Talk:United States

Infobox: "Last polity admitted"

The "last polity admitted" should be Hawaii. Northern Mariana Islands, as an "unincorporated territory," is not legally part of the U.S. --SchutteGod (not logged in) 70.181.168.53 (talk) 20:12, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

We had a very long and contentious debate as to whether or not the inhabited territories counted as part of the country; in its wisdom, consensus came to say "yes". --Golbez (talk) 20:39, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

We decided that the Northern Mariana Islands are in fact "incorporated territory." It might however be better to replace the field with "last state(s) admitted." TFD (talk) 00:01, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

We looked at the U.S. Constitution Article IV, Sec.3, Par. 2: The Congress shall have the power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and regulations respecting the Territory or other property belonging to the United States…so we concluded that the United States can posses territory.

We looked at scholarship that confirms the U.S. has always had territories apart from states but included in the United States from the time of the Articles of Confederation, whether they are held to be constitutionally incorporated or unincorporated, and that the Northern Marianas are now territory of the United States.

We looked at documents of the United States Government certifying to the United Nations that the Northern Marianas are under the jurisdiction of the United States and included in its geographical extent. Some editors support the Cuban Government contention that the U.S. cannot lawfully acquire territories, nor make their inhabitants its citizens, but the WP consensus did not adopt its view.

It is not better to adopt a Cuban Government contention which is not upheld in the United Nations, unsupported by international scholarship nor agreed to in the WP editor consensus. The geographical extent of the United States includes its territories, whether domestically classed as incorporated or unincorporated. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:10, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

In other words, consensus decided to look away from blatant synthesis and original research. But, consensus nonetheless. --Golbez (talk) 22:36, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

No scholarly sources could be found to support the Cuban Government's position that U.S. citizenship among its territories is unlawful. But as I remember, six reliable sources were found to support the contention that modern U.S. territories with native and naturalized U.S. citizens were included in the geographic extent of the United States. The editorial consensus did not find that the Cuban Government could arbitrarily devolve U.S. territory from the United States by Cuban proclamation alone.

The WP editorial consensus observed that the U.N. recognized that there is U.S. citizenship to be found among inhabitants in all the U.S. territories, as sourced. The U.S. government in the 21st century is including the islander U.S. citizens and native inhabitants of its territories with elective self-governance by their governors and legislatures under the equal protections of due process in local and U.S. courts. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:31, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

So again, in other words, consensus decided to look away from blatant synthesis and original research, not to mention your deplorable attempt at accusing fellow editors of racism. --Golbez (talk) 21:18, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Pointing out the Supreme Court has had some racist views published among its opinions in holdings that were written over one hundred years prior to the year 2017 is not the same as a "deplorable attempt at accusing fellow editors of racism". Using evidence of racist views over one hundred years old to characterize ongoing political relationships in the 21st century is not good methodology --- because, things have changed since territorial governors and a majority of each territorial legislatures were Presidentially appointed, and local territorial courts were administered by the U.S. Army or Navy. That is all; bad methodology is not racism.

The United States is the continental United States, the island state of Hawaii, five insular territories, Puerto Rico, Northern Mariana Islands, US Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and outlying minor possessions. There is no "blatant synthesis or original research" in referencing the U.S. State Department, Common Core Document to U.N. Committee on Human Rights, December 30, 2011, Item 22, 27, 80. It is just a reliable description of the geographical extent of the modern United States as sourced.

No one is racist who supposes that the Supreme Court at the turn of the 20th century would not allow islander inhabitants the right to vote for territorial governor. But now that they do, those WP editors who show that islanders vote for their governor in the 21st century are NOT calling anyone racist who happens to read constitutional scholars of century old Supreme Court cases. But WP editors must be alert to political developments as they unfold across each century --- just as a matter of good research methodology. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 06:06, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

• I have just one question. Does the consensus stand?--Mark Miller (talk) 21:40, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
  • It would appear. No one's brought a challenge to it. --Golbez (talk) 04:37, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Among editors of these pages, some assert a flawed understanding of the requirements of U.S. citizenship which is based on the proposition that all men created equal, whether you like its embracing nationalism or not, whether you concede the desirability of that nation state's existence or not. There are those who do not.

A corollary is the position that islanders cannot allowed to be U.S. citizens and included in the geographical extent of that nation for the purposes of this article, even when they have been so included for half a century in the United States by law, customary practice and rulings by the highest courts of the land. This is bad research methodology, denying developments of the United States government among its inhabitants over the last century.

Editors here spent two years asserting the POV denying inclusion of brown and black skinned U.S. citizens and their territories within the geographical extent of the United States. Without any relevant scholarship to support their point of view, they failed to exclude them from this article on the United States. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:57, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

You really need to shut up. You do not get to explicitly call editors racist then say "I'm not calling them racist!" I don't care if you really think you aren't calling us racist, you absolutely are. Seriously, just stop. You're digging a hole you don't want to be trying to crawl out of. The discussion was over; you can be quiet now. This is a warning; if you continue doing this, I will bring this up with the wider community as being horribly toxic and anathema to civil discussion. --Golbez (talk) 18:44, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

That's an inflammatory statement you should retract. TFD (talk) 19:41, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Very much agree. TheVirginiaHistorian please strike out or remove the statement. It has no basis in Wikipedia policy or guideline and has become disruptive misuse of the talk page.--Mark Miller (talk) 20:12, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

So again, in other words, consensus decided to look away from blatant synthesis and original research.--AlfaRocket (talk) 20:06, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Yep. Those of us who disagreed were outnumbered and out... ... outTVHed. --Golbez (talk) 20:36, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Consensus isn't always fair.--Mark Miller (talk) 20:12, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

There is no "blatant synthesis and original research" to say that the U.S. Government is competent to specify its geographical extent as sourced, that its territorial inhabitants can be U.S. citizens, with human rights and self determination within republican forms of government under the U.S. Constitution. It has prevailed — now for fifty years, as reliably sourced. Deniers are not racists, but they do not recognize that a nation state can evolve in its conception and implementation of citizenship over the course of a century — to tend towards greater human rights and self determination for minority populations within its geographic extent.

