Talk:United States

Article written by a New Yorker?

Articles seems to have be written by someone in New York as its mentioned 65 times, let alone Manhattan being mentioned 6 times. 204.237.91.211 (talk) 19:02, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Given that New York is the largest city by population in the United States and the US center of both publishing and finance, it should hardly be surprising that it is mentioned frequently in this article. Also, you seem to be including the names of publications (e.g., New York Times) and the appearances of New York as a location within references (see above re: publishing). There are actually closer to 20 mentions of the city itself in this article. General Ization ^Talk 19:20, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

The notion that one New Yorker wrote or substantially wrote this article is incorrect. Over 5000 editors have contributed to this article, and 48 of them have made 100 or more edits. This is a highly collaborative article. Cullen328 (talk) 19:34, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

I also think the count does not differentiate between the city and the state, which would inflate the number. Shoreranger (talk) 13:44, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

United Kingdom mentions London 38 times. TFD (talk) 11:48, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Excellent response. Shoreranger (talk) 21:25, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

It's a valid observation, though. Outside of lists or references, the top 5 largest cities as stated in the article are mentioned:

1. New York: 24 times
2. Los Angeles: 4 times
3. Chicago: 0 times
4. Dallas: 0 times
5. Houston: 1 time

Manhattan, a borough of New York City, is also discussed or mentioned an additional 7 times, more than any major city.

On a related note, I'm gathering sources to do the Fashion section which was originally added mainly about New York. Feel free to use any of these:

References

Regards, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 19:36, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

As I recall, Chicago_school_(architecture) was mentioned in the article before it was removed in an overzealous machete swipe. Another approach would be to mention redlining.-- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 20:32, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Chicago school of economics, [1]. The article could use a single clear sentence that explicitly lays out segregation, Jim Crow laws (in the south), and redlining (in northern cities like Chicago), maybe right after reference [110]. I don't think much needs to be added to the article though; it's inching back towards 10,000 words. A chunk of the New York stuff comes from images and asides, like the bit about Mormonism. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 22:10, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

This is the modification which removed the Chicago school of architecture and replaced it with a picture of a New York building. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 22:56, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

I've added a single, clear sentence. It may be a bit dense. Feel free to tweak it. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 00:58, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

I've also reworked the aside about Mormonism into something more historically relevant. In the process I looked at trying to remove the PoV that keeps popping back into the religion section, and found a misrepresented source. None of this has all that much to do with the NY bias... on that score it's surprising that neither Baltimore nor New Orleans are mentioned, given their historical importance. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 17:05, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

But far less current importance. TFD (talk) 11:50, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps, though when the levees on Lake Pontchartrain broke in 2005 it was quite a notable catastrophe (as was Harvey in Houston a few years later). Baltimore is surely at least notable for "The Star-Spangled Banner" and The Wire. :) 15:33, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Pamphlet

This might not be the right department since I could not find a phone number. I am originally from Maryland. I was given a bible about 50 years ago dates 1894 found a brochure or pamphlet in in in excellent condition with the company of Pretzincer’s Gatarrh Balm company on it 8 pages. It’s been in my closet for many years. I’m donating the Bible but contents I am not. Would like to find the interesting home. This is history and would like it to go home. Julie 2601:547:1200:5850:4CD4:1C56:B48D:A33A (talk) 18:33, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Wikimedia Commons is apt to host such things. You might ask at their help desk. You might also consider listing it on eBay, where a similar such pamphlet, rather dog-eared at that, is listed for $95 (but that's not necessarily indicative of its real value). Note that the proper spelling is Pretzinger's Catarrh Balm. Possibly the most relevant article Wikipedia itself has is on the company founder's Dayton house. Dhtwiki (talk) 05:45, 23 January 2024 (UTC) (edited 05:47, 23 January 2024 (UTC))

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 January 2024

Change 'though' to 'through' in the education section. "The United States tertiary education is primarily THOUGH the state university system" Dhuibhshithe (talk) 03:57, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

 Done RudolfRed (talk) 05:17, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

POW/MIA Flag in info box

@Illegitimate Barrister added the National League of Families POW/MIA flag to the infobox, under the logic that it is a quasi second national flag, being flown at many federal buildings. I removed it, under the logic that it was too big of a change to be made without discussing on the talk page.

So, should this flag be in the infobox or not? MRN2electricboogaloo (talk) 21:47, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Negative it is a small political action group that has a very narrow focus. Rjensen (talk) 22:19, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Definitely no. Many "awareness" flags go up at federal and state buildings on special days. Making these into national symbols of the U.S. in the WP inbox is unjustified. Mason.Jones (talk) 17:35, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Oppose. I appreciate that a citation was given, yet looking at the actual USC here, there is no evidence that the flag in question has the same status as the flag currently in the infobox. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 07:04, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 January 2024

Update of inaccurate percentage US land area covered by water from 4.66 to 7 percent.

