", but semantic attacks on my logic, without sources. WP country-articles should not be "cinematic subtextual criticism". There it doesn't matter what is verifiable concerning the producer on the day of shooting. As one cinematographer said, "it's about me making my case [for my aesthetic]; I either convince you or I don't." See "An hour with Quentin Tarantino", aired on Charlie Rose.

_ _ Tarantino himself distinguishes "real history" and "illuminating art" [his], and "exploitation" films, -- All editors could profit from absorbing Tanatino's intellectual distinctions, and choose "real history" for the encyclopedia. That would be based on scholarly secondary sources in reliable publications, confirmed by the text in context, subject to direct quotation -- as opposed to original editor synthesis of tertiary sources unsupported by their miscellaneous alphabetized entries. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk)

U.S. Constitutional practice

• In the United States after 1805, most U.S. territories have had a four-stage life-cycle of 1. Possessions. Military governors of acquired territory and local governments at discretion; 2. Unincorporated territory. Presidentially appointed governors of U.S. nationals and resident populations, territorial legislature serving at discretion, and Article I federal courts; 3. Incorporated territory. Locally elected governor of U.S. citizens, elected legislature, Article III federal courts, and a Member of Congress with debate privileges; 4. State admitted, providing constitutional conventions independent of congress, presidential electors and 'dual sovereignty’.

_ _ The Philippines-made-independent example above was a case of a stage-2, unincorporated U.S. territory of an appointed governor Frank Murphy in a population of U.S. nationals. All five U.S. organized territories are incorporated today, as the U.S. officially tells immigrants who would become U.S. citizens in Welcome ... a guide p.77, “The United States now consists of 50 states, the District …, the territories of Guam, American Samoa, and the U.S. Virgin Islands, ... Northern Mariana Islands and Puerto Rico.”

_ _ No source says the U.S.G. is illegitimate to speak to the extent of its own republic, no secondary source provided says, “The five organized U.S. territories of 2013 are 'not' a part of the U.S.” Several say that they are "a part of the U.S.", as previously cited and directly quoted at “Include territories” summary for mediation and others on current Talk, also archived at Talk:United States 42, 43, 44, 45. The extent of the U.S. federal republic in the country article lead should be "50 states, federal district and five organized territories." There is no "ambiguity" at any level regarding people living in 2013 U.S., appropriate to an encyclopedia of general international readership. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk)

Comparative country-article usage at WP

• Two country-article comparisons arose in the earlier discussion.

_ _ At France -- "France, officially the French Republic, is a unitary semi-presidential republic located mostly in Western Europe, with several overseas regions and territories."

_ _ Proposed U.S. -- "United States, officially the United States of America, is a federal constitutional republic of fifty states, a federal district and five organized territories."

_ _ All three usages of "United States" described in usage by jurists over 100 years of Black's Dictionary citations can be economically compassed. (a) the sovereign nation, (b) the geographical extent and (c) the collective union, are comprehended with the introductory sentence, "The U.S. is a federal constitutional republic of fifty states, a federal district, five organized territories and nine uninhabited possessions." TheVirginiaHistorian (talk)

(edit conflict)But the United States is more than the just 50 states, a federal district, and five organized territories. Depending on one's interpretation, the United States can or cannot include those territories which are unincorporated such as Guam, American Samoa, and Baker Island. As I believe was stated in the discussion on the Talk page of the United States article, the constitutional federal republic that is the United States can be seen as being an entity made up of its population, its citizens and nationals, and thus is larger than the generally defined geographical limitations.

As I said on the aforementioned talk page, it is my opinion that for the lead of the article United States, the statement about the United States should be simple and as inclusive as possible, without excluding the differing views (as supported be reliable sources, neutrally worded of course) of what the definition of this United States is (are). Elsewhere, within this article, or its related article, the differing views can be expanded upon in more depth.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 10:50, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Baker Island along with Palmyra Atoll are two of the "nine uninhabited possessions" mentioned in my #3 paragraph above. They are directly administered by the Fish and Wildlife Service of the Department of Interior. They have no organic acts organizing a population. --- The U.S. federal republic as self-government does not extend to places without organic acts of congressional incorporation. Guantanamo, leased from Cuba and administered by the Defense Department is an historically stage-1 territory administered by a military governor, not intended by Congress to be incorporated.

_ _ We are agree in general, the U.S. is an entity, to be the subject of a WP country-article including "its population, its citizens and nationals". In the Rassumussen case, Alaska 'unincorporated' by treaty was judicially ruled 'incorporated' because in making U.S. citizens by the soil, Congress "clearly intended incorporation". Children of U.S. citizens in Samoa are citizens, U.S. citizens do not lose status by permanent residence there, Samoan nationals gain U.S. citizenship by one-year residency in any place of the soil, all other elements of previously incorporated status obtain but citizenship at birth, in accordance with the treaty yielding Samoan sovereignty to the U.S.- the issue being hereditary communal property tradition, alterable only with Samoan consent.

_ _ The five organized territories of U.S. citizens and nationals are congressionally incorporated with organic acts establishing local autonomy by republican government, fundamental constitutional protections, Article III federal courts of life appointment, and a Member of Congress in the same way as previous U.S. incorporated territories since 1805. Secondary sources include Bartholomew Sparrow co-author with Sanford Levinson at University of Texas; Gary Lawson and Robert D. Sloane in the Boston College Law Review; and federal district judge Gustavo Gelpí and federal appellate judge Juan Torruella writing independently as scholars in law journals.

_ _ "Exclude territories" editors use tertiary source interpretations unsupported by secondary sources, relying solely on their own authority. The introduction sentence can economically be written, "The United States, officially the United States of America, is a federal constitutional republic of fifty states, a federal district, five organized territories and nine uninhabited possessions." That lead sentence would be shorter than that at the France article; it may be enough to best Francophiles in this one small thing, a more economically written introduction country-article sentence at Wikipedia. Then, "Elsewhere, within this article, or its related articles, the differing views can be expanded upon in more depth." Again, we are agreed in principle. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk)

But Samoans born in American Samoa to nationals do not gain citizenship, Samoans who are American nationals who give birth to their children in the Mainland, Hawaii, and Guam do gain citizenship through Birthright citizenship in the United States.

That being said, I agree more with the wording offered by an other editor (this maybe a paraphrase):

The United States, officially the United States of America, is a federal constitutional republic that includes fifty states, a federal district, and other territories.

This is an inclusive statement, without excluding anywhere else that can be verified to be part of the United States by using the phrase "and other territories".--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 12:40, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Good, along with a note for territory enumeration as sourced. Agreed, Samoa cannot be made an exception in the first-sentence as a matter of style. Can we add the note as does France article for territory enumeration, officially the French Republic is a unitary semi-presidential republic …,[Note] : -- [note] French Guiana in South America; Guadeloupe and Martinique in the Caribbean; and Réunion and Mayotte in the Indian Ocean are all five are considered integral parts of the republic.