I will not retract my statement that those are not racist who merely adopt a flawed methodology ignoring fifty years of political practice in the U.S. territories. The methodology is not racist, they are not racist. Though there may be editors who are misguided in a bad methodology, it takes more to be a racist than merely ignoring a century of continuing progress among minority populations towards increasing human rights and self determination in U.S. political history. Passively recounting racist judgments of 1917 without taking into account conditions in 2017 is not racism in 2017, it is bad methodology.

For racism to be apparent, there must be an active assertion of racial superiority or inferiority. The one hundred year-old Supreme Court cases asserted an inferiority among islanders — and that was tentatively put forward as U.S. Government policy only until Congress might determine otherwise. And the U.S. Congress has now since mid-20th century, determined otherwise in sustained legislation for half a century, a determination of islander native and naturalized U.S. citizenship along with their own elective governors and legislatures, now upheld by the federal courts — as reliably sourced.

Golbez and TFD have not asserted racial superiority nor inferiority for anyone, so they have not been racist. There is no cause for them to take offense to civil discussion of misguided methodology ignoring a century of political evolution and fifty years of political practice increasing human rights and self determination for islanders in territories within the existing U.S. geographic extent. Unsourced characterizations of reasoned arguments supported with reliable sources as "blatant synthesis and original research" or "inflammatory" is not conducive to civil discussion of the geographical extent of the United States. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:45, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

You said, "at least one editor implied that the U.S. Government is incompetent to make brown-skinned people U.S. citizens." AFAIK, no one has ever said that. Congress has extended birthright citizenship to people born in four of the outlying territories and a congressional committee said it extends to Palmyra as well. And the United States has accepted the UN resolution on the right to self-determination. TFD (talk) 10:48, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

"Among editors of these pages, there seems to be a spectrum of ideological positions adverse to brown skinned peoples, from those who would deny their utility, to those who would deny their desirability, to those who would deny their humanity. But this is not racism,..." You. Need. To. Stop. You are not helping yourself with your archaic, cherry-picked definition of "racism". You do not get to accuse fellow editors of being "adverse to brown skinned peoples... deny[ing] their humanity" then turn around and say BUT I'M NOT CALLING YOU RACIST. You definitely are. You seem utterly incapable of not getting the last word in, and that is going to cause you to get blocked for lacking good faith, poisoning the discussion, and being generally toxic. --Golbez (talk) 15:05, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

I truly regret causing you or any other editor any personal offense. I am sure you accept the possibility of the mutual incorporation of the United States and Northern Mariana Islands as a part of the geographical extent of the United States, based on the lawful actions of the duly elected representatives of their respective peoples. (Unlike the sourced Supreme Court justices of a century ago who did not, sources editors once used to suppose that present U.S. geographical extent could not include any of the five major territories.) Just as all editors can see that self determination is possible under the federal U.S. Constitution, "the CNMI [has] internal self-government under locally-adopted constitutions." p. 8, U.S. Insular Areas, Application of the U.S. Constitution, November 1997.

And you have persuaded me and I do now believe that no ulterior motive. whether racism or otherwise, restrains you or any other editor from accepting the natives of the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands as holding full U.S. citizenship, since they are born within the United States, as reliably sourced: “A covenant between the United States and the Northern Marianas established the islands as a commonwealth under the sovereignty of the United States.” "People born in … the CNMI … are American citizens.” p. 8, U.S. Insular Areas, Application of the U.S. Constitution, November 1997.

So the Infobox should report that the CNMI is the last polity admitted to the United States. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 18:59, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

I would challenge the consensus, but not before issues with certain editors, vis a vis bad faith, morally shaming other editors, etc., are resolved. Can we please do something about this distraction? --SchutteGod (talk) 20:18, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

As long as the comments remain, I have to agree. If the editor will not remove or strike out the comments I feel they should be hatted. Thoughts?--Mark Miller (talk) 22:22, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Not only does it violate personal attack, but the whole approach deflects from the discussion, which is what the info-box should say. Furthermore, TVH has added a lot of questionable original research and mistatements, which could lead to wasteful discussion. For example TVH says I do not accept that people in the CNMI are American citizens. In fact I said that the U.S. Congress had extended citizenship to them.[1] TFD (talk) 23:11, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

It's quite the straw man, as none of us have disputed that CNMI has birthright citizenship, along with the other populated territories save American Samoa, as that's an objective fact that doesn't require synthesis and original research. No one has disputed that, yet somehow we're racists who think brown people don't qualify to be Americans. --Golbez (talk) 00:39, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

I think that's a tentative consensus to hat the comments if for no other reason than to stop discussing it. If editors wish to file an ANI report that's fine but if not...we really should just hat and move on.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:27, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

I am accused of calling some unnamed individual a racist, at the time and subsequently I have explained that I did not intend that construction of my characterization of some opponents of the past three years to be deniers of U.S. citizenship among the inhabitants of all five major territories that are in the geographical extent of the United States. I have repeatedly posted how bad methodology ignoring fifty years of U.S. history with the five major territories is not racist, --- and reading or sourcing racist Supreme Court cases of one hundred years ago does not make one a racist.

The discussion of the Constitutional status of the territories is always fraught because the territories that are within the geographical extent of the United States are not judicially "incorporated" for limited purposes of domestic U.S. law, and that doctrine was promulgated in decisions that scholars such as Sanford Levinson have determined to be racist. TFD in this Talk section misrepresented the consensus as reversing Supreme Court doctrine, assuming domestically "unincorporated" territories were held at WP as "incorporated". They are not, the evidence adopted by the consensus showed something else again, that the geographic extent of the United States internationally included the five major territories and their populations, see Common Core Document of the United States of America, Report to the UN Committee on Human Rights, December 30, 2011, sec. 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87. The territories are "foreign in a domestic sense" and "domestic in a foreign sense".

As I understand editors now confronting me, since my explanation that I had no intent of calling anyone a racist was not accepted by editors, I was asked to apologize. I apologized for any statement that might be taken as shaming any editor as racist. That apology was not found sufficient, so now at the request of TFD and Mark Miller, the identified passage is removed here at Talk. Again, I am sorry if I have made any mischaracterization of any editors over the past three years, and I deeply regret causing any disruption to these pages at the present time. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 05:03, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

So, now we can reexamine the “covenant” that the islander adults of their own free will entered into under United Nations auspices, joining the United States only after several decades of legal training and representative self-government under civilian courts of the U.S. Constitution.

