Talk:United States

Only Country to Gain Independence From Great Britain By War

I've been reverted twice on this now. The ledge makes the claim that "The United States is the only country that ever won its independence from Great Britain by war." I've pointed out that this is not true in that at least one other country, the Republic of Ireland, was granted independence as the result of war against Britain. The first time I was reverted I was asked to provide a source. So the second time I deleted this sentence I pointed out that there is an entire Wikipedia article about it entitled Irish War of Independence. The words "war" and "independence" are right there in the article title. There are sources throughout the article. I'm not sure what the controversy is. But on the second revert I was told "that's not exactly true, Irish Independence was granted by treaty after peace talks which took place AFTER the war had already ended in stalemate."

I think frankly it's semantics at this point. The partition of Ireland occurred in May 1921 in anticipation of the end of hostilities and independence to the Republic. In the interim, a truce was negotiated and agreed upon in July 1921. The Anglo-Irish Treaty was signed on December 1921 and, according to a cited sentence in the lede of the treaty's article, "concluded the Irish War of Independence." Of course the war's end and granting of independence was not formal until a treaty was signed! That would be like me arguing that the United States did not actually win independence via warfare because the Battle of Yorktown was in 1781 and there were no further hostilities thereafter, but the Treaty of Paris granting independence was not signed until two years later in 1783. That's a longer period of time than the five months between the Irish truce and treaty. The sentence should be removed as it's a historically inaccurate representation. TempDog123 (talk) 19:57, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

There appears to be some confusion here. The above statement, that the U.S. was the only country to wrest independence from Great Britain via war, is true. The United States wrested independence from Great Britain by war. The Republic of Ireland wrested independence from the United Kingdom by war. The "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" and the "Kingdom of Great Britain" are not the same thing. Therefore, as a compromise, may I suggest we put a note in there to prevent any such confusion. Illegitimate Barrister 20:23, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

(ec)Meh. Looks like a pretty weak argument there. We could add Kenya if you wish. And distinguishing between UK and GB is ludicrous. Collect (talk) 20:51, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

No, because they are not the same thing. Just like the Russian Federation and the Soviet Union are not the same thing. Just like the German Empire and the Federal Republic of Germany are not the same thing. Just like the Brazilian Empire and the Federative Republic of Brazil are not the same thing. Just like the Ancien Régime and the French Fifth Republic are not the same thing, so and and so forth. Illegitimate Barrister 20:55, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

They aren't the same thing but they are the clear successor state. But regardless, shouldn't we take the principle of least confusion and not share a fact that at least some experienced editors think is either incorrect or too marginal to include? If editors are confused by it, it's very likely readers are too. --Golbez (talk) 21:01, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, I agree. That's why I suggested we put in a note template at the end of the sentence to clear up any confusion that there may be. Regards, Illegitimate Barrister 21:03, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

That is an option, but you rarely see such notes on Wikipedia, if ever, because we rarely give such possibly confusing and marginal facts. I think the best answer is simply to not include it. After all, from what I can gather, it was the only nation to win independence from Great Britain through war because it was the only nation to win independence from Great Britain PERIOD. The Kingdom of Great Britain existed from 1707 to 1800, during which time, at least based on my quick look at Wikipedia, the only nation to gain independence from it was the U.S. So, unless you have a second to share, the sentence "only one to gain independence by war" is a useless distinction anyway. --Golbez (talk) 21:08, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Could we say that it was the "first" country to gain independence from Great Britain, then? Illegitimate Barrister 21:10, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Wouldn't "only" be more accurate? And no, because it still doesn't minimize the confusion. The UK is the clear successor state to GB, and this is confusing readers with zero usable payoff. --Golbez (talk) 21:11, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

It would, but couldn't we blue-link "Great Britain" so it would take the reader to the historical state's article? Illegitimate Barrister 21:14, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Again - What value does this add to the article? It doesn't seem like it's worth the confusion. You haven't justified that, you've simply tried to find a workaround. --Golbez (talk) 21:17, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

I suppose that it would give the reader a broader historical context and the importance of said event in the grand scheme of things. Illegitimate Barrister 21:19, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

How so? There are lots of countries that were the only country to gain independence from their colonizer or mother country, we never make a point of stating that though. Does South Sudan say it's the only country to gain independence from Sudan? Eritrea from Ethiopia? Papua New Guinea from Australia? Bangladesh from Pakistan? And based on your own statement, Great Britain only existed for 93 years, so the fact that only one nation has gained independence from comparatively-venerable Australia is more notable. --Golbez (talk) 21:24, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Golbez that it also seems non-notable, except insomuch as it's trying to cast the revolution as an example of American exceptionalism, but to that end you already have the preceding sentence establishing that it "was the first successful war of independence against a European colonial empire," which to my knowledge is accurate (at least in the Americas). The distinction drawn between the Kingdom of Britain and the UK for purposes of this discussion is dubious. The implication of Britain, to me, suggests independence from the British Empire, which spanned both the Kingdom of Britain and the UK, and both the American and Irish wars of independence. Again, this seems like an exercise in semantics to me. It's a highly disputable assertion and I fail to see how this sentence can be set forth in the article as a truism, especially in the lede. TempDog123 (talk) 00:35, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

How about we move the fact which can be verified to a reliable source, to the history section, and include a note there, instead of it being in the lead section?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:56, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

The U.S. gained independence from the United Kingdom of Great Britain, while Southern Ireland gained independence from the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. No source concludes that they were differently states, the full name of the UK was changed after the Kingdom of Ireland was merged into the United Kingdom of Great Britain, and changed again when Sourthern Ireland became independent. Those are no more changes in states than each time a territory was admitted to the U.S. The U.S. is different however because the U.K. signed a treaty with them and recognized them as a foreign state at the time of independence, although that is an obscure point. TFD (talk) 03:18, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't mind the "exceptionalism", though. To an extent every country's article on Wikipedia engages in "exceptionalism". I mean, Brazil's article's lead section mentions that it's the world's leading producer of coffee and largest Lusophone country. All articles do this, in explaining what is unique about a topic. It's only encyclopedic. But, that said, the sentence is a bit redundant, as Dog said, the sentence before it mentions that the U.S. was the first country to win independence from a European colonial empire. Two sentences essentially saying the same thing is a bit redundant. Illegitimate Barrister 03:28, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Actually, TFD, according to Kingdom of Great Britain it was not styled "United Kingdom". --Golbez (talk) 15:32, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, you are right. But the fact remains that the current state is seen as continuation of GB and that Ireland was merged into it. What is important though is that the text make sense to the readers. TFD (talk) 15:53, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Support removal of this bit of trivia. Long articles, such as this really, really don't get the leeway for including such things. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:33, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

I'd just like to say that the statement is true based only on a technicality that is not apparent when the text is taken at face value. This is like stating that there are only 46 states in the United States; its technically true (four of the 50 states are officially commonwealths), but incredibly misleading when presented without this clarification. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 19:22, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

I would oppose removal of this fact from the article. Move it to the body from the lead, sure. Add a footnote, sure. remove it entirely, hindi.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:05, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Please explain how this is a fact of distinction and worth sharing. Justify its inclusion. --Golbez (talk) 08:02, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Justify its exclusion.

Justification:

Frederick C. Schneid (3 May 2012). The Projection and Limitations of Imperial Powers, 1618-1850. BRILL. p. 174. ISBN 90-04-22671-0.