Thus: “The United States, officially the United States of America, is a federal constitutional republic that includes fifty states, a federal district, and other territories. [note]

_ _ [note] An official U.S. Government publication describes the U.S. as 50 states, the District, the territories of Guam, American Samoa, U.S. Virgin Islands, and the Commonwealths of Northern Marianas and Puerto Rico. Welcome to the U.S., a guide for new immigrants, U.S. Government Printing Office, 2007 p.77, ISBN 978-0-160-78733-1. There are additionally nine uninhabited insular islands reported as Midway Atoll, and Baker, Howland and Jarvis Islands, Kingman Reef, Wake Island, Navassa and Palmyra Atoll. in “U.S. Insular Areas, application of the U.S. Constitution. GAO Report to the H.R. Committee on Resources, November 1997, p.9. [end-note]"

_ _ Then the scholarly explication of “greater self-government” (p.8) can be narrated in later sections. U.S. Insular Areas 1994, p. 3, ”Since the installation of popularly elected governors, each of these areas is responsible for its own administration of local government functions.”, and so on as sources admit. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk)

Using references within the note would be better then spelling it out in the note, IMHO.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:49, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

@ RightCowLeftCoast. If we could find a consensus acceptable at the 'United States' page, I agree to “The United States, officially the United States of America, is a federal constitutional republic that includes fifty states, a federal district, and other territories. [note]

_ _ [note] Welcome to the U.S., a guide for new immigrants, U.S. Government Printing Office, 2007 p.77. Lists the five populated territories. “U.S. Insular Areas, application of the U.S. Constitution. GAO Rept. to the H.R. Cmte. on Resources, Nov 1997, p.9. lists the nine unpopulated possessions. [end-note]"

_ _ When there is sufficient consensus here, please post it at the article and monitor its longevity, as several share the sentiment, “include territories” is "the opinion of an expert [source] arguing against [wiki-editor] consensus and therefore cannot be presented as a fact." TFD 4:59 pm, 21 December 2012. I would appreciate your assistance in offering this sourced contribution of information concerning the U.S. federal republic in 2013. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk)

RightCowLeftCoast, your basic idea is what I expended a fair amount of effort at Talk:United States trying to get done. I figured at worst, a little tweak of the wording and maybe some points made outside of the lede would suffice to balance the accuracy we desire with the economy that must be present in a lede. Unfortunately, and I'm trying not to get too far afield, VH's behavior has made any compromise, let alone solution, impossible (WP:IDHT/WP:BLUDGEON-type discussion). That's part of why I brought this issue to the greater community. VH's sourcing, by the way, borders on synthetic. You can't use attestations of a usage to argue common usage... that's original research at best. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 01:00, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

@ Mendaliv, editors rejecting the sourced "and territories" in the lead sentence have no secondary sources as we discussed at Talk:United States. They have only interpretation on their own authority that a tertiary source from an online list/digest CIA Factbook, or a comprehensive legal dictionary (Black's) spanning 100-year judicial usage to exclude the U.S. of 2013 including territories, when neither source comes to any such conclusion without challenged editor interpretation. There are no secondary "exclude territories" sources yet offered. ----- I answer only as objected to, I use direct direct quotes from reliable sources, confirmable by online links. -- Direct quotes are not synthesis.

_ _ "The U.S. includes 50 states, the District ..., and the [five organized] territories", as sourced at "Welcome". is dismissed as, Mendaliv, “The immigrant guide is a primary source and mere attestation that the phrase "United States" has the asserted sense. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 3:35 pm, 13 February 2013. -- WP:SOURCE distinguishes between a secondary source publication such as government report and a primary source such as a statute. Yes, the quoted attestation is from a reliable secondary source, and it "has the asserted sense”, I have not misquoted nor misrepresented. “Include territories” is not made up on my own authority, nor is it my own interpretation from a tertiary source. That’s good for "include territories", right?

_ _ Mendaliv says, "You can't use attestations of a usage to argue common usage... that's original research at best." —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 8:00 pm, 18 Feb. But there is no counter example to the 14 primary and secondary U.S.G. sources since 1995 offered over four months of discussion, see “Include territories” summary for mediation, para. #3, the only "exclude territory" reference to 2013 usage is to a search engine count of "incorporated territory", which is not admissible nor applicable.

_ _ Bartholomew Sparrow’s direct quote, “'At present, the United States includes the Caribbean and Pacific territories” to show no disagreement exists about "include territories", is taken to mean by Mendaliv, “more like an attestation than affirmation that a disagreement exists”. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 3:35 pm, 13 February 2013. Mendaliv could mean (I) that the statement “the U.S. includes” means Sparrow implied he believes there is “uncertainty”, but that is not reasonable as an objection. OR Mendaliv might mean (II) if (a) Sparrow is acknowledged as attestation of "include territories" by a reliable secondary source. IF (b) there is no counter-source from a secondary-source publication to "exclude territories", THEN (c) "include territories" should be adopted.

_ _ BUT IF, that editor still objects to "include territories" in the opening sentence of the 'United States' article, and removes the discussion to other forums, proposing to fork the article three ways based on the Black's Law Dictionary definition as authority, without addressing "include territories" in the first article sentence, is it bludgeoning the process begun in October 2012? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk)

Quoting Sparrow out of the greater context of his chapter to support a contention that his overall work does not endorse is synthesis. As is the use of the miscellaneous U.S. Government documents you've cited previously (i.e., primary sources, both as to attestation and usage). I have not and will not dig through the months of deadlocked, verbose, and convoluted discussion. It took me all of five minutes to find American Jurisprudence, Corpus Juris Secundum, and Black's Law Dictionary, which all package everything neatly into a couple pages. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 13:54, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

The context is, p. 240. The reality of U.S. possessions ... the existence of the territories can be reconciled with the notion of a federal nation-state." --- That context DOES support “include territories”, Bartholomew Sparrow’s direct quote, “'At present, the United States includes the Caribbean and Pacific territories”, the context of territories WITHIN a federal nation-state. "Exclude territories" editors are precisely those whom Sparrow would correct if they would but read his article. Search engine hits for tertiary sources without analysis, put forward on editor's own authority to "exclude territories" does NOT reflect the context of the Sparrow citation, there are only inaccurate, unsourced assertions to the contrary which can be easily resolved on reading the article.

_ _ WP:PSTS. -- “Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published SECONDARY sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources.” “Any interpretation needs a SECONDARY source." Editors are not to analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate material found in a source. There is no direct quote from a secondary source to say the judicial incorporation in the affirmative to exclude territories: "U.S. is states, federal district and Palmyra Atoll." Likewise, editors have failed to find a direct quote to exclude territories in the negative case, "U.S. territories are not a part of the U.S. in 2013." or 2000, or 1990. for an encyclopedia of general international readership.

_ _ WP:Dictionaries as sources “Wikipedia generally prefers SECONDARY sources in support of articles.” WP:USINGPRIMARY Re: CIA Factbook, Either the source is primary, or it describes, comments on, or analyzes primary sources (in which case, it is secondary), or it relies heavily or entirely on secondary sources (in which case, it is tertiary). "Exclude territory" editors can produce no secondary source to support their inapplicable, outdated and challenged interpretation of tertiary sources. “Wikipedia prefers SECONDARY sources in support of articles.” and it prefers editors to develop articles rather than lists. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 18:11, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps, given the contention regarding all this, the note should be left out of the lead entirely. The wording I proposed is inclusive enough that it does not exclude any interpretation of what "other territories" is. The content about what those other territories are can be expanded upon in the body of the article, or in the appropriate article such as Territories of the United States.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:18, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Very well, I concur with your wording. If it is challenged you have six scholarly sources and three secondary U.S.G. publications, court cases now in force, et al. from two previous editors. It seems a shame to allow unsourced "contention" to prevail over "U.S. Insular Areas: application of the U.S. Constitution", now dismissed in one editor's understanding as miscellaneous, unrelated to the insular areas, and without an equivalent secondary counter-source on his part.