Their American status now includes "citizenship of the soil" and disproportionate military service in wartime. The Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI) should be characterized in the United States article info box as the “Last polity admitted”. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:00, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

You wrote, "At least one editor implied that the U.S. Government is incompetent to make brown-skinned people U.S. citizens." That is a clear accusation of racism. And it is false, because no editor has made that claim. TFD (talk) 10:37, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Very well, the offending passage is removed per your request. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:16, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

So now all can agree, The Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI) should be characterized in the United States article info box as the “Last polity admitted”, given the sources available at Common Core Document of the United States of America, Report to the UN Committee on Human Rights, December 30, 2011, sec. 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87; and p. 8, U.S. Insular Areas, Application of the U.S. Constitution, November 1997 -- and given there are no applicable counter sources obtained to support any question of the legitimacy of the covenant of political union between CNMI and the US making natives of the CNMI "citizens of the soil" within the United States geographical extent. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:16, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

I agree.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:18, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

I wouldn't use any of those sources however particularly since the Congressional report on the insular territories specifically excludes them from being part of the United States. And please don't post lengthy passages from it and original research since I have read the report and read your arguments many, many times. TFD (talk) 19:41, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Not a problem, you do not need the passages rehearsed, you know that the U.S. territories are a part of the United States for the purposes of geographical extent, and that is not original research. There are no sources to the contrary, other than Cuban, Iranian and Russian Government declamations in a U.N. subcommittee which have not gained traction in the U.N. General Assembly as a whole. These, the WP consensus have chosen to put aside as unreliable for the purposes of discussing U.S. geographical extent.

• At the same time, you know the U.S. territories are not “part of the United States” for purposes of internal tariffs, which otherwise would be Constitutionally prohibited without the judicial legal fiction invented for the purpose, “incorporated” and “unincorporated”. It is a judicial distinction which does not have common usage internationally, and no application for discussion of the U.S. geographical extent relative to islander international status. U.S. islanders carry U.S. passports.

• The U.S. territories are “foreign in a domestic sense” for the purposes of internal tariffs, which is what the Insular Cases are all about, charging an internal tariff on imports from territories onto the mainland. So the seven U.S. mainland families of the early 1900s sugar cartel did not suffer competition from sugar grown in the tropical U.S. territories back then. Now after one hundred years, the U.S. leaves some aspects of the Gilded Age behind, as WP editors must also in their treatment of the U.S. geographical extent when thinking internationally.

• The U.S. Territories are “domestic in a foreign sense” relative to the international community, with U.S. Governors elected by U.S. territorial inhabitants with U.S. citizenship, they have self determination under laws of their freely elected territorial and U.S. representatives, they are protected by U.S. Courts. U.S. territories are “part of the United States” for citizenship of the soil, as you have admitted. The soil is U.S. soil, the citizens there are U.S. citizens. U.S. territories in the Pacific Ocean are not Chinese, as is asserted by other sources not included in the WP consensus.

Not a problem. For the purposes of geographical extent of the U.S. in this article, the CNMI is the last polity admitted into the U.S. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 06:05, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces: Be so kind as to point editors to the page in the GAO report, U.S. Insular Areas, Application of the U.S. Constitution, where they can read where it — referring to the U.S. territories — "specifically excludes them from being part of the United States” as you posted. I have conducted a term search, and so far, I cannot find the term “part of” used there in such a way.

Rather on page 24, it says "The Insular Cases use the term 'incorporated' to distinguish ... from 'unincorporated' territories” as a judicial distinction regarding constitutional rights --- not geographical extent --- And on page 45, we have "The Court held that the Uniformity Clause of the Constitution, at Article I, § 8, did not apply to unincorporated territories and, therefore, that different duties [taxes on their sugar, etc.] could be applied.”

"Different duties" under U.S. jurisdiction is not the same as geographical extent of the United States. If you cannot find where there is an explicit denial that U.S. territories are "a part of the United States” in its geographical extent on some referenced page, please remove your post that otherwise misrepresents the source, as a matter of wp: good faith on your part. Thank you in advance for your attention to this matter. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:45, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

We have wasted more than enough time on this. It's up to you to point out where the report explicitly says the unincorporated territories are part of the U.S., not to post bad original research in walls of text. TFD (talk) 10:20, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

You would overthrow a WP consensus built over three years with a fabrication that one of twenty sources supporting U.S. territory inclusion within the geographical extent of the United States, does “specifically" deny that the U.S. territories are "a part" of the U.S. But it does not, and you cannot show where it does, though you have been challenged to do so. U.S. territories are self-governing within U.S. territory under the federal U.S. Constitution by U.S. citizens, as reliably sourced.

As you have read before in the GAO report, U.S. Insular Areas, Application of the U.S. Constitution, p. 1: The Insular areas of the five Major Territories or the nine Minor territories are "the Territory or other Property” of the United States as are the states of the United States. page 29: Unincorporated territories of the United States have no more power “over commerce than states [of the United States] possess.” page 35: an unincorporated territory “has no inherit or independent sovereign power.”

It is uncollegial to accuse an editor of original research who uses direct quotes from sources. Besides unsourced assertions, fabrications, and ad hominem attacks, what would @The Four Deuces: like to contribute to this talk page? Source something verifiable for discussion, as your unsourced remarks have proven unreliable on this topic. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:03, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

It's OR when none of the dozens of sources actually say what you want us to say but insist we must draw that conclusion. TFD (talk) 10:51, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

The “territory of the United States” encompassing the U.S. Insular Areas in the GAO Report on page 1 means they are included within the geographic extent of the United States. We can quote without ellipses, “The Insular Areas are territory of the United States.” In the Common Core Report to the United Nations by the USG, it says on page 8 that the legal structure of the U.S. is "a federal republic of 50 states, together with a number of commonwealths, territories and possessions.” The District of Columbia is constitutionally a U.S. territory as are five others self-governing commonwealths and territories in the Common Core report. That is what the article intro says, as sourced.