There are likely more, but that is at least one.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:17, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

I may not be seeing it, so please quote the exact passage from your link where it states that the U.S. was the only nation to gain its independence by war from the Kingdom of Great Britain, and why this is a fact of distinction. I see something about being the only country to gain its independence and keep it "in this era... without serious external challenge" but that's not what we're discussing. --Golbez (talk) 22:40, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

It could mean that GB refers to 1707-1800, making the U.S. the only country to gain independence from it by any means. TFD (talk) 23:04, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

More fun: The Treaty of Paris of 1259 moved the Channel Islands from being held by England to being held by the King of England as "peer of France and Duke of Aquitaine". Ina strange sense, England lost them in official name, but the King of England held them personally. Thus they became "independent" from England as a result of war (Guernsey was styled as "republique"). Collect (talk) 23:18, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Your source says, "The United States was the only country in this era to gain its independence and to retain it without serious external challenge." The article already has a sentence stating that the American Revolution was the first successful war of independence against a European colonial power. I'm personally fine with the sentence about the US being the first successful revolution against Europe, and even having that information in the lede, because it's factual and notable. What I take issue with is the notion that the American Revolution was the only successful armed rebellion against Britain resulting in the creation of a new independent nation state. It's redundant of the sentiment expressed in the preceding sentence, as Illegitimate Barrister said, but not true unless you simply ignore the existence of the Republic of Ireland or rely upon an ambiguity between the Kingdom of Great Britain and the United Kingdom (a distinction not made in your source BTW) despite both revolutions ultimately being fought for independence from the British Empire.TempDog123 (talk) 23:27, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

RCLC, you have yet to justify the inclusion. If you do not do so then we'll have to assume that there is no substantive reason for this statement to be in the article and I will remove it again. BRD, I was bold, you reverted, we discussed, and so far, no reason for reversion has been presented. --Golbez (talk) 23:21, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

• Support removal. The statement's accuracy relies on a non-obvious technicality that renders it far less meaningful than it might seem. Even if it were entirely clear that the claim pertained to a specific 93-year period, the distinction is largely arbitrary in this context, making the associated fact trivial. —David Levy 21:15, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
• Support a switch to "The United States was the first nation to gain independence from the British Empire", or possibly adding that bit of information into the sentence about being the first nation to gain independence from a European colonial power. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 02:24, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
  • The lede already contains the following sentence: "The war ended in 1783 with the recognition of independence of the United States from the Kingdom of Great Britain, and was the first successful war of independence against a European colonial empire." That makes it clear both that the American Revolution was the first successful war of independence against a European colonial empire, and that the European colonial empire from which it won independence was Britain. Neither of those things are in dispute. What's in dispute is whether the American Revolution was the only such successful war of independence fought against Britain (however it might be defined)... TempDog123 (talk) 04:14, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

The above suggested by PointsofNoReturn would be a fair compromise. While it presently says European colonial empire, it doesn't preclude the fact that the American Revolutionary War was the first successful war for independence against the Kingdom of Great Britain.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:47, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Except it adds information not needed. Britain was a European colonial empire; one assumes that if it's the first against a European colonial empire, it was the first against Britain. Either way, none of these solutions require that horrid footnote. Removing it. Y'all can deal with what the sentence should be, but we seem to be in general agreement that the "fact" that it was the war blah blah great britain is not a fact of distinction and worth wasting bytes on. --Golbez (talk) 21:30, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

I disagree with what is said above by Golbez, but apparently the fact that the U.S. was the first nation to win a war of independence from the Kingdom of Great Britain doesn't appear to deserve weight from from who want it removed. Can't win everyone.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:54, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Only. Was the only nation to do so. Not sure why 'first' is being discussed. And if you're including the UK in that, then being the first to split from a European power also encompasses that. By definition. --Golbez (talk) 06:27, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Let me put my two cents into this very interesting discussion, since I'm the one who added the sentence to the lede in the first place, before it was moved to a footnote and then deleted. I certainly never imagined that my addition of one short sentence would trigger such a heated debate. I had read this fact in a reliable history book some years ago, but cannot locate it at the moment. I agree that I should not have added it without verifiable citation(s). My good faith edit in adding this sentence was that there is a neutral POV regarding American exceptionalism in winning independence from Britain. (I use that term to get away from the irrelevant argument about 'Kingdom of Great Britain' and 'United Kingdom', the latter being the obvious successor to the former.) The outcome of the American Revolution was a unique event in British history because Britain was forced to grant independence by a successful armed rebellion by a majority of the inhabitants of colonies under its control.

The distinction between Ireland, Kenya and the United States lies in that the Irish War of Independence resulted in stalemate and the Irish Free State obtained independence by negotiated treaty after the declaration of a cease fire in 1921. In Kenya, the Mau Mau Rebellion was clearly defeated by 1959 and independence was granted to Kenya in 1963 as part of Britain's decolonization of its African holdings. This was not the case with the United States. As correctly stated in the discussion above, the United States was not a colony of Britain, but was formed by the 13 British colonies which banded together in a unified effort to prosecute the American War of Independence and then, having found common ground, near the beginning of that war decided to form a single nation by means of the Declaration of Independence. Five years later at the Siege of Yorktown in 1781, the British were decisively beaten by Washington and the British general, Lord Cornwallis, and his entire army were taken prisoner. Thus, Britain was forced to sign the Treaty of Paris (1783) by military defeat. Such was not the case with Ireland or Kenya.

We must also distinguish the times in comparing the U.S. revolution with the Irish and Kenyan wars of independence. In 1781 it took three months for word of Britain's defeat to reach London, three more months for Parliament to convene, debate and capitulate to the American demands, and another three months for London's response to reach the Confederation Congress, successor to the Continental Congress. It took at least three months more for the American delegates to travel to Paris from Pennsylvania (Benjamin Franklin), South Carolina (Henry Laurens), New York (John Jay) and Massachusetts (John Adams). In contrast, by 1921 (Ireland) and 1963 (Kenya) communication was instantaneous and the time to travel was a matter of hours. Therefore, the delay between the end of military hostilities in the American Revolution (1781) and Britain's withdrawal of sovereignty in its 13 former colonies and recognition of the new nation with defined territorial boundaries, by the Treaty of Paris (1783), was due entirely to the means of communication and the modes of transportation available in the 18th century.

I will look for a reliable, authoritative source to document this fact (i.e., that the United States is the only nation to have ever won its independence from 'Britain' through war) and present it here on Talk for further discussion. American In Brazil (talk) 02:24, 3 March 2015 (UTC)i

Your argument, while detailed and well-written, seems to be a construct of your own making and thus original research. I would certainly be open to reviewing any sources you present for discussion, but without having reviewed them would have to suspect that synthesis was used to reach your conclusion. There is already a sentence in the lede that the American Revolution was the first successful war of independence against a European colonial power. That sets forth sufficient American exceptionalism with respect to the revolution. I think the sentence that was removed is at worst completely inaccurate, and at best relies upon technicalities to state a redundancy in a manner disrespectful towards other countries that fought for independence from Britain. TempDog123 (talk) 03:23, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

• Support removal. Really, it's not even technically correct (because "Great Britain" is not the same thing as "Kingdom of Great Britain"), but even if amended it would be misleading/confusing for the reader. The sentence about the first successful war of independence for a European colonial power should be revised as well. It would probably be more accurate to say it was the first successful war of independence outside Europe against a European colonial power since the fall of the Byzantine Empire. Formerip (talk) 14:21, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree with TempDog123 (please register your user name for easier communication) and FormerIP. Since the sentence has already been deleted, there is nothing further to do. I hope this settles the matter. American In Brazil (talk) 00:25, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Infobox, “Current composition” error

The info box error shows “Current composition” dating from August 21, 1959, admission of Hawaii. But Northern Mariana Islands became additional U.S. territory on November 3, 1986, when it joined "in Political Union with the United States of America" by Act of Congress. p.2, State Department doc. [1].

The Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands is a part of the federal United States territory despite its “unincorporation” for federal taxes and tariffs, see the Canadian university publication of scholar Ellis Katz, the U.S. is “composed of” the territories p.296 [2]

Propose change info box “Current composition” to November 3, 1986, the admission of the Commonwealth of Northern Mariana Islands in “political union” with the U.S. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:42, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Support.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:31, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Joining a political union with the United States does not mean joining the United States. And Katz contradicts your oft stated views that unpopulated territories are not part of the U.S. It is a poor approach btw to look for sources that support your view. Much better to identify the most relevant sources and reflect what they say. TFD (talk) 08:18, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

“Political union” by definition [3] would be a) the state of being united politically or b) something formed by uniting two or more things politically; political combination. If only states have joined the U.S., you must exclude DC, which our sources do not do; the U.S. historically includes states and territories in its territory. It does not follow that If territory A and other territories are a part of the U.S. as sourced, that A is not a part of the U.S. That is non sequitur. What source excludes the Northern Mariana Islands?

You misrepresent me. My view is that the five major territories are a part of the federal republic in Congress by virtue of a) their population's permanent allegiance in citizenship/national status b) increasing self-governance by republican forms and c) territory delegate Member of Congress. Some scholarly sources mention DC and the five major territories, others DC, 14 territories and citizen Indian tribes. You have no scholarly source to exclude islander citizens in the modern era. What source claims that political union by self-determination with a nation-state is not joining it? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:13, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Contradiction without secondary sources is unpersuasive. If all U.S. territories are a part of the U.S. as sourced, then some (populated) U.S. territories are a part of the U.S. If there are no counter secondary sources to contradict, "The Commonwealth of Northern Mariana Islands is a part of the U.S. territory", then I will correct the info box error in "Current composition" because additional U.S. territory was added November 3, 1986, when CNMI joined "in political union with" the U.S. -- p.2, State Department doc. [4]. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:23, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Again numerous sources have been provided that the unincorporated territories remain unincorporated and your view that if two states are in union they are really one state is OR. The U.S. is for example in political union with Palau. Furthermore citizen's of a territory always owe allegiance to an administering state without their country being part of that state as indeed Americans owed allegiance to Great Britain even though the colonies were not part of Great Britain. TFD (talk) 13:41, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Ellis Katz’ scholarship (2006) is not my original research, "The American federation is composed of … the Northern Marianas” p.296 [5]. In any case, “unincorporated" territories remain unincorporated for some federal taxes and tariffs, but citizenship is no longer withheld. Your "numerous sources" phrase are not numerous sources, simply another contradiction without sources.

Palau has not U.S. citizenship by birth nor a delegate Member of Congress, (nor did colonists a Member of Parliament) it has "a free and voluntary association of ... Governments” with the U.S., see the pact [6]. What source claims the Republic of Palau without citizens and the U.S. Commonwealth of Northern Mariana Islands with citizens have the same constitutional status in the U.S.? The State Department reports that DC and Northern Marianas are a part of the "political framework of the United States", but it omits the Republic of Palau (item 27) [7]. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 17:28, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

So your argument is that because the Northern Mariana Islands joined in a political union with the United States it is part of the United States. But Palau, although it also joined in a politcal union with the United States (albeit of a different type) is not part of the United States, because it is not part of the United States. Do you not see the circularity of your logic? TFD (talk) 00:49, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

No, you confound the terms related to Palau and Northern Marianas because you have no sources. The State Department reports to the U.N. that Palau is an "independent sovereign nation” (Item 88), while the U.S. Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands are “within the political framework of the U.S.” as is Washington, DC (Item 27) [8].

A. The Independent nation (Republic of Palau) with a pact of “association of their governments” without U.S. citizenship is not a part of the U.S. [9], — whereas B. The Commonwealth (CNMI) with "political union" and U.S. citizenship is a part of the U.S. [10] — In any case the date of Palau's pact with the U.S. is not my proposal for the info box, your misrepresentation is irrelevant.

Good faith editing requires your finding a counter-answer to Katz’ scholarship in a Canadian 2006 university press publication, "The American federation is composed of … the Northern Marianas.” p.296 [11], as of November 3, 1986 p.2 [[12]]. Your ad hominem attack claiming that sourced discussion is original research does not apply. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 02:19, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

You began this thread by saying that because the Northern Mariana Islands are in union with the U.S., they are part of it. When the example of Palau refuted your argument, you shifted back to your broken record argument that no sources have been provided despite the fact countless sources have been provided and even most of your sources contradict your conclusions. So let's back away, admit the argument you began this thread with is no longer operative, close the thread and start again. TFD (talk) 02:52, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

There are no “countless sources” opposing, there are none in this thread to directly counter Katz’ 2006 scholarship, "The American federation is composed of … the Northern Marianas.” p.296 [13]. Palau is an example of an “independent sovereign nation” as sourced. It’s example of international agreement does not refute the U.S. domestic Commonwealth “political union” with the Northern Marianas p. 2 [14] “within the political framework of the United States” as is DC. [15]. The quoted sources support the Northern Marianas as a part of the U.S., they do not contradict the point; none oppose. Without any substantive objection, it is time to correct the info box. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:14, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't profess any expertise in this matter, but certainly the sources seem to be on the side of including the Marianas per The VirginiaHistorian. The question is one of political geography, whether the land is part of the "current composition" of the United States--there is a wikilink to List of U.S. states by date of admission to the Union, but certainly, the composition of the U.S. includes the territories. If the Marianas as a political entity is part of the U.S., "within the political framework," then surely the land within its boundaries is also--even if it does not enjoy precisely the same status as other U.S. territories. I'm not aware of any contrary past usage of the "current composition" in any country's infobox. Knight of Truth (talk) 15:19, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

@Knight of Truth: Thank you for adhering to Wikipedia, the online encyclopedia WP:SCHOLARSHIP. "Articles should rely on secondary sources whenever possible.” wp:No original research in wp:psts says it is Policy: -- "DO NOT analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate material found in a primary source yourself; INSTEAD, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so."

We have no scholars to say, “U.S. territories are not a part of the modern U.S.” (each has a complicated past before late 20th century referendums and plebiscite constitutions), though some editors wp:No original research interpret century-old opinions on the Commerce Clause in a limited way to mean that territories are not a part of the 21st century U.S. in any sense, -- but they have no secondary sources for backup. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:53, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Knight of Truth, I will cite one of the thousands of sources available (Ediberto Romn, Citizenship and Its Exclusions, NYU Press, 2010, p. 97): "The Supreme Court concluded, in a series of decisions known as the Insular Cases, that [Puerto Rico, the Northern Mariana Islands, Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and American Samos] are dependent lands and are neither "foreign" countries nor "part of the United States.""[16] The Virginia Historian has presented numerous sources that show are not foreign countries, which is a strawman argument, and the odd source that claims that despite what the U.S. says, they have incorporated these territories. The practical significance of not being part of the U.S. is that the constitution does not apply in full. Hence aliens go through immigration when they travel between an unincorporated territory and the U.S., people born in American Samoa are not U.S. citizens, nor are property rights contitutionally guaranteed, and Congress is empowered to dispose of territories, among many other things. In general however the U.S. tries to ensure that people in territories have the same rights and services as people in the U.S. American Samoans however have rejected property rights as alien to their culture, and for that reason reject birthright U.S. citizenship. Jurisdictions within the U.S. cannot opt out of parts of the constitution they find objectionable. TFD (talk) 18:48, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Insular Cases are irrelevant regarding the status of islanders they, have been superseded by Congressional statutes over the last half-century. Romn correctly reports the one-hundred year-old Insular Cases, where islanders were once withheld from both citizenship and the franchise as alien "savages". Congress has subsequently, mutually with islander self-determination referendums, provided for U.S. citizenship and national status, along with voting rights for self-governance and to elect a delegate Member of Congress, --- so they are part of the "political framework" of the U.S. in the same way as DC is, -- in the U.S. federal republic, DC and each territorial government is "largely determined by the area’s historical relationship to the United States and the will of their residents." (Item 27) [17].