_ _ Administrator Golbez has said all subarticles must conform to include territories, but much systematic work needs to be done to admit U.S.G. definition of itself among them. Also Golbez reports many charts are without proper sourcing, so in his view, all notes need to be composed for population, economy and agricultural data before the introduction is corrected. I think the introduction is illustrated by the Infobox, period. Administrator Golbez and I have worked together easily 2/3 of the time. Here, he sees the U.S. federal republic and U.S. territories like the Kingdom of Denmark and icebox Greenland, and does not admit U.S. sources, but I thought Greenland got home rule in the 80s and has members of Parliament, so it was an "include territories" example of nation-state. Anyway, always interesting discussion with him.

_ _ My last proposal at Talk:United States was LESS ambitious than yours, seeking to AVOID "contention". "U.S. federal republic of fifty states and federal district" [note 1], "exclude territory secondary source" -- [note 2], "include territory secondary source". But "exclude territory" editors could find no SECONDARY source, so the proposal was buried without a response; I came here to join in discussion; I concur with your proposal.

_ _ Though, here secondary sourced notes are to be overturned by five minutes' trolling on a search engine for tertiary sources and an editor's putting on a "contentious face" -- when a four-month search for "exclude territories" found no supporting secondary source. I really thought, "include territories" could carry the day by persuasion, because UNLIKE List Pages, for articles, WP:PSTS. -- “Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published SECONDARY sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources.” --- But now it seems there is only RightCowLeftCoast without resorting to other WP procedures. I concur with, "U.S. federal constitutional republic of 50 states, a federal district and territories." TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 20:26, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

My position as administrator has no bearing on these proceedings, there's no reason to bring it up. --Golbez (talk) 15:35, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

If I understand VH's contention correctly, it's that primary sources trump tertiary sources. That's an incorrect assumption: WP:PSTS. As is the apparent statement that court cases constitute secondary sources; court cases are primary sources. I'm assuming good faith here, since you apparently are not familiar with Am Jur, CJS, and Black's Law Dictionary, all three of which are highly respected sources, not something you find by merely "trolling". Every legal scholar knows of these sources, and many turn to them first when beginning research into an issue. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 07:56, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

You misunderstand, and you self-reported spending five minutes on the project. I tell students to start at Wikipedia to quickly pursue online linked sources, then build a reading list from those sourced footnotes and bibliographies. Students may not quote Wikipedia text which is subject to vandalism, unsourced and tertiary edits; those edits cannot be admitted in even the most elementary scholarship.

• Scholarly secondary sources: at ”Include territories” summary for mediation, “Include territories” sources include links to inspect previously directly quoted text in context made at Talk and archived pages: Sparrow in Levinson, 2005. p.232; Julian Go in Levinson, 2005. p.215, 225; Charles Chapel in Murphy, 2005, p. 34; Gustavo Gelpi’s two studies on "The Insular Cases", Juan Torruella’s 2007 "The Insular Cases" in the Univ. of Penn. Journal of International Law. These are not Mendaliv:"miscellaneous".
• U.S.G. secondary sources: “Welcome to the United States: a guide for new immigrants” 2007. p.77, “U.S. Insular Areas, application of the U.S. Constitution. GAO Report to the H.R. Committee on Resources, November 1997, p.9. and other GAO reports on the territories.

_ _ After the 1901-1904 judicial rationale without congressional statute “incorporating” 50 states, federal district and Palymra Atoll, Justices have held the rationale of the “Insular Cases” not be further extended in U.S. jurisprudence. Since 1952, there are “include territory” Congressional statutes and reports, Homeland Security Act, PR concurrent resolution, Oversight committee statement. Consistent with that is the Presidential Executive Order with the force of law, all linked in the discussion.

• Tertiary sources used by “Exclude territories” depend on editor synthesis across alphabetic entries encompassing 100 years of jurist usage without any secondary sources to confirm their original interpretation for its application to the U.S. today. Scholars turn to surveys when they first begin research, but they are not used to defend a paper in a graduate seminar of peers. Secondary sources for “include territories” contribute information relevant to the ‘United States’ of 2013 for a general international readership. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk)

How should legal encyclopedias be used editorially? “Legal encyclopedias are a good place to begin when you know very little about a subject.” as we learn at University of Minnesota’s law library’s Finding general explanations of the law.

_ _ Proper editorial use of Am Jur, CJS and Black’s can be seen in a scholarly source from an academic journal. Take Juan Torruella, a circuit judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. In his 2007 article, The Insular Cases published in the University of Pennsylvania “Journal of International Law”, he uses citations in a manner required of an academic editorial board of style.

_ _ A search on variations of “American Jurisprudence”, “Corpus Juris Secundum”, and “Black’s Law Dictionary”, there is no use of them anywhere in the article. Minnesota’s law library’s “Finding” guide, I added “Gale Encyclopedia” and “Ballentine’s to Mendaliv’s five-minute online search list; they were also not used. -- CAUTION by a law research source: Black’s Law Dictionary should be supplemented by Ballentine's Law Dictionary because it is not exhaustive, just for starters.

_ _ Here is sourced support in the legal academic community and by example in a journal of international law for WP:SOURCES policy, directing editors to rely on secondary sources to interpret primary and tertiary sources, not themselves. Let Wiki rules rule Wikipedia. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk)

To summarize, it's totally fine to use tertiary sources on Wikipedia even though it's not preferred. It's totally incorrect to use secondary sources to advance a position that those sources do not themselves advance. You have not even attempted to address this. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 15:38, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Your misrepresentation of Sparrow is met by two direct quotes: CONTEXT is, “territories can be reconciled with the notion of a federal nation-state.” (p.240) and Sparrow’s POINT in context, “"At present, the United States includes the Caribbean and Pacific territories.” (Sparrow in Levinson, 2005, p.232).

_ _ “Legal encyclopedias are a good place to begin when you know very little about a subject.” You still have no secondary source to support your fabricated interpretation of tertiary sources. They cannot be directly quoted to any coherent effect relative to your position, “U.S. territories are not a part of the U.S.” Your obstruction of a sourced contribution to Wikipedia is unjustified. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk)

Arbitrary break

Tertiary sources are inadequate when conjured without secondary backup to obstruct editor contributions with reliable secondary sources found in academic publications to "include territories" as a part of the U.S. Especially when they in turn are backed by primary and secondary government documents, legislative, executive and judicial, without exception over the last ten years for a 2013 country-article. Here, "exclude territories" interpretations fail to make a case on the merits to say “U.S. territories are not a part of the U.S.” except by unsupported editor formulations. They fail to justify obstructing “include territories” contribution to a Wiki-page on three counts in this case.