There is no "conclusion" required by the reader in consulting either reliable source to recognize that U.S. Insular areas are constitutionally within the territory and legal structure of the modern United States. Nowhere does any reliable source claim that DC and the five Major Territories are not a part of the United States geographical extent. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 20:34, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Again that is your personal interpretation not found in the source. TFD (talk) 00:40, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Again, you can offer nothing but personal attack, misrepresentation, fabrication and unsourced assertion to deny U.S. insular areas are in the U.S. geographical extent. Here are two more direct quotes from U.S.G. and scholarly sources that also do not require editor personal interpretation and are also not original research:

“Parts of the United States [include] Guam, Puerto Rico, U.S. Virgin Islands, American Samoa, Swains Island and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI)” as defined by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection Information Center, updated 02/24/2017.

The geographic extent of the U.S. federal republic is found in United States Practice in International Law, Volume 1, 1999-2001, page 163, in a Presidential Proclamation that the contiguous zone of the United States of America “in accordance with international law”, includes “the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, the United States Virgin Islands, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands . . .” TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 03:32, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

You brought up these quotes before so if you want a reply I suggest you search the archives. TFD (talk) 04:01, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

There was no answer from a reliable source made then, and there is none that can be made now, is there — only your discredited fabrication that a GAO Report “specifically” denies what it directly asserts on page 1, that U.S. insular areas are “territory . . . of the United States." TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 05:25, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Stop fabricating what I said. I said they are territories of the United States. TFD (talk) 10:13, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

No, not only have you no reliable sources to justify your objection to the CNMI as a part of the geographic extent of the modern U.S — when you did read a verifiable source, you fabricated a misrepresentation, "the Congressional report on the insular territories specifically excludes them from being part of the United States.". But all can see it says that they ARE territories of the U.S. and a part of its geographical extent; the Supreme Court ruling that they are not sovereign alien states is referenced in the GAO Report, p. 26.

• NO WHERE does the report say that they are not a part of the United States as you assert in your original research based on misrepresentations that require editors to leap to a conclusion to conflate the Supreme Court allowing domestic tariffs with their prohibiting Congressionally enacted geographic extent of the United States -- no reliable source says that the Supreme Court does any such thing; no acceptable source says what you want it to say, so you persist in offering no verifiable sources to back up your POV assertions.

And U.S. Customs and Border Protection Information Center, says that the U.S. territories ARE "Parts of the United States [including] Guam, Puerto Rico, U.S. Virgin Islands, American Samoa, Swains Island and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI)”. -- which you dismiss with a misrepresenting reference to the archives — but it is the point of this talk section which you continue to post with unsourced objections. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:03, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

I already explained to you why your sources do not support your claims and why your synthesis is faulty. You should remember it. It's in the archives. If any other editors want me to explain this I will, but I have wasted enough time discussing this with you. TFD (talk) 23:11, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

The U.S. Customs source that names the “parts of the United States” does support the WP consensus including U.S. insular areas as "parts of the United States", which you deny without supporting sources. You make no reasoning explanation you merely make unsupported claims. You mislead when you say you concede that U.S. insular areas are “U.S. territories” when you continue to deny that U.S. territories are U.S. territory within its geographic extent — as I have verifiably sourced in the GAO Report and in the USG Common Core Report to the U.N.

You have made no explanation of how “part of” as a direct source quote does not support “part of” in the article narrative, or that “U.S. contiguous zone” does not mean “U.S. geographic area” or “territory of the U.S." does not mean "U.S. geographical extent”. These are not synthesis, you are simply asserting another unsourced fabricated claim. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:07, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Again, already replied to you - it's in the archives. TFD (talk) 15:02, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

There was no reliable counter-source then, there is no reliable counter-source now — Only clever blogging with unsubstantiated assertions, just as you exhibit here now.

As you may recall from the archives, since WWII the U.S. geographical extent includes its populated insular territory with mutual political union and local self-governance by U.S. citizens under the protection of federal courts — as provided for by Congressional statutes that supersede the Supreme Court Insular Cases of a century ago. Territories enjoy all fundamental Constitutional rights excepting a few instances such the Uniformity Clause prohibiting internal tariffs. In the archives, there is some unsourced blogging to the effect that the lack of internal tariffs is the same as the geographical extent of a nation-state in the international community. That requires leaping to a conclusion unsubstantiated in the literature on U.S. geographical extent. No reliable source made any such connection, so the unsourced blogging was not accepted as authoritative by the WP consensus.

While they are within the geographical extent of the United States, the U.S. territories do not have the Constitutional standing of U.S. states. But even so, territories have always been a part of the United States, since before the Constitution in the Old Northwest Territory, as sourced, without any counter source being submitted for discussion, just as there is none now — only clever blogging in reply. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 02:26, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

How is the United States not listed as a police state?

It meets all the criteria for being listed as such. Multiple sources, multiple statistics, a general consensus. Even debate.com has 94% saying that the USA is a police state.

I'm an American by the way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FCC8:8DC7:3700:15EC:7100:5DC5:20E (talk) 23:49, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

It's not listed as one because reliable sources don't say that it is. To change that you'd need to find reliable, legitimate sources (not just Internet polls) to back the assertion. ╠╣uw [talk] 20:08, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Multiple sources... that you of course have not supplied so we can vet them. Wow, even debate.com! Wow. Because according to debate.com, I can find good deals on a personal injury lawyer - it's a squatted web address, mate. Pro comment, American. --Golbez (talk) 15:07, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

The assets forfeiture in favor of police might qualify, but I am not an expert. To me it looks more like a surveillance state than a police state. From what I have read in recent years, there is ever expanding wall to wall surveillance after it came into the open through Snowden and the NSA in 2013. The map with foreign military presence is outdated. Obama brought the Marines to Darwin, Australia, in 2010; since 2013 we pay for them. Then Prime Minister Tony Abbott said in October 2013 in Sydney, thet he signed up to remunerate the Marines, so Australia should be in blue there. 2001:8003:A921:6300:D4FB:1CA2:5C1D:1D1B (talk) 04:49, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