Back calculating the area using the land area minus total US area (both of which are shown right next to this in the article) contradicts the 4.66 % figure. Additionally there are sources giving the more accurate figure.

https://www.geographyrealm.com/which-states-have-the-highest-percentage-of-water-area/

https://www.statista.com/statistics/379294/us-water-area-state-type/#:~:text=The%20United%20States%20and%20its,territorial%20waters%20along%20the%20coast.

Thanks, hope this helps :)) EditorJack99 (talk) 13:39, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

 Done While Statista is not generally considered a reliable source for Wikipedia, I was able to find a table from the USGS which not only confirms the 7.0% figure but is more recent than the previous source, and so I've updated the infobox accordingly. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 00:33, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Are unincorporated territories indisputably part of the United States?

On Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names), User:Mercy11 said the intro to this article is incorrect in that it says unincorporated territories are part of what constitutes the United States. User:The Eloquent Peasant pointed out that the Britannica entry for United States says something different; it says US territories are "political units in association with the United States". If our article is incorrect, it should obviously be fixed. If our article is correct, the fact that this claim has been challenged says to me it needs to be better supported with references to reliable sources.

Puerto Rico is somewhat more integrated into the United States than other territories, and in some ways is treated like Washington, D.C. It's inside the main customs territory, and people born there become U.S. citizens. Neither of those things are true in American Samoa. In everyday conversation, people will jump up and down and insist Puerto Rico is part of the United States when it's hit by a hurricane, but then people in Puerto Rico also say they are going "to the United States" when they go to the Lower 48. Shipping stuff to US territories is not considered an export, but shipping into the Lower 48 from territories other than PR is considered an import. Quite the weird intermediate status! As Territories of the United States explains, the US constitution only partially applies in unincorporated territories because they are not considered an integral part of the country, and all the inhabited territories are unincorporated. Would it be more accurate to say the United States "has" or "possesses" or "exercises sovereignty over" as we say now, "five major unincorporated territories and nine Minor Outlying Islands"? -- Beland (talk) 11:31, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

If I recall the wording here was intended to reflect US government geographical publications, which did not make a distinction, rather than the strict constitutional situation. CMD (talk) 14:10, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes @Beland: to what you wrote "Would it be more accurate to say the United States "has" or "possesses" or "exercises sovereignty over" as we say now, "five major unincorporated territories and nine Minor Outlying Islands"?"

Any of these would be more accurate than what the article says now. --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 18:29, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Unicorporated literally means "not part of." The distinction is that the U.S. constitution applies in full throughout the U.S. including all states and other incorporated territories and the District of Columbia. {D.C. was originally part of Maryland so remained incorporated when it became D.C.)

So for example, the 14th Amendment ensures that people born in the U.S. have U.S. citizenship. People born in Puerto Rico become citizens because of an act of Congress passed in the early 20th century. But a similar law has never been passed for American Samoa or for any of the uninhabited unincorporated territories.

The U.S. government however treats unincorporated territories the same as states in most ways. For example they deliver the mail, although they have no constitutional obligation to do so. TFD (talk) 22:26, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

OK, it sounds like there are no objections to being more precise, so I tweaked the intro wording a bit to clarify as proposed and also to clarify the geography of the capital and Indian reservations. -- Beland (talk) 23:26, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 02:57, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Your re-wording makes the description clear and accurate. TFD (talk) 03:33, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

• We need to stay away from phrases like "it also has five major" (User:Beland) and "There are also five major" (User:Mason.Jones) because they are ambiguous. We need to use words that convey the difference the unincorporated territories and those that are incorporated (i.e., the states/DC), which are the areas that actually comprise the US.

On the first phrase ("it also has five major..."), the use of "has" does not portray possession, which is what the unincorporated territories are. There is a difference between having something, and possessing something. For example, a man has two hands, but he possesses two cars; a woman has a beautiful figure, but she possesses great wealth; a girl has blonde hair, but she possesses degrees in music and history; a boy has a good heart, but he possesses a bike. "Having" connotes being an integral part of a larger whole, (in this case, those people's bodies) while possessing connotes ownership (cars, wealth, degrees, bike.) Thus, the US has 50 states but, possesses (owns) the unincorporated territories. Likewise, the US does not possess the 50 states because it doesn't own them.

On the second phrase ("There are also five major..."), the use of "there are" does not convey any of the significant difference between the (incorporated) states and DC and the unincorporated territories, because it is unquestionable that in the US "there are" 50 states. (Example, Q:"How many states are there in the US?" Ans: "There are 50 states.") As in the case with "has" above, "there are" isn't equivalent to ownership, which is the main difference between the states/DC and the unincorporated territories as well as the precise relationship between the US and its said territories. We need a phrase that portrays ownership such as "The US also possesses five major..." Mercy11 (talk) 03:56, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

I do see the problem. The lede of the WP article Territories of the United States might offer some of the vocabulary needed to express the unique relationship. Perhaps: "Other U.S. possessions, which are not considered to be an integral part of the United States, include five major..." There must be an economical way to describe these non-sovereign possessions outside the Union.