• Out-of-date, mirrored from 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica, here United States vol. 27, p.612, which considers the U.S. “exclusive of Alaska and outlying possessions.” This European point of view persisted, though the U.S. 1905 Rassumussen case ruled Alaska judicially “incorporated”. The Insular Case "political apartheid" (Torruella, J. Int’l Law 2007) is eclipsed in the U.S. beginning in 1935, and extinguished by 1963 as shown by scholars published in Law Journals at Boston University, University of Texas and the Federal Lawyer on “Insular Cases” of U.S. territories in 2005, 2007 and 2011. The tertiary 1911 mirrored source is trumped by 2005, 2007 and 2011 scholarly and government secondary sources.
• Inapplicable to the case at hand. “Legal encyclopedias are a good place to begin when you know very little about a subject.” (U.Minn. Law “Sources for finding general explanations of the law” 2012 online.) “Exclude territories” editors using tertiary sources have mistaken U.S. history and constitutional practice. In the "American Union" the "documentary or rigid constitution" defines the powers of every authority in the government, which “especially the British reader must constantly bear in mind, because under such a constitution every legislative body enjoys far scantier powers than in the United Kingdom and most European countries.” (Enc.Brit.1911 vol.27,p.646.) Tertiary sources are NOT “totally fine” whenever current secondary sources are available, they cannot be used to determine “if a legal authority cited as controlling in a particular case is still good law” (Svengalis, “Legal Information”, 2010 p.83)
• Disruptive of contributions supported by secondary sources to WP. The position “‘Exclude territories’ as a part of the 2013 U.S.” is not advanced by any sources found Oct 2012-Feb 2013 -- secondary, primary or tertiary -- only a group of five argumentative editors without sources working from a WP:MADEUP personal viewpoint that “Congress can withdraw U.S. citizenship any time it wants”, therefore U.S. territories of 2013 are not “a part of the U.S.” This sustained misrepresentation is in the face of congressional “perpetual” union with territories by citizenship since 1805, and Supreme Court-held “irrevocable” union of the territories with citizenship since 1963. "Exclude territories" dismisses a half-century history of constitutional practice in an internationally recognized independent nation-state, without sourced justification. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk)

U.S. in the “family of nations”

To take into consideration both the official U.S. of A. as reported by the U.S.G., and four INTERNATIONAL perspectives of the U.S. territories, here is a three-part proposal concerning the U.S. territories derived from my earlier efforts 23 December and 6 February.

_ (Part I) The intro sentence to read in part, the U.S. federal republic includes fifty states, a federal district, and five territories.[note]

_ (Part II) Intro [note] cites: (a) U.S.G. view, “include territory” secondary source, (b) “exclude territory” secondary source, (c) “some territory has been contested in international forums, Caribbean and Western Pacific, see “Political divisions” subsection.”

_ (Part III) Expand ‘Political divisions’ subsection, include four points concerning territories, BALANCED -- first two categories adverse to U.S. interests, second two categories consistent with U.S. interests.

- - - (1) International forum disputes -- by Haiti, Cuba, New Zealand, Japan and others,

- - - (2) Ongoing U.N. investigation -- including Guam and others,

- - - (3) U.N. cases in U.S. favor -- Puerto Rico, Northern Marianas by U.N. oversight, etc.,

- - - (4) Bi-lateral territorial negotiations -- undertaken by the U.S. State Department, perhaps two currently at Japan and New Zealand considering U.S.G. recent “pivot to the Pacific”? The latest online Insular Islands update at the State Department did not specify the two.

_ _ From the February 6 effort, at #12 international considerations, one “exclude territories” editor complained I did not know more than the online State report. To date, I can find no collaboration with “exclude territories” editors based on secondary sources. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk)

American Jurisprudence definition

I do not have access to Am Jur and cannot therefore know whether the quote is presented in context. It would be helpful to have a list of the territories that are considered part of the U.S. in the second definition. Does it include Guanatamo Bay and territories briefly held by the U.S. such as Grenada? Guantanamo Bay is "subject to the jurisdiction of the federal government" yet is part of Cuba, which the U.S. recognizes. Does it reject the possibility that one nation may occupy another nation without incorporating it? How does it resolve competing claims of jurisdiction? Are associated states, such as Palau, included? What sources does the encyclopedia provide? TFD (talk) 13:48, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Am. Jur. principally cites Hooven & Allison Co. v. Evatt, 324 U.S. 652 (1945) for the existence of ambiguity. It also cross-references several sub-articles. C.J.S. also cites Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244 (1901); Loughborough v. Blake, 18 U.S. 317 (1820); Bailey v. United States, 47 F.2d 702 (9th Cir. 1931); Goetze v. United States, 182 U.S. 221 (1901); Untied States v. Gancy, 54 F. Supp. 755 (D. Minn. 1944); Robinette v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, 139 F.2d 285 (6th Cir. 1943); Lincoln v. United States, 202 U.S. 484 (1906); Macomber & Whyte Rope Co. v. United Fruit Co., 225 Ill. App. 286 (1922); and others, as well as cross-referencing sub-articles. Neither article directly resolves any of the questions you present, and admittedly these definitions are imprecise and somewhat vague, but I feel they at least provide sufficient context for resolving the ambiguity where problematic. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 14:30, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I cannot find any extensive discussion of Hooven in any textbooks but here is a link to the case. The relevant discussion is in Part III. In that case, it was argued that goods imported to the U.S. from the Philippines were not imports because the Philippines was not a foreign country, but the judges were clear that it was outside the U.S. I suppose one could say that the attack on the U.S.S. Cole was an attack on the U.S., but we would not list the Cole as part of the U.S. The other definition of "sovereignty" is interesting. Unlike Britain or Canada, the United States can enter into treaties, hence that is another definition of the U.S., e.g., a treaty between the United States and the Queen in right of Canada. But none of this helps TheVirginiaHistorian's case, because he does not think that Guantanamo Bay for example is part of the U.S. and it is in fact a part of Cuba. TFD (talk) 16:22, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Tertiary sources are inadequate to determine what is still applicable. Hooven & Allison of 1945 applies to "the three years in question, 1938, 1939, and 1940", a direct quote, can be searched at the link. The congressional organic act in the Philippines provided for independence; Filipinos never U.S. citizens, had not been nationals since 1935.

_ _ There is no provision for independence in the organic acts of any of the five incorporated U.S. territories in 2013, and residents are U.S. citizens by the soil or by blood, as allowed variously in U.S. incorporated territories since 1805. The five U.S. territories in 2013 under discussion for the United States country-article at Wikipedia are those organized with population: Northern Marianas, Guam, American Samoa, Puerto Rico and U.S. Virgin Islands. Hope this helps. Secondary sources would be nice to replace the abstract, speculative and imaginary. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk)

Citizens of American Samoa are not American citizens and have no right to enter the United States. Citizens of the other territories only became citizens through acts of Congress, because since they were not born in the U.S., the 14th amendment did not apply to them. The United States recognizes the right to self-determination of all territories it holds outside the United States and they are recognized as persons separate from the U.S. under international law. TFD (talk) 17:17, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

American Samoans are U.S. nationals.