"History: Indigenous populations" section way too short

Is this because of a past consensus, or just that no one has ever bothered to expand the section? Either way, it's ridiculously short and I'm going to expand it to a similar length as the other "History" subsections. CJK09 (talk) 16:16, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

I do not believe there is any consensus on the size of the section but I can do a quick check.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:06, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Does not appear that there has been any consensus over the size or addition of content in some while for this section.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:11, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

But you should be prepared that someone might raise an objection if something is controversial, seems to go off topic, may be too broad a scope for the article as well as many other technical reasons such as article size etc..--Mark Miller (talk) 05:15, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

CJK09, I should also mention that as a new editor your edits will probably be looked at closely by editors as this is one of Wikipedia's most viewed articles and it took a good deal of work to get it rated GA. There has been a lot of edit warring and content disputes on the article as well as other related articles and is currently under a discretionary sanctions warning; "The Arbitration Committee has permitted Wikipedia administrators to impose discretionary sanctions on any editor editing this page or associated pages. Discretionary sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process." so Caution is recommended. Happy editing!--Mark Miller (talk) 05:21, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

US Wealth

The United States should be accepted as the Wealthiest country in the world, the links given provide evidence for this.Redom115 (talk) 03:48, 28 August 2017 (UTC)Redom 115 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Redom115 (talk • contribs) 03:21, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Redom115. Thank you for engaging in discussion on this point. The article already says that the United States has the "largest share of global wealth concentrated in a single country". What is gained by adding "wealthiest" to this? Especially given that the two sources that you added earlier this month (Fortune and The Hindu) are both giving the word "wealthiest" precisely the same definition as already appears in the article here? It seems that you are insisting on additional verbiage that doesn't provide any additional information. Thanks again for engaging in discussion. I look forward to hearing your response. NewYorkActuary

(talk) 12:37, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

I oppose Redom115's change, as the quoted source does not cite aggregate U.S. wealth ("wealthiest country on earth" having numerous criteria) but total wealth of individuals who hold U.S. citizenship. This editor's history of egregious off-topic POV edits (and WP admin warnings) on Wikipedia is a long one. Mason.Jones (talk) 16:03, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

I think it provides additional information and extra emphasis because possessing the most wealth does indeed indicate the country is the wealthiest. Also the links state that it is the richest nation. Redom115 (talk) 16:10, 29 August 2017 (UTC) I agree. As a Greek immigrant in Turkey who admires America, I can say that along with Turkey, America can put its place as the most wealthy nation on earth. Turkey was in the 1600s and now America is. Two Great Nations. I hope Turkey is secular again to regain Americas friendship. Its bad enough Turkey is involving itself in american politics like america did in the 80s to us. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Georgepodros (talk • contribs) 11:17, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

"Providing additional information" is your problem, Redom115. You contribute similar POV nonsense across Wikipedia, often with a short and flippant editing summary, and your additions consist mostly of original research (much of it off-topic). You don't seem to be a native speaker of English. Worse, you are edit warring rather often on WP, and you have repeatedly sought to revert consensus in this article. I have notified a WP admin. Mason.Jones (talk) 15:38, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

What on earth are you talking about Mason.Jones, the links themselves state what I edited? Are you just blind or stubborn. Wikipedia is supposed to be about accuracy but instead all you want to do is to make as inaccurate as possible. How is it nonsense when it is true? Perhaps you are the one that is spouting nonsense. Redom115 (talk) 09:14, 30 August 2017

Your history of admin. warnings, flippant edit summaries, and admin. block (appeal refused) this year are indication enough that you are as bad-faith as WP editors can be. Your puerile and illiterate edits on the "United States" article are proof of it. Mason.Jones (talk) 23:43, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

First of all, back then I was new to Wikipedia. Second of all, what does that have to do with anything. I simply edited something that links themselves already told. Do you even read what I am saying? Redom115 (talk) 11:15, 30 August 2017

The United States has the most wealth in the world, not to mention if you look at its financial position, it should be regarded as such. Also if you look at economy subcategory, it uses the same link that says the US is the Wealthiest Country in the world Redom115 (talk • contribs) 3:31, 09 September 2017 (UTC)

The total wealth of a country is based on aggregate GDP, natural resources (incl. petroleum extraction and production), number of large corporations, total stock market value, among many other things. The sentence you refer to (it's more like an off-topic factoid that should be dropped entirely) and source cite total wealth held by individuals of U.S. nationality. Your remark (quote) "making it the wealthiest country in the world" (unquote) is weak, far-fetched, specious, overwrought, and classic POV analysis. Mason.Jones (talk) 15:56, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

If you look at the wikipedia page of National Wealth it is the value of all natural resources, corporations, total stock market value etc. it is exactly all those things you just mentioned, so the US should be recognised as the wealthiest country in the world. It is the value of all types of assets and capital. It is not off-topic, it is entirely true. Redom115 (talk • contribs) 09:15, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

You repeated pretty much what I just wrote. The factoid, however, says "Americans hold 33.2% of the total wealth in the world, the largest share of global wealth in a single country." It is thus both misleading and obtuse to append "making the United States the wealthiest country in the world." The wealth held by America's private citizens ("household wealth," per the Credit Suisse source) is quite a different kettle of fish -- one you still fail to comprehend, apparently. That is unfortunate. Mason.Jones (talk) 03:04, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

I support NewYorkActuary and Mason Jones on this. The two other editor's behavior alone is concerning and seems to have more than some bias or, at the very least, un-encyclopedic tone.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:05, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

How did I repeat what you said, the wealth held by private citizens is the national wealth, it is sum of all assets minus all the banalities. What's unfortunate is that you cannot see to understand what National Wealth actually means? Redom115 (talk • contribs) 11:14, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

How is it biased when it is true, and the links themselves support this? Wikipedia is supposed to be all about accuracy. Redom115 (talk • contribs) 11:14, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm sensing quite a lot of WP:IDHT here on the part of Redom115. The edit they propose is misleading and technically incorrect and should remain reverted. General Ization ^Talk 01:23, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity who is the 'they' you General Ization are referring too? Redom115 (talk • contribs) 11:49, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Colon Abuse