The 50 states, federal district and the five major territories cannot opt out of parts of the constitution they find objectionable, as Congressional legislation and the constitution are the supreme law of the land Supremacy Clause. Territories historically have not had all the privileges of states until admission as states following a formal request by referendum or the territorial legislature to Congress; statehood has not been imposed by Congressional fiat regardless of the will of territorial residents.

The U.S. Homeland Security's Customs and Border Patrol declares "U.S. Citizens … who travel directly between parts of the United States, which includes Guam, Puerto Rico, U.S. Virgin Islands, American Samoa, Swains Island and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI), without touching at a foreign port or place, are not required to present a valid U.S. Passport or U.S. Green Card” [18]. However a valid photo ID is required for air travel within the United States. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 19:52, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

If what you say is true, why do people born in American Samoa not have birthright citizenship under Section 1 of the 14th Amendment? And please do not digress by telling me that the U.S. Post Office delivers their mail. TFD (talk) 17:23, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

They are U.S. Nationals, subject to U.S. laws, and owing permanent allegiance to the United States. There are significant reliable sources used to verify this in the wikilink I have just provided.

There is an active effort to gain full citizenship status to American Samoans.

Here is the signing statement by then-President Jimmy Carter, when the territory was granted a delegate in Congress. This source here list American Samoa with in the boundaries of the nation.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:59, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

I offer a source, from the modern U.S. government with a direct quote, “parts of the United States, which includes … the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI)” [19]. Now this statement on Northern Marianas is questioned by TFD without a backup source relative to — American Samoa which also is mutually in political union with the U.S. by its Constitution acknowledging the supremacy of the U.S. Congress and U.S. treaties (July 1, 1967) [[20]. But because this thread concerns the official admission date of the Northern Mariana Islands to become a part of the United States (November 3, 1986), TFDs disconnection is another non sequitur. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 04:26, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

RCLC, all people born in territories subject the the U.S. are nationals of the U.S. under common law. Before the U.S. revolution, all people born in the 13 colonies were nationals of the UK - that did not mean the colonies were part of the UK. Congress has also extended U.S. citizenship to citizens of four of the five populated unincorporated territories. But birthright citizenship has never been extended to the unpopulated ones. So there are no anchor babies born in the territories except for Palmyra, which is incorporated. Here is a link to the State Department manual that explains the legal position. TFD (talk) 17:30, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

The American colonies are not at all relevant but the American colonists were nationals? Cite? Some were subjects of the king, but not for example African-Americans, which is why they could be enslaved. Yes, kings could have subjects in many different lands, so what. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:12, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Another TFD non sequitur. While American colonies (no taxation without representation) lacked a Member of Parliament then (as British Virgin Islands still lacks now), the modern five major U.S. territories have a delegate Member of Congress exactly as does DC, another non-state in the U.S. federal republic; the most recent addition to U.S. territory is CNMI in 1986.

TFD, your cite for the State Department’s 7 FAM 1120, explains the legal position for the Commonwealth of Northern Mariana Islands as well, p. 2 Here. It became additional U.S. territory on November 3, 1986, when it joined "in Political Union with the United States of America" by Act of Congress. Please read the references and find applicable sources to discuss in a constructive manner. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 19:25, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Alanscottwalker, sorry I thought it was common knowledge that before the U.S. revolution, people born in the colonies were British subjects. Here is a link to a discussion of the law in Britain and the American Revolution, pp. 73-74. And yes, slaves were subjects too. True they were subjects of the King of Great Britain, not of Great Britain, The relevance is that citizens of external territories are nationals of the administering state. That makes sense because the territory itself owes allegiance to the other state. But it does not make the territory part of that state. The fact that citizens of unincorporated territories are U.S. nationals under common law does not incorporate those territories.

TVH, indeed the CNMI became an unincorporated territory of the U.S. in 1986 when it entered a union with the United States. Speaking of non sequiturs, yes I know that the CNMI has a non-voting delegate to Congress, their mail is delivered by the Post Office, they can join the U.S. army, etc., etc. All of that is consistent with their status as unincorporated territories.

TFD (talk) 20:13, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

A 17th and 18th century "subject" is not the same as being a "national" - a national was not defined in common law, it is a later creation of statute, there was no nationalization or naturalization law in the colonies (or in Britain) and African-Americans were not subjects of the king at common law, they were "foreigners". See, Taunya Lovell Banks, "Dangerous Woman: Elizabeth Key's Freedom Suit - Subjecthood and Racialized Identity in Seventeenth Century Colonial Virginia", 41 Akron Law Review 799 (2008)

Your source does not explain anything - it does not refer to cases or statute. If you think nationals were created by statute, then please provide the statute that created them. And Nationality and Statelessness in International Law, p. 4, says, "In English the term "subject" is used as a synonym for national."[21] There actuallly were nationality laws, the one before the Revolution was the British Nationality Act 1772. If you want to argue, then please use actual facts. TFD (talk) 05:09, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Ah, Thank you. You are correct that there was a statute on subjecthood in 18th century Britain but not in the 17th century apparently. So, subjecthood was governed by statute in the 18th century (ie. one whose father is a subject). Apparently, you misspoke when referring to common law (as common law is not statute law). In the 17th century, colonies had already decided that African-Americans were not subjects by law. Your new source says the cognate for "subject" in the United States is "citizen", not "national". Most importantly, the current topic is not about the 18th century. So, 18th century law is irrelevant. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:25, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

@Alanscottwalker: Nevertheless, the British American colonial CHARTERS specified that those born there would have all the "rights of Englishmen as though they were born in England". That would include representation in Parliament. At one time Franklin spoke in London coffee houses as a colonial observer of Parliament about one representative for the entire American continent, just for the floor privileges -- a seat in the room, access to Members, ability to initiate bills, vote on committees, offer amendments to bills on the floor -- enjoyed by todays DC and territorial delegate Members of Congress. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:45, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Are we really talking about incorporated and unincorporated status again? Are we really discussing this out of the request for mediation? Why not pause the discussion here, and bring it to the mediation which was suppose to build consensus there.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:50, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

No, here we are talking about the “political union” of the Northern Marianas Covenant on November 3, 1986 with the U.S. as sourced, (p.2 [22]), which made it “within the political framework of the U.S.” just as DC is, as sourced (item 27 [23]). All five territories are "officially part of U.S. territory" as well as "unincorporated" -- as sourced in a Congressional Quarterly publication (p. 649 [24]),

TFD again raises the non sequitur of limited economic “unincorporation” for some federal taxes and tariffs and pretends that contradicts the “federated United States is composed of” the Commonwealth of Northern Mariana Islands as sourced (p.296 [25]), which it does not.

The citizenship and franchise withheld in the century-old Insular Cases have been mutually agreed to in the modern era. As one of TFD sources, Leibowitz says, "The Supreme Court has itself noted the inability of the unincorporated v. incorporated doctrine to determine judicial disputes but has not as yet been willing to formulate judicial doctrines more relevant to present day U.S.-territorial concerns (p. 114 [26]). TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:09, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Again, the CNMI joined in union with the United States, it did not become part of the United States. The wording of the agreement is clear, and understood by both sides. The U.S. has added the CNMI to the United Nations list of Non-Self-Governing Territories. Nationality law is a red herring. Citizens of dependent territories are subjects or nationals of the administering power, and the administering power may extend citizenship. Alanscottwalker, although there are nationality statutes beginning in the 18th century, nationality is based on common law. See Calvin's Case 1605, which (as the source you provided says) is the basis of both UK and U.S. nationality law. The Court decided that Calvin, who was Scottish, was an English subject. That did not mean that Scotland was part of England. TFD (talk) 12:45, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Sure, as noted, the source I cited covered the old case law but the issue is covered in the 21st century by positive law, not 18th century or 21st century common law. And a Wikipedian's arguments concerning common law (especially 18th century common law) - by policy - certainly do not contradict "parts of the United States, which includes Guam, Puerto Rico, U.S. Virgin Islands, American Samoa, Swains Island and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI)" as stated by the source. [27] Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:48, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Factual error, the CNMI Northern Marianas are not on the current U.N. list of non-self governing territories, see the U.N. website [28], nor were Alaska and Hawaii removed from the United States when they were on the list in the mid-20th century. TFD has misread the chart at United Nations list of Non-Self-Governing Territories, and in any case, Wikipedia cannot be used as a source for Wikipedia.