American Samoa, Guam, and other U.S. Territories would be considered part of the United States if they were attacked.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:12, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

American Samoans have birthright nationality, though not birthright citizenship. Something that surprised me, though: There is no right for American citizens to enter American Samoa. You need to show proof of having a ticket to leave the territory, or proof of employment, before you're allowed to enter. --Golbez (talk) 21:16, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, Hooven hasn't been overruled on the particular point Am. Jur. uses it for... not that this would even matter. Wikipedia isn't moot court, or a bureaucracy, or anything to that effect. Hooven itself doesn't seem to be a particularly remarkable SCOTUS case, but it's one of very few cases on point, and it happens to be what both the Am. Jur. and C.J.S. editors consider definitive as to establishing the ambiguity of the term "United States". And there is nothing wrong with citing or relying on tertiary sources in Wikipedia articles; WP:PSTS neither expressly forbids nor discourages it. It merely says that secondary sources are preferred to primary and tertiary sources, and that primary sources (which would include government pamphlets) should be used with caution. And, VH, your personal interpretation of Hooven as only applying to the tax years in question, while interesting, misses the point. Wikipedia relies on published sources. Neither Am. Jur. nor C.J.S. mentions your interpretation, and in fact both strongly imply that the ambiguity therein described is alive and well. In sum, there is no logical reason to reject these sources. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 18:33, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Articles are about topics not meanings of words. To me, this is an obscure obiter dictum about how the term "United States" may be used. When we say the U.S. went to war with Germany or signed a treaty with (Her Majesty in right of) Canada we are not saying that the country walked to Germany or picked up its arm and signed an agreement. Anyway, the discussion is about the extent of the U.S., i.e., what is part of the U.S. Hooven does not question the extent of the U.S. and says over and over again that the Philippines was outside the U.S. TFD (talk) 21:19, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

The articles are about the topic of how the United States is defined. That necessarily requires coverage of the meaning of the phrase. If you don't believe me, read the articles yourself. I guarantee your local courthouse law library has the full Am. Jur. set in print, and may have C.J.S. as well. And the actual holdings of Hooven aren't at issue; Hooven is a primary source. We're talking about what Am. Jur. and C.J.S. say, and it's not a mere repetition of exactly what Hooven says. Regardless, I don't agree that the identification of ambiguity constitutes dicta in Hooven as it's an important logical step towards the Court's holding. And even if it were, that doesn't compromise the reliability of either encyclopedia. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 04:07, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

The 1944 Philippines was “outside the U.S.” in “Hooven” because (a) there was no citizenship of soil, (b) no U.S. national status since 1935, (c) congressional organic act of independence in 1941. “Hooven” is not on point, because there is nothing like 1944 Philippines extant in 2013 among U.S. Territories.

_ _ TFD cannot remove citizenship of residents in Samoa, there is no source to say it can be removed. Yes, without other status, national status of soil in Samoa, AND the children of U.S. citizens on Samoa are citizens. AND Samoans returning with U.S. citizenship by residency in Hawaii or military service do not loose their citizenship on return. More TFD madeup to imagine that they cannot exist or that they lose it by his unsourced imagining of places unrelated to the people living there.

_ _ None of the five major territories have congressional organic acts with provision for their independence by date certain as did 1939 Philippines. The case is irrelevant, which is why there is no secondary source to speculate on a connection with U.S. territories of 2013 as imagined by editors beginning study on a subject in a tertiary source.

_ _ Am. Jur. and C.J.S. are incompetent to make a direct quote, that unlike 1939 Philippines, there is citizenship of soil in 2013 Northern Marianas, Guam, Puerto Rico and Virgin Islands, and in American Samoa there is citizenship residency and national status more complete than in Arizona Territory, “a part of the U.S.” in 1910, we all agree. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk)

I don't understand your rationale for calling either encyclopedia "incompetent". —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 13:12, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

A tertiary source cannot provide context. In legal references, they cannot determine applicability of case law to historical circumstance. See discussion and linked sources to Wikipedia policy and U. of Minnesota law library link above. A nation may be a sovereign place is made up of places, but a federal republic is governance of people in places.

_ _ Editors beginning study in a subject area using tertiary sources may suppose all listed court cases under alphabetic heading are equal across places and people uniformly, without distinctions. "Hooven", a u.s. supreme court case for a territorial possession of populations without either U.S. citizenship or national status since 1935 who voted for independence, under appointed military governor in 1939, to be independent by law in two years, was ruled "not a part of the U.S." --- By the tertiary source, it seems to apply equally in the undifferentiated listing to a 2013 territory with congressional organic act, popular referendum accepting Congressional and Constitutional authority, citizenship, local elective self governance in republican forms, Article III courts with life tenure, territorial representation in Congress, in union with the U.S. federal republic which the supreme court has said is "irrevocable".

_ _ The error does not lie in the editors, not their education, logic or good faith. The tertiary source they are using makes no distinction between territories with military governor, presidentially appointed governor, locally elected governor, or uninhabited possession. The fault lies in reliance on a tertiary source without secondary interpretation, which is what Wikipedia properly advocates for its pages, once an article graduates from List Pages and mirrored 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica. Secondary sources are to be used to expand article narrative, because while tertiary sources are elementary and concrete for a good beginning, secondary sources provide scholarly understanding of a subject in relationship and context. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:08, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't see the relevance of anything you've just stated. WP:PSTS defines Wikipedia's policy on tertiary sources, and neither explicitly nor implicitly forbids the use of tertiary sources. You have at no point provided any reliable sources that actually calls Am. Jur. and C.J.S. into question, let alone contradicts them. The proposal at issue merely calls for the use of the sources to establish the existence of a lexical ambiguity. And your personal opinion on the holding in and applicability of Hooven does not have any bearing on the validity of either encyclopedia's use of it as a source, nor on the validity of Wikipedia's using either encyclopedia as source. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 16:21, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Am Jur says that the U.S. can mean either (1) the states or (2) "all territories subject to the jurisdiction of the federal government wherever located". That distinction was made in Bidwell and also Sparrow. 1 is the constitutional republic and 2 includes all areas subject to its juridsiction. They are separate topics. If we pick definition 2 then we need to significantly change the article to note that the United States is not a constitutional republic, only people born in certain parts are citizens, there is no Bill of Rights that applies throughout, and tariffs can be applied to internal trade. We also have the problem that part of the U.S. is in other countries. We already say that the U.S. has possessions. We cannot synthesize the two definitions and say that the U.S. includes the states and those possessions we think should be included. Again, can you please list all the territories that are included in definition 2 in addition to the republic. TFD (talk) 20:31, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

There is no list in the sources, and I can't synthesize one for you. Both Am. Jur. and C.J.S. say that definition extends to all territories subject to federal jurisdiction. The only exclusion to this appears to be, in the context of customs duties, "territory which, by conquest and military occupation, is in possession of a public enemy." 91 C.J.S. United States § 1 (citing United States v. Rice, 17 U.S. 246 (1819)). I don't think that exception applies to anything, or anything significant, at present. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 21:36, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