This article uses colon (;) extensively (208 times). It was not meant to be used this much. Well respected magazines and newspapers hardly ever use it! 193.242.214.225 (talk) 19:39, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Aside from the fact that usage of colons is highly dependent upon the style of language used (level of formality, level of education assumed in target audience, purpose of writing, etc), the symbol you have typed there is actually a semicolon. --Khajidha (talk) 13:47, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Mega-diverse Countries

A mega diverse country criteria is based on its wildlife, not climate or geography Mason.Jones. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Redom115 (talk • contribs) 23:17, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Totally agree this mason guy is editing to belittle usa — Preceding unsigned comment added by Georgepodros (talk • contribs) 07:16, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

As you mention me by name, Georgepodros -- I'm actually more patriotic than most. By the way, your post above related to Turkey during the Ottoman Empire has absolutely no relevance here. Please stick to the subject at hand. Thanks. Mason.Jones (talk) 14:27, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

A mega diverse country is based on biological diversity, not geographical or climate, and it should be stated as such. Redom115 (talk • contribs) 3:31, 09 September 2017 (UTC)

Too many images?

There are far a lot of graphs and images. Text is sandwiched in between templates and other images and is excessively heavy in the Demographics section.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:16, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

The Demographics section could be helped by re-aligning the historical population table to the right side. That would take care of the text sandwiching at the cost of about an inch of white space before the major population centers. I've already got it set up, to preview. I'll just go ahead and save the edit. We can discuss further (re)moving or reformatting of the images. Dhtwiki (talk) 04:20, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

• Moved from the article for discussion;

Race/Ethnicity (2015 ACS estimates)
By race:
White	77.1%
Black	13.3%
Asian	5.6%
American Indian and Alaska Native	1.2%
Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander	0.2%
Multiracial	2.6%
By ethnicity:
Hispanic/Latino (of any race)	17.6%
Non-Hispanic/Latino (of any race)	82.4%
Non-Hispanic whites	62.8%

--Mark Miller (talk) 19:29, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

References

Keep, but make narrower than 310px, as there's too much blank space and it's wider than the other graphics there. Dhtwiki (talk) 02:28, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

• Moved from article for discussion;

Largest ancestry groups by county (2000), led by German Americans

U.S. population density in 2005

I support just losing these images. One is POV and the other outdated and not supported by a reference.--Mark Miller (talk) 21:37, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

I'd keep the first one, because it's a compelling graphic when viewed in high resolution, though somewhat confusing and misleading (my county is classed as Chinese but that must be a slight plurality in this diverse town). I'd remove the second, regarding population densities, just because there are too many images in that section. Dhtwiki (talk) 02:28, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

• This image lacks a source to verify that it is what it depicts. The original upload pages the image is linked to no longer exists.

U.S. troops approaching Omaha Beach in 1944

--Mark Miller (talk) 21:46, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Iconic photograph (but it doesn't have to be the representative photo in that section). I couldn't find alternate page at Naval History and Heritage Command site (the source that's lacking, I believe), but a snapshot of the old page is archived here. Dhtwiki (talk) 02:57, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. Let me see if the information on that page can be used to find a reliable book source and I'll add it back! Thanks again.--Mark Miller (talk) 17:58, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

• No source and not sure if needed;

U.S. territorial acquisitions–portions of each territory were granted statehood since the 18th century.

--Mark Miller (talk) 22:00, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

I would keep this, unless a better graphic can be found. I think it's instructive to synoptically correlate major acquisitions of territory with the states that were formed therefrom. Dhtwiki (talk) 03:03, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Reference formatting

Would anyone object if I began switching the article over to short citations while I am checking sources and cleaning up references, since we already have a fully fleshed out bibliography?--Mark Miller (talk) 18:10, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Effects on and interaction removal of Death of Captain Cook image

Images suggested

The Mayflower, which transported Pilgrims to the New World. During the first winter at Plymouth, about half of the Pilgrims died. Squanto known for having been an early liaison between the native populations in Southern New England and the Mayflower settlers, who made their settlement at the site of Squanto's former summer village. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:928B:5C00:DC86:6738:4DB2:64F7 (talk) 07:29, 10 September 2017 (UTC) Jennie Augusta Brownscombe, The First Thanksgiving at Plymouth, 1914, Pilgrim Hall Museum, Plymouth, Massachusetts John Gadsby Chapman, The Baptism of Pocahontas (1840). A copy is on display in the Rotunda of the US Capitol. The Indian Removal Act resulted in the transplantation of several Native American tribes and the Trail of Tears. References

"Death of Captain Cook" by Johann Zoffany (1795)

Can someone remove this image and replace with one of this instead.

Or add an image to give a valence like the trail of tears or one that talks about the American Indian Genocide or the big numbers of Indians that past because of effects on and interaction. 2602:304:CFF8:5A30:D9B3:7840:BCDE:B633 (talk) 22:05, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Why do you want the image replaced?--Mark Miller (talk) 04:39, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

The section is about effects on and interaction with.... Cook interacted with native peoples of several locations now associated with the United States and was perhaps the most notable navigator/explorers in history. His death is actually mentioned in the section while none of the suggested images are mentioned in the section....and that's aside from your just not liking the other image and giving no reasoning as to why it should be removed.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:47, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

The main problem with the image is that it shows behavior involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone on the front page of the article which ultimately lead to someones passing. It would be better place in the History of the United States article. By that note an image of slavery in america showed be added as it was and still seems in contemporary times to have effects on and interactions of Americans with the removal of confederate monuments. We shooed concentrate on a positive images of Americans to the world and Americans interacting with Americans in a positive manor at list on the front article of the United States (USA). Like Thanksgiving winch after all is a major holiday in the United States by presidential proclamation. Not trying to white wash history; only trying to give a more rounded and ecliptic view of what it is to be an american. In other words violence by one group to another; negatively depicting one group over another in interaction showed not be place with valence. Most people only pay a small among of time in articles and see the images most of the time with out reading the full article, attaching meaning. I don't dislike the image Per se, I dislike the in-valence it portraits. Unless another image is added giving a perception from the point of view of the other party. In the end in doing some research it seems historians don't seem to agree on how this event happen or way. As to "his death is actually mentioned in the section while none of the suggested images are mentioned in the section" this only point out the lack of comprehension in the "section"/article on this subject. It dose not point out Multiracial Americans that came about because of this interactions that now make up 2.6% of the USA. Giving that the United States is multi cultural and because we are talking about Native American and European American interactions mainly and not African American to say; that america is a mix of multi cultural society's a nation made of one time immigrant. 2605:E000:928B:5C00:E501:230F:4093:5F0C (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:39, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

The reasoning given for the removal is simply your personal reaction/opinion and has no basis in Wikipedia policy or guidelines. The image depicts a historic event which is a part of American history. The fact that it depicts an act of violence that ended in the life of the man is not reasoning for removal or it would mean we would have to remove a lot of images such as the death of Julius Caesar. That argument holds absolutely no weight whatsoever.

