Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/United States

Mediation of this dispute has been completed. The case pages should not be edited.

To report a problem with the outcome of this case, contact the Mediation Committee.
If additional mediation proceedings are required, a new mediation request should be filed.
These case pages should not be edited, even to correct article content problems. Case pages are not indexed by search engines.

Resolved:

Closed as successful

This mediation case is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this case page.

United States[edit]

Editors involved in this dispute

Robert McClenon (talk · contribs) – filing party
TheVirginiaHistorian (talk · contribs)
Golbez (talk · contribs)
The Four Deuces (talk · contribs)
Alanscottwalker (talk · contribs)
Bkonrad (talk · contribs)
Khajidha (talk · contribs) —Withdrew from mediation 19 January, 2015
Wzrd1 (talk · contribs)
Collect (talk · contribs)
The Gnome (talk · contribs)
RightCowLeftCoast (talk · contribs)

Articles affected by this dispute

United States (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Other attempts at resolving this dispute that you have attempted

Issues to be mediated[edit]

Primary issues (added by the filing party)

There is a long-running (at least since March 2013) issue of whether the United States should be defined as the 50 states and the District of Columbia, or as the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and five territories. This issue affects the infobox and the information for the United States in lists of countries. There appears to be agreement that the other definition should be footnoted in the infobox.

Additional issues (added by other parties)

In my opinion, the issues are more complex than portrayed and the question under mediation should rather be, "what should the definition be for the United States on Wikipedia." This has far more wide-ranging impacts than just the infobox and some list articles. --Golbez (talk) 22:13, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP should follow available secondary sources by scholars to implement the policy of wp:psts. Online almanacs and unsourced database footnotes can be improved upon. Current secondary sources should govern primary sources. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:32, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP has general readers and international readers. Both perspectives should be addressed in a country article. The definition of U.S. area and population should not be limited by a “judicial term of art” for internal governance with narrow application. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:52, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is a classic case where once we define what the US is for purposes of the specific single article and delimiting the scope of the article, the other issues will fall into line quickly. Mediation is ill-suited for defining the US for all purposes on Wikipedia, and would have to be placed in a widely advertised RfC as a bare minimum, and would make Mediation likely the worst of all possible solutions. Collect (talk) 16:24, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have recently, the past few months, have stepped away from this discussion, as the arguments for both sides had become repetitive, with the staunches proponents for either definition going on nearly endlessly supporting their side with walls of text, often repeating previously stated points in support of their position. Unless the two staunches proponents, one having already agreeing to arbitration (at the time of this comment) are involved, this arbitration will have little chance to succeed in creating a long-term solution.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:45, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is no single meaning in the geographical term "United States of America", because it is used in many different ways. Accordingly, there is no singly figure for the "area covered by the U.S." Editors in this dispute are simply trying to impose the meaning that seems more prevalent to them. Moreover, the infobox, being short and concise by definition, imposes a procrustean attitude to the process. It is evident, at least to me, that all the relevant information should be included in the article, each area listed independently and the whole cumulatively. The infobox should include only one figure, explicitly stating which version's area is presented and a note should be inserted with an appropriate heads-up about the other versions. It matters little, in this context, which one would appear in the infobox. -The Gnome (talk) 09:17, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Allow me to elaborate a little on the issue of context. The Commonwealth of Puerto Rico "has no representation in the Electoral College that ultimately chooses the U.S. president and vice president." However, citizens of insular areas, such as Puerto Rico, "pay ... Social Security and Medicare taxes." In addition to this, the Wikipedia entry on the unincorporated territories of the United States cites a number of cases showing that "the act of incorporation is on the people of the territory, not on the territory per se." Finally, the most "official document" of any nation's government as regards legal definitions is the law itself of that nation. 8 U.S Code § 1101(a)(38) provides the following: "The term “United States”, except as otherwise specifically herein provided, when used in a geographical sense, means the continental United States, Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, Guam, the Virgin Islands of the United States, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands." (Emphasis added.) Wake Island, for instance, is ostensibly in the CIA factbook but cannot be found in the aforementioned US Code. It should be obvious that, at the very least, full clarification should be made for every figure quoted in the Wikipedia entry regarding a geographical area. -The Gnome (talk) 21:40, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The United States is defined by the United States government as 50 states, the District of Columbia and American Samoa, Baker Island, Guam, Howland Island, Jarvis Island, Johnston Atoll, Kingman Reef, Midway Islands, Navassa Island, Northern Mariana Islands, Palmyra Atoll, Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands, Wake Island. For the possessions, aka territories, there are incorporated unorganized territories, unincorporated unorganized territories and unincorporated unorganized territories. At various times in history, those possessions were referred to by the office that managed the affairs of insular areas. When it comes to nations, save for one nation makes absurd or bizarre claims, one usually accepts that which every nation accepts, that nation's definition of its primary territorial nation and its possessions (if any). In this case, the CIA World Factbook defines the United States as (longwinded, by adding history into the paragraph) 50 states and "a number of possessions". The CIA World Factbook is an official document of the government of the United States of America, hence is an official definition of the nation. If Russia made claim on South Ossetia, that would be an unsettled claim, as it's not in the description previous to that bizarre claim. If Mexico claimed Texas, again, a bizarre claim as they've failed to exercise claim since Texan independence. The US previously "owned" several other possessions, relinquishing them to govern themselves as independent nations. The Philippines, Cuba and the Panama Canal Zone (the latter treaty expiring in 1979). I'm here simply because I voted for an option in an RfC, which appears to be an annual one. So, as much as I dislike it, mediation seems the best option, rather than annual RfC's.Wzrd1 (talk) 10:51, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The primary issue IMO concerns how to present data about the United States clearly and consistently both within the United States article and in other articles. Arguments about the political status of territories are an unproductive sideshow. older ≠ wiser 14:57, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Parties' agreement to mediation[edit]