Notice there is no secondary source which says the CNMI Northern Marianas are not a part of the U.S., but six scholars say that it is a part of the federal United States, or that the United States is composed of it. Note that all five territories are "officially part of U.S. territory" as well as "unincorporated" -- as sourced in a Congressional Quarterly publication (p. 649 [29]). TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:22, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Alanscottwalker, I do not want to digress into side issues. The fact is that the extension of nationality, citizenship or subject status from an administering state to a citizens of a dependent state, whether by common law or statute, does not incorporate that state. No source says that and it is OR to make that claim. Indeed dependent states are treated as part of the administering state for some purposes, as are associated states, such as Palau. It would make no sense to say another country was a dependency of the U.S. if there were not some relationship between the two countries. And citizens of dependent states always have nationality of the administering state. But the reality is that under U.S. law and the statements of the executive, Congress and courts, the five populated territories remain unincorporated until Congress changes their status. Indeed, there are sources that say the U.S. is not a republic, but an empire that has incorporated the territories in violation of domestic and international law. But unless and until that becomes the consensus of reliable sources, we should not add it.

TVH, you are correct, only three of the unincorporated territories are on the list. The position of the U.S. is that the PR and CNMI are self-governing states in free association with the U.S. It is anomalous that the U.S. added Hawaii and Alaska to the list, while Canada and Australia did not add their internal territories. Also, when I provide a secondary source that says "CNMI is not part of the U.S." it is irritating when you say no such source has been provided. You may not like the source, the source may be wrong, but why do you insist that none has been provided? TFD (talk) 13:11, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

The "reality" is the US Government in the source says these places are part of the US, which of course is consistent with them being territory of the US. I get that you are totally hung-up on the specialized incorporation doctrine but that doctrine does not matter editorially in the subject matter scope of this article, these places are part of the United States article, so they will be covered here as part of this article. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:40, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

The position of the U.S. government is clear: "In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, U.S. sovereignty was extended to overseas territories. These territories (unlike those of the western United States, Alaska, and Hawaii) were not considered a part of the United."[30] Or see The History of Puerto Rico, p. xiii, "U.S. courts have ruled that Puerto Rico is a territory of the United States, but not part of the United States...."[31] Certainly it is treated as part of the United States for some purposes, but not for other purposes, such as the Uniformity Clause. Hence U.S. nationality law says that for purposes of this act, four of the territories, but not American Samoa, are considered to be part of the U.S. TVH concedes that at some point it was not part of the U.S. but a series of actions, such as extending postal delivery, has osmosisized it into the U.S. But other than a few anti-colonialist writers, no sources claim that, least of all the U.S. and Puerto Rico themselves. TFD (talk) 03:23, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

The issue is not what they "were" it is what they are: "parts of the United States, which includes Guam, Puerto Rico, U.S. Virgin Islands, American Samoa, Swains Island and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI)" according to the US government.[32] The US government says it makes them parts inclusive. As for "some purposes", then they will be covered as territory of the United States, not some other nation-state. Alanscottwalker (talk) 09:23, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

1. TFD factual error by anachronism. Puerto Rico (1901) is not modern PR (2015) and CNMI (2015). The territories "In the late 19th and early 20th centuries”, were not considered a part of the United States by “the U.S. courts” which withheld U.S. citizenship and voting rights for territorial governor etc. UNTIL Congress would act. But in the modern era, territories are a) mutually U.S. citizens/nationals by soil, b) in elective self governance and c) with delegate Members of Congress — not just TFDs reductio ad absurdum postal service, although domestic postal delivery to DC and the five major territories is not on its face an indication of foreign status.

2. TFD factual error by definition. Commonwealth territorial status is not the Freely Associated States (FAS) of sovereign nations with the U.S., which are Marshal Islands, Palau and Micronesia, all without U.S. nationality. The territorial constitutions of Northern Marianas cite “political union”, or the Puerto Rican cites “our union” with the U.S. and U.S. citizenship, only wp:fringe 3-5% in Northern Marianas and Puerto Rico referendums sought independence from the U.S. — why does TFD deny 95% islander self expression? That is not the U.S.G. position, nor that of scholars.

3. TFD factual error by definition. Islanders do not conform with Leninist “self-determination-as-independence-only”. Self-determination can mean a) independence, b) FAS or c) integration into a nation-state with equal citizenship without regard to nationality, religion or race. The five major territories gained equal privileges and immunities of U.S. citizenship by 1988 (p. 28 [33]), — after the Insular Cases#List of the Insular Cases. Why does TFD equate modern mutual islander citizenship with postal service? That is not the U.S.G. position, nor that of scholars.

Six scholars sourced in secondary reliable publications from both Canada and the U.S. report the federated U.S. includes its modern territories. No secondary source is provided contradicting them, nor is there any sourced characterization of all six as anti-colonialist, nor is there any wikipedia restriction on schools of scholarship in any case. Northern Mariana Islands became additional U.S. territory on November 3, 1986 p.2, State Department doc. [34]. As we have it in a Congressional Quarterly source, "They are officially a part of U.S. territory,” … despite remaining 'unincorporated territories’ (p.649 [35]). TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:15, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

It seems bizarre to rely on the wording of "Needing a passport to enter the United States from U.S. territories", while ignoring government sources that directly address the status of the territories, not to mention the vast majority of reliable secondary sources. Even if your view were held by most sources, the fact other sources contradict it would mean we could not include it as an uncontroversial fact. And why does the link say, "Entry requirements for non-U.S. citizens are the same as for entering the United States from any foreign destination?" Do non-U.S. citizens require a passport to cross state lines?

And if they were outside the U.S. when the courts ruled on their status in the Insular Cases, you should be able to indicate when and how they became part of the U.S.

TVH, your statements are not clear. Respecting the self-determination of people in territories administered by the U.S. is not "Leninist." And again saying they are part of "U.S. territory" is a strawman argument. Of course they are. But as your source says, they remain "unincorporated", i.e., not part of the U.S. itself. Similarly, the U.S. colonies were part of British territory, but not part of Britain.

TFD (talk) 12:48, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

The U.S. Customs and Border Protection site is but one U.S.G. source among others and six scholarly sources which enumerate "parts of the United States” as including Guam, PR, USVI, American Samoa and CNMI Northern Marianas. You have not chosen to share any counter sources, only anachronistic statements that Puerto Rico in 1901 was judicially “unincorporated’, to mean “not a part of the U.S." in 1901, which it true, but irrelevant to modern circumstances.

Self determination of modern territories within the United States has been achieved with 95% islander choice for U.S. citizenship, elective self governance and a delegate Member of Congress under local constitutions and Organic Acts making them organically a part of the United States since the Insular Cases. Unlike modern U.S. territories, colonial governors and upper chambers were appointive, and there was no Member of Parliament for the North American colonies, another anachronistic TFD non sequitur; colonies in the British Empire (1776) are not like modern DC and the U.S. territories in the U.S. federal republic (2015) with elective self-governance and a delegate Member of Congress.