"By that note an image of slavery in america showed be added as it was and still seems in contemporary times to have effects on and interactions of Americans with the removal of confederate monuments" If you have followed me here from the Alt-left article to become a problem you might want to rethink what you are attempting.

"We shooed concentrate on a positive images of Americans to the world and Americans interacting with Americans in a positive manor at list on the front article of the United States (USA)." This isn't a propaganda page. An encyclopedia has a neutral point of view.

"violence by one group to another; negatively depicting one group over another in interaction showed not be place with valence." I have no idea what this means.

"I don't dislike the image Per se, I dislike the in-valence it portraits." I have no idea what is you just don't like but clearly you just don't like something.

"Unless another image is added giving a perception from the point of view of the other party" No, just...no.

"In the end in doing some research it seems historians don't seem to agree on how this event happen or way" Oh really? There were many witnesses including the ship's surgeon, First Lt. King and a person who history would rememeber as Captain Bligh. There were also Native Hawaiian witnesses that gave detailed accounts that match the western accounts. This was written about a great deal. We know the name of the actual person who stabbed Cook, the man that held him and the many facts that in most situations in history are nowhere near as well recorded.

"As to "his death is actually mentioned in the section while none of the suggested images are mentioned in the section" this only point out the lack of comprehension in the "section"/article on this subject. It dose not point out Multiracial Americans that came about because of this interactions that now make up 2.6% of the USA. Giving that the United States is multi cultural and because we are talking about Native American and European American interactions mainly and not African American to say; that america is a mix of multi cultural society's a nation made of one time immigrant" Original research...and perhaps you simply do not understand but...African Americans are not indigenous peoples of the Americas.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:35, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Misuse of article talk page. All caps ramble with no basis in Wikipedia policy or guidelines.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:57, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The reasoning given for the removal is simply your personal reaction/opinion and has no basis in Wikipedia policy or guidelines. The image depicts a historic event which is a part of American history. The fact that it depicts an act of violence that ended in the life of the man is not reasoning for removal or it would mean we would have to remove a lot of images such as the death of Julius Caesar. That argument holds absolutely no weight whatsoever. not reasoning for removal or it would mean we would have to remove a lot of images such as the death of Julius Caesar. That argument holds absolutely no weight whatsoever. Pointing out to be having or showing behavior that is respectful and considerate of other people. The argument holds absolute weight your reasoning is simply your personal reaction/opinion and we would not have to remove a lot of images such as the death of Julius Ceasar this is an article on the United States. "By that note an image of slavery in america showed be added as it was and still seems in contemporary times to have effects on and interactions of Americans with the removal of confederate monuments" If you have followed me here from the Alt-left article to become a problem you might want to rethink what you are attempting. "We shooed concentrate on a positive images of Americans to the world and Americans interacting with Americans in a positive manor at list on the front article of the United States (USA)." This isn't a propaganda page. An encyclopedia has a neutral point of view. I agree this isn't a propaganda page. An encyclopedia has a neutral point of view. To be objective. I did not followed you here from the Alt-left article to become a problem. I'm not attempting anything but making the article the best it can be. Before this talk with you I did not know you exited. "violence by one group to another; negatively depicting one group over another in interaction showed not be place with valence." I have no idea what this means. It means you are not being objective and think this is a propaganda page. Because in retrospect, that seems to describe..ya know...you. "I don't dislike the image Per se, I dislike the in-valence it portraits." I have no idea what is you just don't like but clearly you just don't like something. Don't like that it shows Natives as not wanting to interact with Europeans. When we have a holiday to give tanks "Unless another image is added giving a perception from the point of view of the other party" No, just...no. I have no idea why you think another image to be included is a bad idea. What is it you just don't like? but clearly you just don't like something? "In the end in doing some research it seems historians don't seem to agree on how this event happen or way" Oh really? There were many witnesses including the ship's surgeon, First Lt. King and a person who history would rememeber as Captain Bligh. There were also Native Hawaiian witnesses that gave detailed accounts that match the western accounts. This was written about a great deal. We know the name of the actual person who stabbed Cook, the man that held him and the many facts that in most situations in history are nowhere near as well recorded. One of the reasons we know so much about captain cook and the reason he show up in so many history textbooks is because we have tons of records about him, but they're almost all European records. Even the Hawaiion recoros we have about cook have been heavily influenced by later contact with Europeans. "As to "his death is actually mentioned in the section while none of the suggested images are mentioned in the section" this only point out the lack of comprehension in the "section"/article on this subject. It dose not point out Multiracial Americans that came about because of this interactions that now make up 2.6% of the USA. Giving that the United States is multi cultural and because we are talking about Native American and European American interactions mainly and not African American to say; that america is a mix of multi cultural society's a nation made of one time immigrant" Original research...and perhaps you simply do not understand but...African Americans are not indigenous peoples of the Americas.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:35, 9 September 2017 (UTC) That's the point. African Americans are not indigenous people of the Americans. Pointing out that not everything is black or white. Captain cook sailor and eventually a British Naval officer, who saw action in the seven year war. Best know for his three voyages of exploration and scientic discovery that took place in the Pacific Ocean. Part of the middle wave of European colonization. The one that took place after Europeans settled in the Americas, but before they set their sights on Africa. having discussed the life of captain cook, lets turn to the most controversial thing he ever did. Die. So Cook landed in Hawaii at Kealakekua bay in early 1779 and explored the island. While he was ashore he was greeted by an important person, probably a chief. In early February, he left. But the ship had trouble and was forced to return to the bay for repairs. During this second visit, he had difficulty with the Hawaiians, who'd previously had been pretty hospitable. And there was a fracas, in which captain cook was killed by at least one Hawaiian. We know this from journals kept by various crewman, but the historical controversy arises from the details and interpretation of his death. Why, in short, was cook killed? The traditional view is that cook was killed for some religious reason, although what isn't always clear. One of the most fleshed out versions of this story comes from the anthropologist Marshall Sahlins, in his book "Eslands of History" So in the Hawaiian religious system ku the God of war and Human sacrifice, rules for eight or nine months out of the year. The other months are reserved for the Fertility God, Lono. the season long festival for Lono is call "Mukaniki" and during this the Hawalion king, who is associated with Ku, is ritually defeated. During the Makuhiki, an image of Lono tours the island, gets worshipped, and collects taxes. And at the end of the Makahiki period, Lono is ritually defeated and returned to his native Tahiti. The thinking goes that because cook arrived in the middle of the Makahiki, the Hawaiians perceived him as Lono. So cook took part in the rituals and sacrifices that were made as part of the Makuhiki and in Sahilins view, Cook was killed as ritual murder to mark the end of Makahiki. For Ku to return, the festival to end, and the normal political order to be restored, Lono had to be defeated and presumably killed! For Sahlins, Cooks's death fits perfectly with the ritual structure of Hawaiian culture. Opposing view from Gunanath Obeyeskere for looking a lot more like European myth than like Hawaiian ritual. First off, Obeyesekera argues that Cook himself would not easily be confused with Lono. In fact if he were lake for a God, it would probably be Ku, the war God, what with all the cannons and muskets. Also there's the fact that the name Cook sounds more like Ku than Lono. Also, arguing that native Hawaiians would see a European and think him a God has all kinds of troubling implications. One of them being that native Hawaiians aren't terribly smart. Last Lono is associted with fertility and the Hawaiians would have associated the Europeans with the exact opposite of fertility because they introduced gonorrhea to Hawaii. Plus noting in Howaiian religion has any of their gods being ritually killed. Part of their mythology can be seen as sanctioning a ritual killing of the king, but not of a god and also it's a long way from ritual killing to actual killing. The truth is probably a lot less spectacular which is that cook was probably killed during a malee in which a bunch of Hawaions were also killed. Before his death, Cook had attempted to take a Hawaiian king hostage in response to Hawaiians taking a bunch of stuff from Cook's boats. This was common practice for Cook. He had done the same thing in Tahiti and other Polynesion Island after islanders had taken European goods. Which happened everywhere Cook went in the Pacific. Great sailor terrible anthropologist. Although to be fair, anthropology handn't be invented. So why the tension? Probably because the Europeans dismontled a Hawaiian ritual space, some sources call it a temple, and used it for firewood. Cook attempted to pay for it, but his low-ball offer of two hatchets, was refused. This being a Hawaiian explanation. Of course it's also possible that Hawaiians were just upset that cook had attempted to kidnap their king. Most accounts from the time portrays a chaotic scene in shich cook himself fired at least two shots, probably killing at least one islander. And one thing that seem pretty clear is Cook death does not look premeditated and it sure doesn't look like a ritual. But even so, the idea that Hawaiians saw cook as a God has ended up in a good many accounts of this demise. Why? well one explanation is that it fits with other stories of explorers. Like the Tainos thought Columbus was a god and the Aztecs supposedly thought Cortes was a god. And this just makes Cook one in a long line of Europeans who were thought to be gods by people who Europeans felt were savages. Sure Cook never had much formal schooling but his voyages were all about increasing knowledge and scientific exploration. And having him die at the hands of a people who were so obviously mistaken in thinking him a god makes an argument for the superiority over the intellectualism of the Enlightenmen versus the so called "Primitive Religion" of the colonies.2605:E000:928B:5C00:CCAC:F4D:4328:7929 (talk) 11:06, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