• @ TFD. As described in Sparrow, since 1805 congress has incorporated territories into the federal constitutional republic. It does so without granting statehood from the beginning. Professor Sparrow says, U.S. territory not in federal republic in 1805 is included by 2013 by a process he describes as "democratic empire". Editors say, -- That is self-contradictory if there was a change in “territory” from unincorporated to incorporated before statehood. And, no primary source labels the U.S. an "empire". -- But that is U.S. constitutional practice historically of the actual real-live place according to scholars. In madeup world, that historical practice does not meet unsourced criteria, all Bill of Rights everywhere. Neither Bill of Rights, citizenship nor national status existed in 1910 Arizona Territory and TFD does not say it was not incorporated.
• @ Mendaliv. Tertiary lists show no evolution, all things past are now present. So, encyclopedias equate unlike territories. (a) Philippine "territory" not included in U.S. --- non-citizen-non-nationals voting for independence approved by congress --- equals encyclopedia "territory" status (b) Puerto Rican "Commonwealth" included in U.S. --- U.S. citizens voting 4% independence, with organic acts of "incorporation" as ruled in 2005 federal court, endorsed in a 2007 legal journal by a justice on its circuit court of appeals. The tertiary source that leads editors to equate these two "territories" as the same misleads them, a shortcoming of the tertiary source. All editor conclusions from tertiary sources are synthesized including "excluding territories". A secondary source can remedy per WP:SOURCES.

_ _ The "United States" is unambiguously a Union in 2013. There is a contrast to be made between (a) federal constitutional republic and a unitary parliamentary system, or (b) imagining imperial territorial doctrine as applied to federal territorial local autonomy, but neither is the article subject. The U.S. is legitimate and it is what it claims, 50 states, a federal district and five organized territories. Scholars substantiate it in secondary sources, it protects fundamental human rights and provides for self-determination in local territorial autonomy. To determine illegitimacy and exclude its territories as claimed by it must be substantiated with secondary sources. It has not been sourced to date. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk)

Citizens of the Philippines were American nationals and the Philippines would have been included under the alternative definition provided by Am Jur. TFD (talk) 05:36, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Unlike U.S. citizen residents in the five organized U.S. territories of 2013 "irrevocably" under protection of Article III life-tenured federal courts, Filipinos were nationals until 1935 under Article I congressional two-year courts. They voted for independence, congressional Philippines organic act authorized independence in 1941. At the time of the "Hoover" case in 1944, Philippines was "not a part of the U.S." by foreign occupation, a fact unapparent in a tertiary introduction to the subject. Conclusions editors draw from tertiary sources are original synthesis.

_ _ The five organized territories of 2013 have local autonomy that scholars and government secondary sources report are constitutionally "equivalent to states" in the American Union, taking the form of a federal constitutional republic of 50 states, a federal district and five organized territories of citizens. U.S. territories in 2013 are consistent with its constitutional practice and hold larger privileges than territories made states in 1910 and 1960, another fact unapparent in a tertiary source. Hope that helps begin a collaboration based on secondary sources. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk)

"Conclusions editors draw from tertiary sources are original synthesis." You're joking, right? Also: "The term "United States" may, as defined in various provisions, further include, in addition to the states and the District of Columbia, an Indian reservation and the territories of Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands. It does not, however, include the Philippine Islands. . . . The Canal Zone is treated as a foreign country except to the extent that a statute may expressly provide that it be treated as an organized territory." 91 C.J.S. United States § 1 (citations omitted). —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 12:26, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

What is this source to say, The U.S. is states, federal district, incorporated Indian reservations, and organized territories such as Puerto Rico and U.S. Virgin Islands of the 12:26 Feb 26 post? On the other hand, Is there a contrary source to say, The official U.S. republic excludes its organized territories with citizens, a contrary source without editor-made inference? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk)

I think you guys are getting hung up a little bit on case-law definitions and such. Am Jur (and CSJ) are good general references on topics of law, and are better than referring to a particular case in isolation. Often the use of a term like U.S. is highly dependent on the case at hand, and judges, beyond the initial discussion, will refer to it within that context (U.S. in tax law has a different meaning than in some other area, for instance).

In short, don't get hung up on any one case. The treatise definitions are good for a legal overview on the subject, but are not the end of the discussion. Shadowjams (talk) 09:22, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Implications

I'm a little curious what the proposer, and the familiar participants, believe the implications are. I frankly find even the proposal a little difficult to understand, but let's say it passes unambiguously, what concrete change does that have on the United States? Government of the United States? Would the definitions or scope change? Would ancillary articles change? Obviously it's meant to apply to the project, but how far beyond?

Please don't use this subheading to debate the merits of a change. I am (and I assume other outsiders are) just unclear on what exactly, and how far reaching, the outcomes this discussion encompasses. Shadowjams (talk) 09:33, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Every fact and figure in an article on a country needs to match the definition of that country given in the article. Right? If the article on the UK omitted the population of Scotland, or even the Isle of Wight, that would be a problem that made no sense.

So, if the definition of the U.S. is unambiguously changed, then every fact and figure in this article - and many others - needs to be verified to make sure it matches the new definition. Population, area, GDP per capita, crime rate, maps, etc. Most maps of the U.S. on Wikipedia (and in general) omit the territories. Also, presumably we'd have to change articles like Puerto Rico to match this new change, and I point out again that not one person involved in this argument has brought this up on any of the talk pages of the territories. Incorporated territory etc. would have to change, to point out that it is apparently no longer a used term. All of the lists of countries would have to remove Puerto Rico, etc. from their lists and make sure that the figures for the U.S. reflect inclusion of the territories. Etc etc etc. Dozens of articles would have to be checked that they remain consistent with a change to the definition of the country. --Golbez (talk) 13:19, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Re: the specific point of bringing in stakeholders from the other articles that would be affected, I had hoped that this discussion would do just that (it is on WT:USA and was on T:CENT briefly), or would at least flesh out the details and come up with a more refined solution that we could then take to the community at large via the RFC process. If this discussion was going to be a flash in the pan, and I'm not convinced that it won't turn out as such, then why bother disrupting the editing activities of people on an indeterminate number of talk pages? —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:23, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Ok, this makes sense. So the scope of infoboxes, etc. Shadowjams (talk) 22:15, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

It would mean that the U.S. constitution applies to only certain parts of the U.S. For example, the Citizenship Clause of the fourteenth amendment reads, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." The amendment only applies to the fifty states and D.C., although birthright citizenship has now been extended by statute to four of the five remaining inhabited possessions. TFD (talk) 14:17, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

That's not an implication for the articles and the project; That's an implication on the subject. --Golbez (talk) 15:00, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Of course it is. We would need to change every article that says persons born in the United States are U.S. citizens. TFD (talk) 15:24, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Aha, I see. If we say American Samoa is part of the U.S., then it's no longer true that there is birthright citizenship in the whole of the U.S. --Golbez (talk) 15:44, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

TFD, you can't possibly be saying that how we describe U.S. citizenship rules would change based on the outcome of this discussion, are you?! Constitutional law will not change based on what a project on wikipedia decides... I think I'm missing what you're saying. Can you please clarify it? Ah ok I see what you're saying now with your follow up. I would reword that though... obviously nothing changes in the real world when we change definitions... but yes, the term has inconsistent definitions across different articles, so we'd have to clarify in each. Shadowjams (talk) 22:07, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Regardless of whether U.S. has the expanded or constrained definition, won't we need to explain its scope in each case? 99.9% of our readers will have no idea which term we're using so in specific areas (like citizenship for example) we'll have to specify the scope we're using either way it goes. Shadowjams (talk) 22:18, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

In reading articles, I would assume that the definition used is the one accepted under the U.S. constitution and international law, i.e., the republic, which is the "primary topic", per WP:DISAMBIG. TFD (talk) 04:41, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

I think that's getting into the merits discussion, so I wouldn't want to get into that here beyond this. Shadowjams (talk) 09:12, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

@ Shadowjams, on implications as rewritten following your critique.