Mason.Jones (talk) 04:36, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

OK, I've changed the intro to "asserts sovereignty over" to try to be more precise while remaining economical. I thought "has" was sufficiently ambiguous as to whether it implies possession ("I have $100 in cash") vs. "being an integral part of" to be neutral, but since there were objections to that, I did not go back to it. Assertion of sovereignty over is also somewhat neutral, as the US federal government asserts sovereignty over the 50 states, but European powers have also asserted sovereignty over entities that are clearly colonies. It also intentionally avoids saying the United States exercises sovereignty in all 16 places, which may imply actual administration. As far as I can tell, some of the disputed islands are de facto administered by Colombia, or no one in particular? Readers can decide for themselves whether the assertions of sovereignty are legitimate or make the territories part of the United States. -- Beland (talk) 20:35, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

@Beland: the problem with "asserts sovereignty over" is that it doesn't answer the question that brought us to this Talk Page discussion in the first place, namely:

"Are unincorporated territories indisputably part of the United States?"

The endless argument we face from editors (the argument manifests itself in numerous distinct ways) is the mistaken notion that "the territories are part of the United States."

Some (many?) editors just don't seem to have enough with the fact that, as User:The Four Deuces stated above, "unincorporated literally means not part of " and, thus, the issue should not be open to any debate. And yet, one editor after another pops up and wants to argue that the unincorporated territories "are" part of the US. The problem, to be clear, is not only the hours spent reverting text in articles, categories, lists, templates, etc., but also the near-edit warring that we become exposed to. Two examples, this and this, somewhat show the problem. I have come across many other cases, but only these two I kept around. Their edit summaries show the problem.

That said, I wouldn't worry much about the smaller islands also claimed by Colombia, nor about what or how European powers see this issue relative to their territories, etc.; those cases rarely come up. I would simply take Puerto Rico as the model for answering the question of this discussion, is only because Puerto Rico has over 95% of the total population of all the U.S. territories combined; thus, our focus should be Puerto Rico (as in, "Is Puerto Rico indisputably part of the United States?") and then extrapolate from there to the other territories.

That is, if we, after 3 days discussing this issue here, are going to take the position you are suggesting, namely, that "Readers can decide for themselves whether the assertions of sovereignty...make the territories part of the United States [or not]", then we haven't solved problem, have wasted our times, have paved the way to perpetuate confusion, and have not performed our function as editors, namely, to educate the reader.

I would support user:Mason.Jones's suggestion that it could read "Other U.S. possessions, which are not considered to be an integral part of the United States, include five major..." I feel we need to grab the bull by the horns and settle this matter once and for all, and not leave it half-attended to which is to no one's benefit.

Mercy11 (talk) 01:11, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

@Mercy11: While we've established that the claim "Puerto Rico is part of the United States" is not undisputed, I also see reliable sources and notable commentators that dispute the claim "Puerto Rico is not part of the United States":

• NBC: Puerto Rico Is Part Of the U.S.: Here's A Few Things to Know
• Professor at FIU: Puerto Rico has been part of the US for 125 years, but its future remains contested
• USA Today: Yes, Puerto Rico is part of the United States
• The Charlotte Observer: Why did Puerto Rico become part of the US? And why is it not a state? Experts explain
• Travel site: Is Puerto Rico a US territory?

Some essentially say "it's complicated":

• Time: Is Puerto Rico Part of the U.S? Here’s What to Know

There are certainly people who feel Puerto Rico is part of the United States despite the Insular Cases that labelled it as "unincorporated" in order to deny it various rights and powers, similar to how South Africa created "independent" Bantustans in order to deny citizenship rights to Black South Africans. It seems like some people simply don't feel such legal distinctions are important or determinative, and some explicitly deny their validity because of they were blatantly motivated by racism.

Whichever point of view we might agree with, I think the existence of a substantial controversy means Wikipedia needs to stay neutral, either by using ambiguous phrasing or by explaining the nuance that causes the disagreement without making any categorizations that would be disputed.