I'll just say this, the United States has been established to be the continental US, Alaska and Hawaii. Cook was the first westerner in Alaska and Hawaii and the first to make contact with the indigenous peoples of these lands. I believe there is due weight for the mention and the image.

The editor may simply be new to Wikipedia and does not understand that objections to the article must be made within the framework of Wikipedia policy and guidelines and historical content must reflect academic consensus. Please be warned that continued misuse of the talk page, from what appears to be a random IP user, could simply keep the article locked longer. I can tell you for sure you have absolute not convinced me to remove a thing.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:15, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Misuse of article talk page. All caps ramble with no basis in Wikipedia policy or guidelines.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:47, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
To be clear. No one is telling to remove image because of the person or because Cook has no intrinsic value to the United States history. This view still has its adherents. What is being talk about is our standards of assert ability regarding depiction. I think the view that is coming in more and more is that one cannot make a total separation between wha'ts true and what our standards of assertability are. That the way in which the-what I called using the Kantian picture the "mind-dependece of truth" comes in-is the fact that what's true and what's false is in part a function of what our standards of truth and falsity are. And because even within one scientific theory, you often have different accounts can be given of so-called facts. One could say "boy-scout A fired his stater's pistal before boy-scout B," the other could say "no, boy-scout B fired his starter's pistol before boy-scout A" And if the distance is sufficiently large so that a light singnal can't travel from on to the other without exceeding the speed of light, then it may be both descriptions are correct, both are admissible. I wanna say one shouldn't push that too far because we don't wanna give up our standards of intelligibility altogether. I think another image of Cook is sufficient to make the "point." Lastly because Miller may not compliantly understand withing framework of what a talk page is. I'm moving on. Keep the article locked. 2605:E000:928B:5C00:DC86:6738:4DB2:64F7 (talk) 06:43, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

United States Land Area

I do not see the reason in adding Land Area, it should just be total area. Redom115 (talk • contribs) 3:34, 09 September 2017 (UTC)

Why?--Mark Miller (talk) 03:16, 10 September 2017 (UTC)