Agree. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:33, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agree (details moved per TransporterMan below) --Golbez (talk) 18:05, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:35, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agree Collect (talk) 16:19, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:39, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:41, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. The Gnome (talk) 22:37, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. TFD (talk) 03:19, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. older ≠ wiser 14:57, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. Wzrd1 (talk) 18:35, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decision of the Mediation Committee[edit]

Chairperson's comment #1: This isn't meant at all as a comment or criticism of Golbez's caveats, above, but I would ask all respondents to limit their responses to, first, listing such additional issues as you may see involved here in the Additional Issues section, above, and, second, to giving a simple "accept" or "reject." If the case is accepted, the mediator assigned to the case will discuss with the parties and sort out which or all of the listed issues, or additional issues, to mediate. If you do not agree with that assessment you may withdraw from the mediation at that time. I would especially ask all responding parties to avoid discussing the issues or responding to one another on this page or its talk page until the case is accepted. For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:47, 16 December 2014 (UTC) (Chairperson)[reply]
Chairperson's comment #2: Apologies to all, but I just discovered (due, thanks, to a note from TheVirginiaHistorian) that the parties list was misformated in a way that had prevented the official filing notice from being sent out by the Committee's mailing bot. That's been corrected and the notices have now gone out, but in light of the lack of official notice until now, the acceptance/rejection period will be extended to 25 December 2014 (and thereafter until I get around to evaluating them; I'm not going to be editing on Christmas Day and perhaps not for a few days afterwards.) Historian has also indirectly raised the issue of the RFC filed on the article talk page. Our prerequisites for mediation would ordinarily cause this to be rejected if a RFC is still pending, but it would appear to me that the RFC was closed by the automated removal of the RFC template on December 8. If anyone feels differently and feels that the RFC either needs to be extended (the RFC template should be restored if that is the case) or restarted, they should vote "Reject" here. Finally, I am going to add a party who has joined in the discussion on the article talk page in the last few days. For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:08, 18 December 2014 (UTC) (Chairperson)[reply]
Accept. The members of the Committee will be solicited to volunteer to mediate this case. For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:31, 29 December 2014 (UTC) (chairperson)[reply]
I will be the mediator for this case. I will notify the parties and we will begin on the talk page in the next couple of days. Sunray (talk) 08:26, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.