The addition of Puerto Rico to Police ranks of the United States makes sense to me; Puerto Rico police are delegated their authority by the federal government of the United States, not from an inherent police power as a sovereign entity like, say, occupied Iraq. Puerto Rico is listed separately from the states, so it should be clear to readers they are not equivalent. The assignment of "U.S." as the nationality of Milagros Benet de Mewton also makes sense to me based on Puerto Rican citizenship and nationality, which describes Puerto Ricans as both U.S. and Puerto Rican citizens, but only U.S. nationals. (Similarly, I am a citizen of both Massachusetts and the United States under the Fourteenth Amendment, but Massachusetts is not my nationality. Neither Massachusetts nor Puerto Rico issue passports.) But it seems she should also be listed as a Spanish national because she was born when Puerto Rico was part of the Spanish Empire. I will update the infobox. -- Beland (talk) 03:26, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

While some jurists and legal experts have asserted that Puerto Rico has been incorporated into the U.S., that is  minority position. No one argues that acquisition of territory automatically incorporates it into the administering state. Some overt act is required to do this. Hence Massachusetts when it was ruled by England was not part of England.

The overt act is normally an act of Congress that specifically says a territory is incorporated on a specific date. The opposing argument is that various acts of Congress over the years have had a cumulative effect of incorporation.

Incidentally, the article by the professor at FIU says, "Technically, Puerto Rico is an “unincorporated territory” that legally belongs to but is not a part of the United States." You have to be careful when citing sources to make sure they support your opinion and they are sourced to experts.

The most important legal consequence is that if Puerto Rico is an unincorporated territory, an act of Congress could give it independence. But if it is incorporated, it would require a constitutional amendment. Congress would be unlikely to incorporate Puerto Rico without the consent of its citizens. TFD (talk) 06:28, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Also, Nationality unlike citizenship, comes from international law and means someone owes allegiance to a particular sovereign state. PR and MA are not recognize a sovereign states. Similarly, until 1948, all Commonwealth citizens were considered to be British nationals subject to the UK.

The fact that citizens of Canada, Australia, etc., were considered British nationals under international law until the late 1940s did not mean those countries were part of the UK.

TFD (talk) 16:40, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces: I think the point of the FIU professor's article is that the technicality of Puerto Rico being an unincorporated territory that "legally belongs to but is not a part of the United States" is an absurdity that doesn't make it not part of the United States in his opinion, or in moral or economic or practical ways that he feels are more important to this categorization than the legal technicality. The last line of the article points out it's considered "foreign in a domestic sense", which I think is there because sounds like an oxymoron, and don't forget that the headline reads "Puerto Rico has been part of the US for 125 years".

Likewise, I don't think the other sources cited above are necessarily arguing that Puerto Rico has been legally incorporated into the United States in the same way that Palmyra Atoll has. That's a narrow legal question which is a little more black-and-white. Some commentators are clearly aware of that question and agree with the majority view that it has not been incorporated; they just don't consider that determinative when deciding what is and isn't part of the United States.

I don't necessarily endorse any particular POV here, but we're supposed to give due weight to significant minority views, too. Given that mainstream news organizations are also asserting that Puerto Rico is part of the United States, it does not appear this is a fringe view which should be mostly ignored when speaking in Wikipedia's voice.

The United Kingdom is not the United States. I don't know of any mainstream news organization that has ever asserted that Massachusetts was ever part of England; everyone seems to agree that the colonies of the British Empire are outside of the UK. Maybe that's because the UK has a monarchy which unites its empire and the US does not, maybe it's because the United States doesn't like to think of itself as having a multi-country empire like the UK did, or maybe it's just a quirk of public opinion. We don't have to get to the bottom of why, just respect the differences in what people assert. -- Beland (talk) 00:51, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

The minority opinion is arguing that Puerto Rico has for all intents and purposes been incorporated into the U.S. and therefore should be treated as part of it, whether it actually is or is not. The White House, Congress and the Supreme Court are all in their opinion wrong in their interpretation as are the overwhelming majority of legal experts.

English precedent is of course relevant because the Framers of the Constitution used English legal concepts, particularly through reading Blackstone. The Insular cases drew heavily for example on Calvin's Case decided in England. They would be aware of the distinction Blackstone made between Wales, which Parliament had incorporated into England, and Ireland, which it had not.

English citizenship is also the basis of U.S. nationality law and was the sole precedent for determining who was or was not a citizen prior to the resolution of meaning of the 14th Amendment in the 1890s.

While "foreign in a domestic sense" may seem ironic, those are the words used by the justices who decided Puerto Rico was not part of the U.S.

The U.S. has also told the U.N. that none of the five territories have been incorporated into the U.S. and at least two of them have an inalienable right to declare independence, which sets them apart from incorporated territories. TFD (talk) 01:38, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

@Beland: regarding your "While we've established that the claim 'Puerto Rico is part of the United States' is not undisputed...", not only are you in violation of WP:CLAIM but additionally, and for everyone's sake, let's talk straight: the un-wordy way to write that would be "While we've established that the claim "Puerto Rico is part of the United States" is disputed...