_ 1) Articles related to the United States at present should conform to its view of itself at present. The implication is that there should be no unsourced Wiki-specific system to treat republics with territories and monarchies with territories alike. Articles which have done should be amended as discovered.

_ 2) Historical articles should reflect their time alone. The implication is to report earlier and later changes by reference in the introduction and by subsection links. Articles which imply the past is present should be amended as discovered.

_ 3) Data bases for tables, charts, maps and graphs should be used which are commonly available. The implication is to rely on conventions as each government reports itself. Articles with charts and graphs without a labeled scope should be sourced as discovered. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:43, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

VirginiaHistorian. Perhaps it'd be better if we had this conversation on one of our respective talk pages (or a project page, or a new section), rather than here. I want this implication section to be straighforward for people new to the issue, because that's pretty much what I am to this. I've been around wiki for a while, but I'm not privy to all these arguments and their history. I just figured if I was a little lost by this, obviously important, but obtuse, discussion, others would be too. So I hope this section provides a quick, concise, and neutral resource. I'd be happy to continue this line of discussion elsewhere, but given the walls of text above, I'd like to keep this subheading ruthlessly limited so unfamiliar readers can get a quick overview (I should mention the responses here did sort out most of my questions, so thank you for that everyone). TVH, just drop me a line here or on my talk and I'd be happy to continue. Shadowjams (talk) 09:06, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

1. Wikipedia articles should follow reliable sources and give due weight to viewpoints.
2. I'd suggest taking it on a case-by-case basis. If the statement being made actually requires a disambiguated term, then address it. Otherwise, don't bother.
3. We follow what sources say. If those sources conflict, we address the conflict and give due weight to viewpoints.

Other countries are irrelevant. On Wikipedia we follow reliable sources, and where they conflict we address the conflict in the article giving due weight to viewpoints. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 09:15, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

(Stricken given TVH largely rewrote the post I originally responded to. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 10:04, 2 March 2013 (UTC))

edit break

Implications for France: Were WP to require republics with territories to conform to monarchies with territories, the lead must be rewritten at France. The French government claims its overseas departments of citizens represented in the National Assembly as officially a part of it as does the U.S. for its territories. Similarly, at Overseas departments and territories of France we learn, "‬These [French] territories have varying legal status and different levels of autonomy, ... [all] have representation" in the National Assembly. Likewise for the U.S. territories, according to U.S. constitutional practice.

_ _ Previously, an editor noted that France was exempt, because the French had a "special" relationship to its citizens. The U.S. should be exempt for the same reason, citizenship and representation in Congress. In 'France', facts and figures are reported for "metropolitan France", continental France plus Corsica similar to those on the U.S. are reported for continental U.S. and Hawaii. The rationale to strike a republic's citizens in the U.S. article lead implies striking like citizens in the France article introduction. To be consistent, I disagree on both counts. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:55, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

You enjoy throwing around Wikipedia guidelines, so I don't feel bad about doing this: WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Just because France may do it a certain way (that I may or may not agree with) does not have much bearing on us. This has nothing to do with "republics with territories", it's entirely about the United States. --Golbez (talk) 13:05, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Okay, then why the never ending parallels drawn to monarchies such as the British and Dane, but France gets away scot-free?

_ _ These do not seem objectively motivated. Specific not-true references about the american colonial history are repeated without sources, from I know not where -- [aside] as opposed to the Confederate flag fabrications that you manfully come to my aid in reverting [end.aside] -- Things in error here at talk.u.s. abound such as the americans got what they wanted before the war of independence (representation in Parliament?), Washington was in royal service (denied a commission?). We have a War of 1812 over empressment of sailors. Brits stop it and we are forever more thereafter military allies explicitly and implicitly, policing African slave trade together with the treaty of Ghent 1830s, blocking the Germans out of the Pacific at Guam 1890s and the Italians out of Latin America at Nicaragua 1920s, etc.

_ _ Now TFD says citizenship of soil is justified in common law like Blackstone says, but naturalization is not recognized as legitimate in international law which is unsourced to my knowledge. I checked back to our consensus sentence on the War of 1812 in the article, and it is gone. And Mendaliv's Blackstone as parsed by St. George Tucker was used to interpret the Constitution by secessionists to fight the American Civil War. Now territories are not to be really in a union at the U.S. article, just like the states are said to have a right to leave at "secession in the United States". (I did give up there about two years ago, wp:otherstuffexists).

_ _ Editors at 'United States' would wiki-secede the U.S. territories incorporated into the Union regardless of constitutional practice of an internationally recognized nation-state? wp:otherstuffexists. One "third party" editor assured me that when Wikipedia is wrong is does not matter much, little harm is done. I'm still processing that one. But if I have to choose between your help here or at CSA, I really rather have your help there, because misremembering that history can have real-life bad consequences among adolescents in the south which I saw as a classroom teacher; here for the union as seen by the U.S.G. including territories, limited to schoolkids not thinking themselves good enough to be Americans. That would be a consequence of the same Plessy v. Ferguson court that brought our children 'separate but equal' and also brought the Insular Cases 'separate but unequal', now superseded by acts of Congress in both. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:34, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

No one's drawing a parallel to the Danish monarchy. It, and the Netherlands, and New Zealand, etc. have been supplied as illustrations of one way to handle it that doesn't apply in this situation. How the article on France does it is also different, since for some reason that article appears to treat France as three-tiered: Metropolitan France, the overseas departments, and the overseas territories. It's akin to if this article ignored Alaska and Hawaii for many of its facts and figures. You should not be gleaning inspiration from France, and so far as I know no one here is gleaning inspiration from Denmark (except maybe for the proposal to create a second article, which has no real support that I can see). --Golbez (talk) 14:25, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

You are distorting. No one said that naturalization is not accepted under international law. Washington was a colonel of the colonial Virginia Regiment. Since both the British army and the American army allow non-nationals to serve, admission to the army is not proof of nationality. Your argument that because Washington was refused a commission in the regular army he was not a British subject is baseless. French constitutional law differs from the U.S. because it is based on the civil code. Hence the Supreme Court interprets the constitution and has been guided by English common law, including Calvin's Case and the writings of Coke and Blackstone, what you call "judge made law". And the Court has decided that none of the current inhabited territories are part of the United States. No one said btw that naturalization is not recognized under international law. On the contrary each nation is allowed to determine its own nationals. The point was that internatiional law recognizes nationality rather than citizenship. Hence American Samoans and American citizens have the same status under international law as American nationals, even though American Samoans are not U.S. citizens. TFD (talk) 14:54, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Discussion summary for lede in three rounds

Interesting restatements by Golbez and TFD above. With your sufferance, I’d like to try a thought experiment. Let me see if I understand us as we stand.

