|Threads older than 90 days may be archived by.|
Re: Discussion on U.S. islander territories
Thanks for your thoughtful question. I feel bad because I've lost track of what the conflicting proposals for text to be replaced are in the territories dispute. I know there are huge legal implications for the people living there, and some of them are based on vague and ambiguous laws where the text that ends up appearing in places like Wikipedia might affect their lives, access to welfare and healthcare resources, etc., so I do know it's important, but it seems to me like it has been splitting hairs in meronomy. I agree TFD often doesn't bother with sources when imposing a subjective "common sense" and I could scarcely believe his apparently sincere suggestion that representing popular opinion was more important than representing reliable sources. Can you please show me a diff where you think he's removed a legitimate improvement to the article? EllenCT (talk) 16:23, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
- All I ask for is a fair hearing for various editors who repeatedly come to the U.S. page and try to copy edit the lead sentence as Seqqis recently did, noting that the territories are left out. By a 3 to 1 majority the Dispute Resolution of 2013 proposed and the Request for Mediation of 2015 is working on language including modern islanders within the U.S. national jurisdiction, political framework, geographical area, -- despite the anachronistic constitutional arguments describing the United States of 1901 of judicial fiat which no longer pertain to modern day American islanders. Most recently, it was Golbez who reverted Seqqis edit Diff. , Seqqis: “The territories were left out”, Golbez Diff. , Golbez: "rv two edits: one, there's a discussion going on right now whether or not to include the territories, ...” -- I might have asked for a source rather than refer to a procedure which is confidential, but Golbez is a fine administrator who has brought the article to GA status. My primary concern is to improve articles with sourced contributions.
- The thread at U.S. talk was opened to explore any objections to the source which is being used in the request for mediation now addressing the geographical scope of the lead sentence -- apart from disputes about the constitutional status of the U.S. territories. Given six experts supporting a reliable U.S.G. source which I shared on the U.S. Talk page, TFD said experts do not include islanders constitutionally. But that is non sequitur anachronism (not racism as he defensively protests he is not a racist and I do not mean to imply he is one). The constitutional holding has been gutted by subsequent Congressional acts post-WWII.
- TFD reminds me of my high school friend, a member of Mensa with a photographic memory who had a hobby of taunting me with non sequiturs. TFDs hobby seems to be chiming in wherever I go to muddy the waters regarding including contemporary islanders as a part of the U.S. in some political sense. For instance at Reliable sources/notice board Diff , where he notes sources say that in 1901 Insular Cases began judicially making territories not “a part of the United States” … by withholding citizenship, elective self government and delegate Member of Congress as “dangerous” to the American republic. But he refuses to concede that Congress had made any law post WWII regarding contemporary islanders citizens with elective self governance and a delegate Member of Congress. There is no counter to the six modern scholars including the five major territories, only his anachronistically applying what the Supreme Court did do in 1901 — which it undoubtedly did then in a racist fashion — to the 21st century islander -- including those of Northern Mariana Islands who chose constitutional "political union" with the U.S. by UN supervised plebiscite in the 1980s.
- Now there are still serious problems. While the poorest American Samoa is better off than the island-nation of Samoa, admitting hundreds of family members yearly, the richest Puerto Rico has half the mean income of the poorest state Mississippi. The EPA has required Guam to clean up WWII military hazardous waste in dump sites at territorial expense. Problems.