That said, it begs the question, Who is your "we"? Excuse me, but the participants so far, at that point in time, besides yourself (namely, Eloquent, TFD, Mason Jones and myself) we had all shared our opinions and they were all contrary to yours.

• Eloquent: "it [would] be more accurate to say the United States 'has' or 'possesses'..."
• TFD: "Unincorporated literally means 'not part of'."
• Mason Jones: "Perhaps: 'Other U.S. possessions, which are not considered to be an integral part of the United States,...' "
• Myself: Everyone of my edits here make it categorically clear my view is that the (un-incorporated) territories are not part of the United States.

Despite that WP:SNOWBALL, you have now gone to great lengths to try to show the contrary with your list of so-called reliable sources ("NBC, Professor at FIU, USA Today, The Charlotte Observer, Travel site, Time"). Of course, all of those sources are "correct" and, of course, it was also true that Dewey Defeated Truman, right? None of your sources, singly or combined, trump the SCOTUS which has established the un-incorporated territories are not part of the United States. Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244 (1901)

So, when you share your opinion in this discussion, it would be hugely beneficial if you stated it is your opinion instead of attempting to speak for the rest of us four other participants at that point in time so far, all of who had stated opinions contrary to yours. Please do not speak for me or put words in my mouth; otherwise, I will tend to believe you started this discussion with a political agenda in mind and not to actually seek to gain WP:CONSENSUS. Thank you. Mercy11 (talk) 01:36, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Is it necessary to get into nation-state semantics at all? Simply put, PR and GU and the USVI are not federated states. The U.S. Census Bureau doesn't include them in its national population figures or rankings. (The WP article List of U.S. cities by population doesn't list San Juan, because the U.S. Census Bureau doesn't consider it a U.S. city.) In the lede, I'd prefer more emphatic wording: "Outside this union of states, the U.S. also holds possessions that are not considered to be an integral part of the United States. It thus administers, and claims sovereignty over, five major unincorporated territories and 11 minor outlying..." Something this detailed might be helpful. Mason.Jones (talk) 17:12, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

@Mason.Jones: That seems a bit too wordy to me. Highlighting that the territories are "unincorporated" is enough to highlight the distinction you are making; saying they are not considered integral parts of the United States is in some way repeating the same point in different words. And it's also treading on thin ice in terms of neutrality. I'm not sure what fraction of commentators would dispute "PR is not part of the US" but would not dispute "PR is not an integral part of the US". Are we talking about bill-of-rights integration here, or economic or moral? Sticking with "unincorporated" makes it clear we're talking about a narrow legal issue which everyone pretty much agrees on.

List of U.S. cities by population does list San Juan, it's in the Puerto Rico section. I don't see any evidence the Census Bureau doesn't consider it a U.S. city; it's just reported separately from the 50 states + DC. Which makes sense; it's not part of the apportionment calculation for the House of Representatives. I'm not sure the Census Bureau has an official opinion on the claim "PR is part of the US", but even if it did officially endorse that view, the official position of the US government or one or more of its agencies is only one point of view. Apparently some mainstream news organizations would disagree with the government if that were its official position, so we have to take both into account. -- Beland (talk) 01:07, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

I just happened to stumble across this debate, and wanted to give my take. Personally, I think the issue over whether U.S. territories are "part of the United States" is much more complex than people make it out be. On the one hand, yes the Insular Cases held that unincorporated territories were not automatically protected by non-fundamental rights of the Federal Constitution due to racist reasoning, and thus "belonged to, but not part of, the United States" for certain constitutional purposes (in the case of V Bidwell, the Uniformity Clause). Now, we could take the position that these rulings settle the matter, and thus the status of being "unincorporated" unambiguously means that the territories in question are not "part of the United States". However, there are several problems with this:

- The SC itself has not been entirely clear as to if the term "unincorporated" to describe the existing inhabited territories means that the territories are outside the U.S. in all contexts. In fact, that very same Court ruled in 1945 [2] (pg. 324, U.S. 652) that, in different contexts, the term "United States" may be used in any one of several senses. It may be merely the name of a sovereign occupying the position analogous to that of other sovereigns in the family of nations. It may designate the territory over which the sovereignty of the United States extends, or it may be the collective name of the states which are united by and under the Constitution. (This is also mentioned in the U.S. territorial sovereignty page). Now if we interpret the Insular Cases to have held that all unincorporated territories are outside the U.S. in "all" contexts, then this 1945 ruling somewhat contradicts it, as it also suggests that all areas under the sovereignty of the U.S. can be considered to be encompassed by the term "United States" in the general sense of the word, so it's worth considering whether the term "unincorporated" was intended to mean that the territories in question are flat out outside the U.S., or whether the Court intended for this to only apply to certain constitutional contexts (i.e., the territories aren't automatically protected by all non-fundamental constitutional rights and are outside the "Union of States", but not necessarily outside the sovereign boundaries of the U.S. (this is alluded to in Downes V Bidwell, where the justices mention that the term "United States" can apply to its whole territory when used in an international context amongst a "family of nations.").