Congress has superseded the Insular Cases which once withheld citizenship and elective self-governance. Territories remain “unincorporated” for some federal tax and tariff purposes it is true, but extending the term to the entire political sphere is anachronistic. As your source Leibowitz says, "The Supreme Court has itself noted the inability of the unincorporated v. incorporated doctrine to determine judicial disputes ... relevant to present day U.S.-territorial concerns (p. 114 [36]).

Puerto Rico is now politically “incorporated” by Congress as modern jurisprudence understands that term of art, (p.1175 [37]); it is now a self-governing territory which is administratively treated by the U.S. government “as a state” since 1992 (p. 391 [38]). CNMI Northern Marianas likewise holds territorial Commonwealth status, it is a part of the "current composition" of the United States for our info box purposes, "The American federation is composed of … five major territories” (p.296 [39]). TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 15:40, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

It's not bizarre to rely on representations of the US government that state what is part of the US. Ordinary people rely on it all the time. Indeed, they are suppose to rely on it. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:52, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

No one would rely on the ambiguous wording of a website section "Will travelers from U.S. territories need to present a passport to enter the United States?" (my emphasis) to draw a conclusion specifically rejected by the executive, legislature and courts of the U.S., not to mention legal scholars and foreign jurisdictions. If you tried that in an essay for school you would get failing grades. Unfortunately there is no one here to evaluate your reasoning. TVH, I heard all your arguments already. Thanks for leaving out the personal attacks I had come to expect. TFD (talk) 02:31, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

The United States governments conclusion is: "parts of the United States, which includes Guam, Puerto Rico, U.S. Virgin Islands, American Samoa, Swains Island and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI)" That's not someone else drawing that conclusion, it is the United States government. As for people relying on the US government's conclusion, they do everyday by the boatload and planeload. At any rate, you are correct that as far as I am concerned, we do not need to prolong this here, the current infobox that has stood for awhile now, no longer uses the vague word "composition."Alanscottwalker (talk) 09:36, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Simple contradictions without applicable sources and references to the 1901 history of Puerto Rico are not persuasive. So we have TVH, RightCowLeftCoast, Knight of Truth and Alanscottwalker supporting the info box correction, and TFD alone trying to justify excluding islander U.S. citizens in the CNMI for the modern era --- based on a superseded judicial doctrine irrelevant to present day U.S.-territorial concerns --- as explained in a TFD source (p.114 [40]). TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:51, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Your link does not say that the insular cases has been superseded, but the opposite - the Supreme Court "has not as yet been willing to formulate judicial doctrines more relevant to present day U.S.-territorial concerns." Ironically, they were arguing for the extension of due process into the territories, not incorporation. The U.S. Supreme Court has since determined that due process extends to Guantanamo Bay, which you accept is not part of the U.S. TFD (talk) 12:50, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I am satisfied with the current infobox, that does not use "composition" and as an editorial matter just covers the most recent state admission, as sufficient summary info. Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:58, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Do you folks ever stop and just sit back for a moment and wonder how much better life would be if you just stopped caring? It's wonderful. Listen, you are not the sole defenders of the faith. There is no great wrong to be righted here. If it is to be changed then it will be changed. But you people (and I am included in this for the bulk of the time) have been making the same arguments for years. Precisely zero minds have been changed. Precisely zero outcome has made it to the article. Why do you care so much? Are you folks just addicted to hearing yourself speak? Is it one of those situations where someone is WRONG on the INTERNET and all else must be sacrificed to correct the unbelievers? Honestly, please, tell me, why do you keep this pointless waste of time and space going. This is a genuine question - this pointless argument is reaching the point where, in my opinion, it's interfering with discussing improvements to the article. Maybe if it had had any substantive improvement to the article ever. But it hasn't. At this point it just reads as two sides arguing for the sake of arguing, and that's not going to improve anything. If Wikipedia had an ignore function, this page would both be quite svelte and quite useful. As it is, this is just a virus that spreads into anything that can be considered remotely vaguely related. This is an honest question: Why do you do it? After YEARS of pointlessness? --Golbez (talk) 17:37, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Golbez agreed to change the introductory sentence to include islander citizens following a Dispute Resolution, until he didn't. Most recently when he removed territories from the lead again Seqqis Diff. [41], Golbez Diff. [42]. While varying groups of 6-8 editors form to include islanders as a part of the U.S. over the last two years, there are only 2-3 who persist in unsourced efforts to exclude them in the modern, post WWII era. The sourced majority understanding of modern U.S. citizenship as without regard to religion or race will inform the article in the face of an unsourced editor minority excluding islanders for no good reason, because Wikipedia is a sourced collaborative online encyclopedia.

Excluders hark back to century-old superseded court decisions by the Plessy v. Ferguson Court of racially motivated “separate but equal”. That decision was superseded by the Courts and Congress in the post WWII modern era. Scholars likewise describe Insular Cases of that Court as racially motivated, and those cases have likewise been superseded by Congressional, Court and mutual islander actions voting 95% for political union with the U.S., including citizenship, elective self governance and delegate Member of Congress. Misinformation and misdirection abounds. TFD last implied Congress has not extended due process to the five major territories to supersede the Insular Cases, yet one of his sources says, "Among the rights guaranteed by the Constitution are due process and equal protection. Both rights apply to the five larger insular areas." (p.35, [43]).

Editors base their opposition to inclusion on the same Insular Case doctrine of "incorporated v. unincorporated" which is irrelevant to present day U.S.--territorial concerns (p.114 [44]). Insular Cases are still good law for domestic taxes and tariffs, but the judicial doctrine is not relevant to inclusion of U.S. citizens in the federal republic. The lead description should reflect the U.S. federal republic as composed of U.S. citizens/nationals represented in Congress, including DC and the five major territories with delegate Members of Congress -- consistent with modern post WWII history as sourced by six scholars and U.S.G. sources. Existing inequities should be addressed. The info box should include U.S. territory area as sourced by the Census, the info box "Current composition" should include the most recent U.S. territory, CNMI the Northern Marianas as sourced by the State Department, and the subject of this thread. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:25, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Puerto Rico

Should the Puerto Rican status referendum, 2012 be mentioned in the contemporary history section? Or is it too soon, and only included if it becomes a state?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:31, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

As it caused no change [yet] to the composition of the U.S., it seems less-than-relevant to this summary article. It's definitely too soon, and the 'only included if' is a question that isn't important until any change comes of it at all. --Golbez (talk) 08:29, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

It is fairly trivial to the overall subject, although Puerto Rico becoming part of the U.S. or gaining independence would be significant. TFD (talk) 08:39, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Puerto Rico has petitioned for statehood as a U.S. territory, it is a part of the United States, which is sourced p.649 [45]; there are no scholarly sources over two years’ discussion to exclude it, despite its “unincorporation” for federal taxes and tariffs.

However the status referendum in 2014 (61% statehood, 5% independence), confirming “our union” with the United States in the Puerto Rican Constitution [46], was not generally received as determinative as a basis for statehood in Congress due to the two-tier referendum used. A Congressional bill was considered to have a vote for statehood yes-or-no.

Nothing seems to have gone forward from the last Congress, although the Puerto Rican legislature had petitioned for statehood, and the PR Member of Congress, Commissioner Pierluisi introduced a House Bill for Puerto Rican statehood, with 130 Members co-sponsoring the bill and a Senate companion bill sponsored by Sen. Martin Heinrich of New Mexico gained the support of Harry Reid of Nevada in 2014 [47].

Of the five territories in the federal United States with delegate Members of Congress, only Puerto Rico has a sustained movement for statehood. That may be of note, otherwise probably not. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 17:19, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Indeed the U.S. must ensure that the self-determination of the Commonwealth citizens is respected by ensuring transparency in the referendum process, and not look like Russia in the Crimea. TFD (talk) 19:50, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

You mean a Ukrainian referendum in Crimea? Crimea is a part of Ukraine, not Russia. The U.S. referendum in Puerto Rico is internationally legitimate as it is a part of the U.S. as we have sourced on this page, with no secondary counter sources to imply otherwise. Puerto Rico is equivalent to DC as a part of the political framework of the United States. State Department doc. item 27 [48].