- Puerto Rico or DC might gain statehood as 60% favored it in the last plebiscite with 80% participation (and another is scheduled), but it is unlikely that any of the others will unless they join another state such as Hawaii for the Pacific islands or Florida for the U.S. Virgin Islands. So, I would favor using the Organic Acts to make delegate Members of Congress extra-constitutionally voting Representatives in the House immediately. And were PR to become a state, as it is larger than 20 smaller states in population, it would gain four seats in the House, so it should receive that count by Organic Act as well. DC is larger than only two states, it would still have one representative. Senators to follow statehood. But I have drifted of the topic of the lead sentence sourcing. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:50, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
- Give me a few days to read through Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/United States (331 KB!) which I was unaware of until today. EllenCT (talk) 14:41, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
- I am fine with the most recent proposal and sad that TFD hasn't been participating in mediation very frequently. There is no way I'm going near the intro, though. All of my efforts are going to be suggesting proposals to consolidate the economy section to reflect the declining real incomes of the middle class and the reasons for them in a more accessible way. On reflection after reading through that mediation, that section and it's subsection are terrible. EllenCT (talk) 21:28, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for the fact-check. I found the collaboration to cutting the history section difficult, but I think the economy section requires similar consolidation as well. I wish you well, and will chime in if I think I can help. I think that the scope discussion overlaps a bit where the U.S. reports some economic data internationally based on 50 states, DC and Puerto Rico, so consistency of the 50/DC aggregation alone for data bases should not be arbitrarily enforced by WP editors. Most important relative to the stability of the page is that the issue of constitutional status of DC, the territories and possessions not be addressed, since they are various, ambiguous and unfortunately contentious. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:39, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
- I'm going to chime in here as I've noticed that many of the NPS links are not working anymore. (Lovely collection of HTTP 404's with their logo, and occasionally an NPS Apology Page--their name, not mine.) This now includes the ABPP summaries which stopped working in the past few days. I've had little luck in getting such things repaired by the NPS in the past. I'm in favor of using the written paper page numbers and such with paper cites rather than these completely unreliable NPS web page links. NPS IT seems to be in the habit for randomly scrambling them. Red Harvest (talk) 22:09, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
- Agree. I'm slow getting back, life intervened.
- The map/illustrations probably could bear reducing as Lotje successfully did.
- But references should be open coded in standard English so the citation stands, even if the link is broken in the future. The previous edits reduced
- Fort Pulaski – National Monument, National Park Service Historical Handbook Series, “General Lee Returns to Fort Pulaski” (1961). down to http://[http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/hh/18/hh18f.htm. and
- "Fort Pulaski National Monument, National Park Service Historical Handbook Series (1961). “Significance of the Siege” down to http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/hh/18/hh18m.htm.
You're invited to join WikiProject United States Constitution!
Hi. It might make sense to have a table like:
|Territory||US Citizens||US Nationals||Territorial Member of Congress||US District Court||Constitution supreme/criminal trial juries||Pres Declration Y||ETC||ETC|
|Puerto Rico||Done||Done||name||United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico|
|US Virgin Islands|
...and so on and so forth whatever makes sense - all refernenced for easy viewing. If you made that, I think it will be easy to understand for RfC. Just a thought. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:40, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
|United States Territory||Geographically, US national jurisdiction||US Citizens/Nationals||Estimated population||Territory in Congress (Delegate MoC)||Local self governance||US Constitution supreme||US District Court||Presidential vote|
|District of Columbia||Done||Done 1801 US citizenship||658,000||Done 1971 Ms. Norton||Done 1975||Done Congressional Organic Act||Done Fed'l Dist Crt - DC||Done 1961 Constitutional Amendment|
|American Samoa||Done||Done 1904 US nationals||57,000 (≈ 1% territorial population)||Done 1981 Mr. Faleomavaega||Done 1978||Done Territorial Constitution||AS Supr Ct; DC or HI||citizenship under litigation at Supreme Court|
|Guam||Done||Done 1950 US citizenship||159,000||Done 1973 Ms. Bordallo||Done 1972||Done Congressional Organic Act||Done Terr'l Dist Crt - GU||while resident in a state|
|Northern Mariana Islands||Done||Done 1986 US citizenship||77,000||Done 2009 Mr. Sablan||Done 1978||Done Territorial Constitution||Done Fed'l Dist Crt - MP||while resident in a state|
|Puerto Rico||Done||Done 1952 US citizenship mutually agreed (1917 citizenship by Congressional fiat)||3,667,000 (≈ 90% insular territory population)||Done 1901 Mr. Pierluisi||Done 1948||Done Territorial Constitution||Done Fed'l Dist Crt - PR||while resident in a state|
|US Virgin Islands||Done||Done 1927 US citizenship||106,000||Done 1973 Ms. Christensen||Done 1970||Done Congressional Organic Act||Done Terr'l Dist Crt - VI||while resident in a state|
|uninhabited possessions||Done||Citizenship by blood, otherwise not decided in the courts for Palmyra||n/a||n/a||n/a||Done fundamental provisions||various||n/a|
- Is that Constitution column US constitution? If so add US. Population needs its own column (or different date from the other but would be clearer in own column - and your parentheticals need better clarity). For PR wasn't citizenship earlier 1917 or something; courts need links (also one of your links does not seem to be working). Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:21, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
Possibly unfree File:Vicksburg battle 2013 U.S. stamp.jpg
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Vicksburg battle 2013 U.S. stamp.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you object to the listing for any reason. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 12:59, 16 June 2015 (UTC)