- The notion that unincorporated territories are unambiguously outside the U.S. is further undermined by the fact that, in the modern understanding of what sovereign states are, U.S. territories meet the majority of the criteria which is usually used to determine what is and isn't part of the country. The most glaring example of this is the fact that the vast majority of U.S. federal laws apply to the territories in much the same manner as states, including federal employment laws [3], federal drug laws [4], federal highway laws [5], environmental protection laws [6], immigration laws [7] (this excludes American Samoa), and I could go on, but the point I'm making is that, saying that these territories are outside of the U.S. may be more misleading than helpful, as the general modern understanding of what it means for a region to be part of a sovereign state is (i.e., under the sovereignty of the said country, and subject to most of the laws of said country) apply in practice to the territories as much as they do to the states and DC. This is why the Insular Cases is rarely taken into consideration in day to day life as to whether to refer to these territories as part of the U.S. or not, and even the U.S. federal government itself often refers to the territories as part of the U.S. today, such as this [8]] report by the State Department to the UN, which states that The United States of America is a federal republic of 50 states, together with a number of commonwealths, territories and possessions. Because the truth is (1) SCOTUS is only one of three equal branches of U.S. government, and what it decided in the Insular Cases is nowhere written in the Constitution, and merely the opinion of a few old men from the early 1900s; (2) secondly, the fact that all U.S. federal agencies have jurisdiction over the territories, the U.S. federal immigration process applies when travelling to the territories (excluding American Samoa), the U.S. Postal Service is responsible for mail in the territories and the territorial National Guards are under the overall command of the U.S. Army means that the practical basis for the territories being within the U.S. administrative system far outweighs any technical rationale that a few powerful men from the early 1900s said that the territories weren't true parts of the country under the Constitution due to their non-white customs.

- Here's an international analogy which may help (as a British editor): London isn't technically a city, since the Greater London Authority (the London-wide govt body) hasn't received Letters Patent, and the "city" status only applies to the cities of the City of London and City of Westminster within it. However, London's wiki article and most people nevertheless refer to London as a city [9] because, in the UK, we have a centuries-old outdated practice of only the places which the Monarch thinks are cities are "official" cities, which is why populated places such as Reading and Northampton (which would be considered "cities" everywhere else in the world), aren't official cities. So, if we can refer to London as a city when it de jure isn't, then if we interpret the Insular Cases to mean that unincorporated territories are definitely not in the U.S." (which is definitely debatable), we shouldn't necessarily state that on WP, as the racist views of a few men from over a century ago shouldn't change the practical reality on the ground today, which is why, when most people learn that, e.g., PR is a U.S. territory, is inhabited by U.S. citizens and is subject to U.S. federal law, they assume it's "part of" the country, which IMO makes sense from a practical standpoint.

So in summary, this article's lead should stay as it is. The arguments both for and against whether the territories are part of the U.S. are valid, so we only need to state facts (i.e. that the territories are under the sovereignty and jurisdiction of the United States.). In individual articles too, we shouldn't explicitly state that the territories are either in the United States or outside the United States. Instead, we should use purely factual wording such as under the U.S. flag, under the jurisdiction of the United States or within the sovereign territory of the United States, etc. Also, IMO, info boxes on places in the territories don't need to exclude "United States" and only included the territory and town/city/village/municipality, as if we use subsections such as "sovereign state" (as the articles of non-U.S. territorial places do, like Stanley, Falkland Islands and Nuuk, Greenland) alongside "United States", it merely informs the reader that the location which is the subject of the article is within the sovereign territory of a sovereign state, rather than "inside" or "outside" of the country proper.

Anonymous MK2006 (talk) 20:34, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

@Beland: Regarding the article on Milagros Benet... many articles, most articles about Puerto Rican people state they are Puerto Rican... scientist, Olympian, boxer, saint, musician, biologist, whatever. I believe the WP:WikiProject standards / guidelines has decided by consensus that a Puerto Rican person should be listed as Puerto Rican. It's also the way the news articles and sources normally describe such people. With regards to the "part of the US", should we not go with what the US Supreme Court said? The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 21:54, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

@The Eloquent Peasant: I ended up putting Spain, the U.S. and Puerto Rico in the Milagros Benet de Mewton article; if this is not satisfactory, let's continue discussing on Talk:Milagros Benet de Mewton. If you're referring to Wikipedia:WikiProject Puerto Rico/Standards, it does not say what to put in the "nationality" field of biography infoboxes, but it does say to put both the U.S. and Puerto Rico under "citizenship". MOS:INFONAT actually says both should be avoided "when the country to which the subject belongs can be inferred from the country of birth", which arguably applies for someone who has lived in Puerto Rico their entire life. I don't know if you are referring to the nationality field or some other way of "listing" people as Puerto Rican. Are there specific articles you're thinking of as examples? -- Beland (talk) 00:05, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