The 3-5% vote for independence makes a Leninist "self-determination" as-independence-only from bourgeois democracy seem as remote now as it has in the previous five referendums over fifty years. However fringe it is numerically, the modern political party for independence seems to be a legitimate American party; there have been no assassination attempts in the name of Puerto Rican independence on either the President or Congress for decades.

As a U.S. territory, Puerto Rico remains eligible to petition Congress for statehood, which is what one of its major political parties is dedicated to; the other major political party is dedicated to continued U.S. territorial status with U.S. citizenship and "our union with the U.S.A." of the Puerto Rican Constitution. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:33, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

The Russian government says the same thing as you: Crimea is part of Russia. The difference is that the United States doe not claim that Puerto Rico is part of the U.S. Canada too was eligible for statehood in the Articles of Confederation. That does not mean Canada was ever formally part of the U.S. TFD (talk) 13:27, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

More misrepresentation on my "Crimea is a part of Ukraine.” see Diff [49]. More non sequitur, Canada has not had a major party dedicated to U.S. statehood as does Puerto Rico, with U.S. citizens, a delegate Member of Congress and a Constitution of "our union with the United States of America" in its preamble. text [50].

But of course the U.S. claims Puerto Rico is a part of the U.S., Puerto Rico is equivalent to DC in the "political framework of the United States". State Department report to the U.N. item 27 [51]. This U.S.G. source is supported by a scholar Donald P. Haider-Markel of the University of Kansas who describes Puerto Rico as “officially a part of U.S. territory” despite its non-state ‘unincorporated’ status [52].

Is there a secondary, scholarly, reliable counter-source to support your contention that Puerto Rico is not a part of the U.S. as a U.S. territory? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 18:10, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

This discussion is not remotely relevant to the original question. Please stop leaking out of the RFM. Please. --Golbez (talk) 19:16, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

No consensus to revert to out of date, inaccurate 2009 descriptions of 2008 recession (RFC)

There was no consensus at Talk:United States/Archive 67#Proposal to revert section Income, poverty and wealth to to 13 January version for this revert making the following change, because seven editors supported the 8 February version but only three supported the revert.

8 February version	13 January (and 9 February) version
The highest 10% of income earners pay a majority of federal taxes, and about half of all taxes. Growing income inequality and wealth concentration have resulted in affluent individuals, powerful business interests and other economic elites gaining increased influence over public policy.	Between June 2007 and November 2008 the global recession led to falling asset prices around the world. Assets owned by Americans lost about a quarter of their value. Since peaking in the second quarter of 2007, household wealth is down $14 trillion. At the end of 2008, household debt amounted to $13.8 trillion.

References

Which version presents a more accurate, pertinent, current, and comprehensive summary of the United States economy?

The thought that we should replace items of current controversy with 2009 descriptions of the 2008 recession seems almost laughably absurd to me. I had proposed that we also include the proportion of taxes paid by those with the most wealth, not just the most income. As you can see from Figure H on page 164 here, the wealthiest do not generally hold most of their assetts in current income generating investments, so they are generally not subject to taxation at the levels approaching those of the highest income earners (who are generally corporations rather than individual people anyway.) EllenCT (talk) 05:39, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

There was no consensus for removing the content, while there was a consensus for reversion. This can be seen in the archive. As can be seen it had received the support of VictorD7 & PointsofNoReturn, and only opposed by the single editor EllenCT. Therefore, since there does not appear to be a change in consensus, and the section was changed boldly, I will per WP:BRD undue the change by EllenCT. Please let us discuss this rather than letting this devolve into an edit war.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 12:22, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

That section shows no such consensus. Seven editors supported the earlier changes in January. What are your reasons for keeping the 2009 articles on the 2008 crash? They are long out of date, and their summaries which you've replaced are now flatly wrong by trillions of dollars. You yourself originally proposed describing the tax incidence, in a far less accurate wording which suggests you lack familiarity with the difference between income and wealth. EllenCT (talk) 21:50, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

I support the 8 February version.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 15:21, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Oppose Ellen's change, for reasons given in the earlier section. VictorD7 (talk) 21:19, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Which specific reasons? I see none stated. The 2009 descriptions of the 2008 crash have long been wildly inaccurate. EllenCT (talk) 21:50, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

You've seriously already forgotten? Aside from it being a niche soapbox topic that doesn't belong on this broad summary page, your proposed addition wording is an unacceptable NPOV violation. You're stating a controversial opinion in Wikipedia's voice. And what the hell is an "economic elite"? It's vague, demagogic language that doesn't belong in a high quality encyclopedia article. VictorD7 (talk) 19:39, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Oppose the 8 February version, which contains editorial content in the voice of Wikipedia. It would be better if this RFC had been structured to keep the Survey and the Threaded Discussion separate. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:56, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Which specific content do you consider editorial, and how would you rephrase it in the voice of the source(s)? Do you believe the 2009 articles on the 2008 crash are still accurate? EllenCT (talk) 22:03, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Aren't these apples and oranges? Why substitute a discussion of tax rates with one on assets? If both statements are well-sourced, why not include them both? that said, it may be true that most taxes are paid by the wealthy -- have not looked at the references -- but the statement is very misleading and much abused by the Fair Tax crowd. Elinruby (talk) 23:07, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but the oranges are off by $27 trillion dolars, and in the wrong direction, and have been for years. EllenCT (talk) 20:24, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't really understand the point you are making. If you are trying to measure affluence, yes, wealth may be a better measure than income as a lot of the wealthiest americans do not receive a salary per se, I understand. But I do not understand why you these sets of statements are in any way equivalent. One is taxes, one is assets. (?) Is your point that the tax system is unfair? Perhaps, but you seem to be getting close to original research and while I *like* wonky stuff, if *I* am having trouble deciphering your point this may be a sign of something....Elinruby (talk) 05:35, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm just saying that "household wealth is down $14 trillion" and the other similar statements need to be brought up to date, but I'm not sure how. "... was down $14 trillion but has since regained and as of 2015 is up $14 trillion over 2006 levels"? EllenCT (talk) 18:00, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Two sentences? This happened. Now, this happened. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:42, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

• Include both Agree with Elinruby - why not include both. Darx9url (talk) 05:36, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
• Definitely Include both. Both are well sourced encyclopedic content. UnitedStatesian (talk) 02:04, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
• Include something along the lines of both the one is out of date, and the other, I take can include attribution. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:42, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

  The most we should include along the lines of Ellen's proposal is something brief, vague, and neutrally worded like "There is a debate over the extent and relevance of wealth and income inequality", followed by a couple of representative sources from each side. If necessary I can supply economic references challenging hers. VictorD7 (talk) 20:06, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Difference between Americans' and their representatives' preferences

In addition to stating the tax rates that the wealthiest pay, as opposed to those with the most income (usually corporations), I also propose citing Dan Ariely (August 2, 2012). "Americans Want to Live in a Much More Equal Country (They Just Don't Realize It)". The Atlantic. to illustrate the extent to which the preferences of the American people diverge from those of their elected representatives. EllenCT (talk) 22:03, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

In hopes of garnering discussion, I propose including "Americans prefer a more egalitarian distribution of wealth than exists, and believe that wealth is distributed more evenly than it is." in the Government and politics section. EllenCT (talk) 20:35, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

See WP:NOTSOAPBOX & WP:UNDUE. There are surely articles which might be favorable to the POV of class warfare in the United States, the destruction of the bourgeoisie, etc. however that is not what this article is about. Lets leave this out. Stating that X percentage of wealth is held by Y percentage of population is one thing, stating what the median income is one thing, including opinion polls is another ( niemanlab, Opinion poll#Potential for inaccuracy).--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:38, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