Why do you keep referring to "judge made law"? The common law. i.e., torts, contracts, etc. is "judge made". At one time for example an English judge wrote down that if you borrowed money from someone, you had to repay it. Judges also defined nationality in Calvin's Case 1572 and opinions on Berwick on Tweed, which became the basis of Blackstone's commentaries and were adopted into U.S. law. But the U.S. law on the extent of the republic and citizenship is based entirely on the U.S. constitution. The role of judges is merely to decide what the words of the constitution mean. Sometimes they get it wrong and revise their opinions later. They have determined that territories become incorporated into the United States when Congress decides to incorporate them. That opinion is based on their reading of the constitution and is the reason that people born in American Samosa are not American citizens, because birthright citizenship only applies to the United States and designated territories. It also explains why the U.S. recognizes the right of self-determination of Puerto Rico. However, domestic law is not the sole determinant of whether overseas territories are part of the U.S., there is also public international law. All of the unincorporated territories were put on the list of non-self governing territories by the U.S. government. Although two remaining unincorporated territories have since been removed, the U.S. did not claim that they had become incorporated into the U.S. TFD (talk) 05:44, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Round 1

PREMIS: Wikipedia country-articles begin the introduction with the official and common name, a characterization of the type of government and a brief description of its polities. In this case, The U.S. is a federal constitutional republic of 50 states, a federal district, [“and five organized territories” at issue.]

Edit-A “Include territories” because U.S.G. publications claim “U.S. includes five organized territories.” They are locally autonomous, participate in the national legislature, and chose permanent union by referendum. All citizens are equal in fundamental rights in five territories TODAY with greater privileges than four previously incorporated territories made states in 1910 and 1960.

Edit-B “Exclude territories” because overseas territories are never part of a nation-state. U.S. territories have ambiguous international status related to their acquisition and reflected in United Nations resolutions never explicitly resolved.

• British Virgin Islands not a part of U.K.
• U.S. Virgin Islands not a part of U.S.
  • "Never", no. Overseas territories can sometimes be part of the country; so far as I know, France considers their territories to all be internal. Hawaii was considered internal. Denmark and the Netherlands appear to deal purely with internal, whereas New Zealand and Australia's overseas territories are external. (Papua New Guinea, on the other hand, was, I believe, internal to Australia) Every country handles it in a different fashion. --Golbez (talk) 15:14, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

So all we need do is find a U.S.G. source that "considers their territories to be internal" as France in the French government source? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:54, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Round 2

PREMIS: Supreme Court in Insular Cases said places of foreign nationals speaking Spanish and German with no experience in republican government or constitutional rule were to be governed by their U.S. military governors without constitutional protections until Congress expressly authorized incorporation.

Edit-A Overseas U.S. territories of 1910 were not a part of the U.S., but they may be by u.s. constitutional practice since 1805: possession, unincorporated territory, incorporated territory. State Department says Samoa is the “last U.S. overseas territory”.

• ”unincorporated” u.s. territory has appointed governor with nationals, legislatures at pleasure, judges appointed each congress
• INCORPORATED u.s. territory has elected governor with citizens, independent legislature, judges of life-appointment. Since 1805, with 5000 population, incorporated territories have had a territorial Member of Congress with debate privileges.

Edit –B Judge-made law governs the extent of a nation-state, the legislature is incompetent to define itself in the Naturalization and Immigration Act.

• Supreme Court established Plessy v. Fergusson :: Supreme Court overturned it with Brown v. Board
• Supreme Court established Insular Cases :: Supreme Court has NOT overturned them.
  • Organization, not incorporation, changes things from federal-run to local-run. Incorporation changes the nature of the Constitution on that land. Secondly, I see you've learned nothing from our discussions on how the U.S. can be defined a dozen different ways in a dozen different acts (and really, it doesn't help your cause at all, since the U.S. is defined in that act as excluding American Samoa). It's not incompetence, it's expedience. I would dearly love for the legislature to conclusively define the extent of the country they rule, sadly they have not clearly done this. --Golbez (talk) 15:25, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Okay, if "my case" is five territories, but you will agree to "the case" of four territories, is the ball in my court to agree to four?

_ _ "Expedience" is what gives rise to "settled law". Although there may be a theoretical case to be made at law that states may yet secede, it is settled constitutional law that none have the right going forward. Congress may theoretically abolish rights by statute (alien and sedition acts) or treaty, but rights of citizens or government are added or subtracted by constitutional amendment as a matter of settled law in the U.S.

_ _ It is expedient to treat territories as "incorporated" where since 1805, a) all U.S. citizens under fundamental constitutional protections, b) in autonomous republican local government, c) with representation in Congress and d) Article III federal courts. These FOUR ELEMENTS -- which did NOT obtain in 1911 territories -- have been U.S. constitutional practice the "stage three", "incorporated territories" in "preparation for statehood" (Sparrow, paperback, p.223 - I found my copy). That is why the MODERN federal courts now recognize the Congress has "incorporated" Puerto Rico and the Supreme Court expands constitutional rights in territories beyond congressional organic acts, "irrevocably". TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:18, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Round 3

PREMIS: Data in republics is not inclusive in either France or the U.S. for the official extent of each republic

Edit-A The official extent of a republic in -- the Republic of France -- and -- the United States of America -- is their a) continental expanse, b) an economically important incorporated island and c) overseas territories with citizens and representation in the national legislature. NOT in an official republic sense, but in the DATA REPORTING CONVENTION case, facts and figures for the -- French Republic -- and the --United States -- omit their territories overseas without impacting their relative international ranking by metrics of population, economy or agriculture.

• Officially: Republic of France: continental France and Corsica and overseas territories :: U.S. of A.: continental U.S. and Hawaii and overseas territories.
• Statistically: French Republic: continental France and Corsica by OECD data :: continental U.S. and Hawaii by Census data.

Edit-B If the extent of the U.S. is admitted to be OFFICIALLY including organized territories, all Census-based facts and figures reporting only continental and Hawaii (States and DC) must all be recalculated by wiki-editors adding in overseas territories, as the article text cannot be aligned and notes cannot economically report census data include “50 states and DC”.

_ _ Is that fairly represent us all three on the merits? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 19:57, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

"Continental France and Corsica and overseas territories" Why are you omitting the overseas departments? And what is this about "notes cannot economically report census data include 50 states and DC"? You're the one refuses to perform what you are portraying as an easy task. --Golbez (talk) 15:27, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't really understand what all this nonsense is about, constitutionally the United States consists solely of incorporated areas, anything unincorporated is not part of the united states but merely a possession of it. The only territory that is part of the united states is Palmyra Atoll. The other 15 polities called territories are not part of the united states, rather they are possessions of it since they are unincorporated. Whether a polity is organized or not has absolutely nothing to do with it being a part of the United States.XavierGreen (talk) 04:47, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

@ XavierGreen,

1) Is there a source, the five organized territories with U.S. citizens are merely “possessions”?

2) Is there a source, “the only territory that is part of the United States is Palmyra Atoll”?

3) Is there a source, How a territory is organized has “absolutely nothing to do with it being a part of the U.S.”?

_ _ If not, the post will at first appear “all this nonsense”. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:28, 9 March 2013 (UTC)