What about the 1945 SC ruling that gave many potential definitions of the "United States", which I have cited? Anonymous MK2006 (talk) 22:44, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Also we have failed to mention that Puerto Rico and Puerto Ricans is on the Wikipedia List of Controversial topics, so I doubt this will be "settled once and for all" but good luck, I guess. The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 21:55, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

@Eloquent -- Good comment. Yes, how U.S. territorial cities are named in English Wikipedia infoboxes (i.e., without referencing the U.S.) was part of a broad consensus—reached years ago—about Puerto Rico being "a nation within an nation." The island even fields its own team at the Olympics. The U.S. territories are complicated and are treated differently in WP after much discussion with editor-residents. I would thus prefer more emphatic phrasing about the territories' apartness from the federation of states, but consensus might be too hard to reach. Mason.Jones (talk) 22:40, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I do agree that PR is definitely a nation (in the sociocultural sense) within the sovereign territory of another nation (in the political sense) (i.e., the U.S.). However, I do still think that the sovereign state should me mentioned as well as the territory, as San Juan (for instance) is very much a city which the FBI would be involved in, in the event of say a terror attack, and would be protected by the U.S. Army in the event of an invasion, so in that sense, whilst San Juan might not be in the "union of the United States" like the states, D.C. and technically Palmyra Atoll are, it's very much a U.S.-controlled city like Honolulu is (btw, WP even does this for the SARs of China, which have much more autonomy from the Chinese govt than U.S. territories do from the U.S. govt (e.g. New Kowloon has both Hong Kong and China in the infobox)).

Regarding the wording of this article's lead, I think "outside of this Union of States" already gives adequate detail of the distinct relationship which states have within the U.S. political system vs the territories, although we could reword it to something like... outside of this Union of incorporated states, a federal district and Palmyra Atoll, the United States asserts sovereignty over 14 unincorporated territories and possessions, five of which are permanently inhabited... In the absence of a concrete answer from federal institutions (which may be deliberate), this is the best we can do. Anonymous MK2006 (talk) 23:28, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Genocide wording

A sentence was recently inserted into the article implying that many historians believe that there was a singular, uniform genocide committed against Native Americans. (Which cited a 2015 article from the revisionist historian Jeffrey Ostler.)

Yet this appears to be a misinterpretation of what he's saying. Historians, even those who tend to hold the most negative views of American conduct such as Jeffrey Ostler, reject the claim that the United States uniformly committed genocide against Native Americans, as it is well known that American treatment of certain indigenous peoples varied significantly from that of others. Ostler argues that there was forced population transfers/ethnic cleansing with small-scale genocides of particular indigenous groups by state/local actors (w/national indifference) but denies there was a universal genocide (singular) of Native Americans. The predominant viewpoint among mainstream historians is that there were widespread mass atrocities (forced population transfers/ethnic cleansing, unequal land treaties, and military conquests) committed against the indigenous populations of what is now considered part of the United States. (Any claims to the contrary should be rightfully rejected as WP: FRINGE and denialist.) But they overwhelmingly refer to it as "forced population displacement/ethnic cleansing" rather than "genocide" when they mention it. Ostler himself also states that this is the predominant viewpoint:

Since 1992, the argument for a total, relentless, and pervasive genocide in the Americas has become accepted in some areas of Indigenous studies and genocide studies. For the most part, however, this argument has had little impact on mainstream scholarship in U.S. history or American Indian history. Scholars are more inclined than they once were to gesture to particular actions, events, impulses, and effects as genocidal, but genocide has not become a key concept in scholarship in these fields.

At best, the sentence should be revised before being reinstated into the article.KlayCax (talk) 19:47, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

The Oxford Encyclopedia reference you are deleting does indeed state that the policies of Indian removal or assimilation have been "characterized by some historians as genocide". There is no contest that the cited source verifies the claim. For others to verify that, I will include the source that you've deleted twice now (revert #1, #2) without adding it to the talk page discussion:

References

-- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 20:00, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Ostler says exactly what I stated above: In fact, although few scholars in the fields of American Indian and western U.S. history have systematically addressed the question of genocide, for many, perhaps most, scholars in these fields, an overarching indictment of genocide seems too extreme. Some might label specific events and cases, such as the Sand Creek massacre of 1864 or widespread settler violence against Indians during the California Gold Rush, as genocidal, but they would not see U.S. policies and settler actions as consistently so. (Ostler also openly states he is a minority within the field.) Historians predominantly characterize it as forced population transfer/ethnic cleansing rather than genocide.