This article is about the United States. These issues are already discussed at length in its sub-topical articles, and because they are arguably the most important current issues discussed in those WP:SUMMARY articles, they should be summarized here. Because the US is a representative democratic republic, flaws in polls of those opinions to which you allude, including electoral polls, are crucial for understanding the political and economic dynamics of the US. There is simply no way for the unfamiliar reader to understand why democratic republic treats itself the way it does without knowledge of exactly the kind of errors in opinion that you link to, which occur because:

"When income inequality changes, public opinion 'habituates' by adjusting expectations for fair levels of inequality in the same direction as the factual change. This adjustment effect occurs because humans are subject to status quo bias and have a motivated tendency to believe in a just world. In the context of increasing inequality in developed democracies over the last 40 years, the implication is that normative expectations for appropriate levels of inequality have adjusted up." — Trump, Kris-Stella (May 2, 2013). The Status Quo and Perceptions of Fairness: How Income Inequality Influences Public Opinion (PDF). Boston, Massachusetts: Harvard University. Retrieved 9 March 2015.

The proposed source is a popular treatment of peer reviewed research which has 246 references in Google scholar, none of which question its veracity. Here's how the WP:SECONDARY literature describes its findings, in precisely the same terms of your links critical of reporting opinion polls:

"The assumption of economists that people only care about their own share and not about fair and equitable distributions, leads economists to propose drastically wrong policies in the domains of taxation and income re-distribution. Norton and Ariely (2011) document substantial consensus in the US population about the desire for a more equitable distribution of wealth. People think the distribution of wealth is more equal than it actually is; and they think it should be much more equal than their already unrealistically-equal notion of its current state. For example, the top 20% of the US wealth distribution actually controls nearly 85% of total wealth; people think the top 20% controls under 60%; and they think it should control just over 30%. Since concern for fairness is not currently part of economic theories, these issues get swept under the rug, to the detriment of all. — Zaman, Asad; Karacuka, Mehmet (2012). "The Empirical Evidence Against Neoclassical Utility Theory: A Review of the Literature". International Journal of Pluralism and Economics Education. 3 (4): 366–414. Retrieved 9 March 2015.

Per WP:PSTS that secondary source should be cited in preference to the popular treatment of the primary research. Yes, the proposed statement touches on the political, but only because it is essential for understanding the politics and economic demographics of the US, which this article is about. And it's proposed for the "Government and politics" section, so how could it legitimately not? Electoral polls are opinion polls too, and they are subject to the same problems on which you base your objection. Does the reader deserve to understand why Americans are tolerating increasing child homelessness in times of increasing wealth and total income? EllenCT (talk) 17:16, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

P.S. Note that this issue is in no way confined to the children of any particular area in the US. Do we want our readers to understand the largest factor changing the demographics of the United States today by reading this article or not? EllenCT (talk) 17:19, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Why is there an infobox section called "Independence from Great Britain"?

Most other countries' infobox sovereignty section titles don't include mention of a preceding occupation by a foreign power. For example-

• On the Germany article, the section title reads "formation" rather than "establishment/independence from the Holy Roman Empire" or something similar
• Iceland's and Norway's infobox section titles say "Formation" and "History", respectively, and do not say "independence from Denmark"
• Greece's infobox section title reads "formation", and then lists the declaration of independence (from the Ottoman Empire) beneath.
• Similarly, the Saudi Arabia article just says "establishment", and does not even mention the Ottomans.

Writing "independence from Britain" in the infobox only really makes sense for countries like Kenya, which never existed as a country/nation until the British drew borders around the people living there, or Australia, which was settled by British, always controlled by the UK, and never had a revolution. In contrast, the United States was never a British colony; it has always been an independent nation, formed in 1776 by several independent states that were former British colonies. By spring 1775 all British officials and governments had been expelled from the 13 colonies and they were, therefore, independently governed before the declaration.
On top of the infobox section title, and to add insult to injury, some users such as User:Omnisome are adamant that the Treaty of Paris be included in the infobox. Forgive me, but I fail to understand why exactly this is relevant to that section. The British recognized the independence of the US in that treaty, yes, but does that really matter in terms of the establishment of the US? If Serbia gave official recognition of Kosovo's independence, that would not make Kosovo independent. Rather, Kosovo is already independent, with or without Serbian recognition (Indeed, the corresponding infobox of the Kosovo article makes no mention at all of Serbia).
I hope I've not made too many people upset with this, and even if you don't agree with some or most of what I've said I think it should be obvious that the section title at least needs changing from "Independence from Great Britain"; I would propose "Formation", "History", and "Establishment" as suitable alternatives. I'm sorry if it seems I'm making too big of a deal about this issue, but as a United States citizen I find the current section title offensive, and I believe there exists no good reason to keep it. I hope you can find at least something I've said here today that you can agree with.
Please let me know your thoughts below. SStephens13 (talk • contribs) 16:24, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

It arises from what they themselves wrote about themselves in the Declaration of Independence: "Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. . . . We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved . . ." Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:13, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

The straight forward reading of the passage is that each colony declared itself independent. But like Kenya none of these colonies existed until the English/British "drew borders." TFD (talk) 13:20, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Agree with “Independence from Great Britain”. Regardless of resolutions to Congress for independence from each colony beforehand, independence was declared “in the name and by the authority of the good people of these Colonies”, all of them united together at the Declaration of Independence. See Pauline Maier, American Scripture: Making the Declaration of Independence.

Agree with noting the Treaty of Paris. The borders of the United States extended over the Appalachian Mountains despite the attempt of the British to limit colonies with western borders there in 1763. The Mississippi River as a western boundary also aligned with North American claims of France and Spain. The Infobox need not account for the previous recognition by the Netherlands and France because of the “Independence from Great Britain” header. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:29, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 March 2015

Trollguy13 (talk) 18:34, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not requested a change.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 18:38, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Racial breakdown in Law enforcement and crime section.

Especially since there have been recent efforts to expand the section again anyway, it's long way past time to revisit this old problematic segment:

"African-American males are jailed at about six times the rate of white males and three times the rate of Hispanic males."

Having a racial breakdown of incarceration rate without also including a racial breakdown on crime rate is inflammatory and misleading. We should either delete the racial sentence or add a segment on racial crime rates. Racial crime rates can be found through many sources, including the FBI's site. Drugs (sans racial breakdown) are mentioned separately in a following segment, but I'm talking about things like murder offender and victim rate broken down by race, and possibly some other items like juvenile offender or gang membership rates by race. Without tying it to disparate crime rates, the current segment could be interpreted by readers who don't know any better as meaning the US is simply rounding people up and incarcerating them at a shocking racial disparity solely because of their skin color. VictorD7 (talk) 20:13, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

By all means, let's include the difference in minorities' population proportion with their arrest rates per suspect race reported, charges requiring a mandatory minimum sentence, plea bargain offers, jury verdict outcomes, sentencing outcomes, and execution rates compared to whites.[53] EllenCT (talk) 23:07, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Good find. While we're on the subject, it seems astounding to me that the Law enforcement and crime section omits any mention of the militarization of the police force, rampant police shootings (more than all other developed nations combined) and police brutality.

I restored and modified the sentence on the privatization of prisons and cited WP:RS (two books published by academic publishers, one article from a peer-reviewed academic journal and one recent article from The New Yorker). It is certainly a notable topic given the growing controversy and worthy of one brief sentence.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 23:27, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

"the current segment could be interpreted by readers who don't know any better as meaning the US is simply rounding people up and incarcerating them at a shocking racial disparity solely because of their skin color." so, it would be interpreted correctly? --Golbez (talk) 00:41, 16 March 2015 (UTC)