Even among those who consider parts of Native removal/assimilation genocidal, they overwhelmingly reject the claim that it composed a singular genocide, which the wording that was added implies.

This of course does not mean that the United States didn't commit mass atrocities against its indigenous population. The country obviously did. KlayCax (talk) 20:08, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

So using the adjective "genocidal" would satisfy you? -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 20:13, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

If we're referring narrowly to specific events of Indian assimilation/removal, yes. (e.g. "The early treatment of Native Americans in California has been considered genocidal by some historians.")

If we're referring more broadly, no. (e.g. "American treatment of Native Americans has been considered genocidal by some historians.") KlayCax (talk) 20:21, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

I have used your preferred "some cases" wording. As you can see on the linked page, there are several books with titles including genocide, holocaust, and ethnic cleansing. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 23:20, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

The new wording still implies that it is predominantly characterized as genocide. We would need substantially more historians to hold this view before casually mentioning this in the article.

Beyond this, mentions of "genocide" in Wikipedia articles have generally only been mentioned when the claim is nearly undisputed among political scientists and historians. An extraordinary amount of agreement is required.

To give just a few examples of this:

• There is a consensus on the Belgium page that the Congo Free State shouldn't be mentioned as a possible genocide on its main page, despite many historians considering it this.
• There is a consensus on the Soviet Union page that the Holodomor shouldn't be classified or claimed to be a genocide on its main page, despite the same.
• There is a consensus on the China page that claims of Uyghur genocide should be excluded on its main page, despite the same.
• There is a consensus on the Japan (featured article) and Empire of Japan articles that "genocide" or "ethnic cleansing" shouldn't be used on the main pages, again.
• Other Anglophonic countries (Australia, Canada, and New Zealand) exclude mentions of "genocide" or "ethnic cleansing" from their articles, despite often engaging in behavior similar to the early United States.

That's why I'm under the view that it should be excluded for now. Even those who take a maximally negative view of America's treatment of its indigenous people, such as Howard Zinn, have predominantly and explicitly opposed classifying it as such in their works. Unlike Ward Churchill, or Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz, Ostler is a great and rightfully respected historian, and he's done some great research on the matter, but he only cites particular instances of this as being genocidal, and states that his opinion is a small minority of current scholarship. If the Congo Free State, Holodomor, and claims of Uyghur genocide are excluded for lacking consensus, then I can't see how this does.

The debate belongs on the American Indian Wars, California, and related articles, rather than on the main United States page. KlayCax (talk) 05:27, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

KlayCax, I've noticed your revert #3. Perhaps other people share your opinion? If so, I'm sure they'll weigh in below. For the record, the sentence "some cases of which have been characterized as genocide or ethnic cleansing" does not imply that everyone agrees, the sentence in the present perfect passive would be true even if only one historian made this claim (which is far from being the case). I did note with surprise that the word genocide is not in the index of A People's History of the United States. I would like to see your reference where he "explicitly opposed classifying it as" genocide.-- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 15:19, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Length of lede

Template:Editnotices/Page/United States says that the lede is overly long. Checking MOS:LEADLENGTH, 3 to 4 paragraph is apparently normal for an article over 5,000 words. This article has about 9,800 words, according to the automated page stats. I combed through the intro and dropped some of the finer details to make it shorter, but a lot of stuff there seemed important. It's currently 4 paragraphs, which for a topic this important seems fine to me. If forced to drop it to 3 paragraphs, which the MOS says is typical for featured articles, I'd drop some of the details about Congress and merge the third paragraph into the first one. @Moxy:, it looks like you added the editnotice about this. Are you satisfied with the length reductions? Do you have some target length in mind? Anything in particular you think could be omitted? Anyone else have any thoughts? -- Beland (talk) 21:19, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Oh, reading the "Government and politics" section made it clear the lede had too many details about Congress, so I did the trim and merge proposed above, and now we're down to 3 paragraphs. Is that satisfactory, or is there more to trim? -- Beland (talk) 21:38, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

I would like to restore the mention of race relations. It is supported by the article. Black history is especially an important part of American history. This was brought up last year. Senorangel (talk) 03:32, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

In what way? Saying that race relations were "problematic" is euphemistic and there's no way to quickly summarize the history in the lead. (Which is already too long.) KlayCax (talk) 05:01, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

@KlayCax: I've reduced the lede from four to three paragraphs. Is that still too long? If so, what is your preferred target length? -- Beland (talk) 01:32, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Senorangel; the entire second half of the 20th century shouldn't be defined by the Cold War alone. If I'm thinking about the most important things that have happened in American history that are not mentioned in the lede, I think they'd be Jim Crow, the Civil Rights Movement, and the Industrial Revolution. I think those can be slipped in without adding to many words; I'll give that a try. -- Beland (talk) 01:32, 8 February 2024 (UTC)