Talk:United States/Archive 66

Archive 60

←

Archive 64

Archive 65

Archive 66

Archive 67

Archive 68

→

Archive 70

RFC on Scope of United States

The following discussion 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.

---

Result: no consensus.

In the voting section of the RfC, three editors supported the proposition that the area and population should include the five named territories and two registered an abstention on the grounds that they objected to the RfC question.

Much of the discussion focused on whether the five territories may or may not be properly considered part of the United States, and reached no consensus. My view has no special status, but I find the lack of consensus unsurprising given that the best answer to this is probably "yes and no". I would note, though, that, although highly relevant, this was not the specific question at hand. I was surprised not to see more discussion of sources relating specifically to population and area statistics (What does World Factbook do? What does Britannica do?).

Given that the article at present clearly defines the United States as "50 states and a federal district", it would seem odd for aspects of the article to deviate from this. I would suggest that, if this is in error, that should be addressed prior to addressing the consequent errors in the infobox. The France article, for example, treats France as including overseas territories, but it does so in its very first sentence. I'm not saying that is necessarily a correct model for this article, but I think this issue needs tackling from the first sentence or else dropping. That's just IMO.

Should the primary figures for the area and population of the United States be defined as: those of the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and five major territories (Puerto Rico, the US Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and the Northern Marianas); or as those of the 50 states and the District of Columbia? These figures will be listed in the infobox, and will be those used in lists of countries (e.g., by population, by area). The alternate figure will be footnoted in the infobox. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:57, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Survey

Option A is the use of the figures for the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and the five major territories. Option B is the use of the figures for the 50 states and the District of Columbia.

---

• Option A. Secondary sources per WP:PSTS should govern editor original research into primary sources. Homeland Security and two scholarly sources, Jon M Van Dyke and Bartholomew Sparrow, include DC and the five major territories as a part of the Untied States. Legal scholars Lawson and Sloane report Puerto Rico now “incorporated” as the 21st century federal judiciary uses that term of art. The article should reflect the United States as a “sole person” internationally as it is intended for international readers in the Infobox area and population, and that includes the five major territories. Puerto Rico alone among the five major territories has a population larger than 20 smaller states. The 50 states and DC alone should be footnoted for cross reference to other databases reported in the article. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 18:11, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
• Abstain. The question is insufficient, as it speaks only to the specific parts of the infobox and 'lists of countries', without understanding that this would change thousands of facts and figures all across Wikipedia. I will not engage in this discussion, I will simply post notice that any attempt to make Wikipedia internally inconsistent will be met with reversion. This should be an all-or-nothing proposition, and yet it's portrayed as solely involving two figures. What of the economic statistics? Demographics? Will the articles on the territories be modified to ensure that they agree that the territories are part of the country? None of this is allowed by this very narrow and inadequate question. As such, I must decline. --Golbez (talk) 18:29, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

• Abstain The issue was whether the source provided said the U.S. included five of the overseas territories. That should have been the correct question, because it would be a simple task for responding editors to determine whether the line "United States" included these territories by reading the footnote. But this RfC opened without reference to any sources. Therefore the likely outcome is that we are going to hear lots of original arguments from editors. Quickly the text will become so profuse, it will discourage wider input. TFD (talk) 19:37, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
• A again. If a person born in a place has citizenship as a direct result of where they are born, it is silly to say the place they are born in is not in the country for which citizenship accrued. Collect (talk) 21:38, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
• A again. It was settled in 2013, nothing has changed in the past year.Wzrd1 (talk) 04:51, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Threaded Discussion

Definition of United States

We have sources which include the five major territories, such as the “State area measurements” chart published by the U.S. Census Bureau in a data base shared with the U.S. Geological Survey and Homeland Security, and that aggregation is supported by primary and secondary, government and scholarly sources. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 18:13, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

In fact the source you link to defines the "United States" in footnote 4 as "all 50 states and the District of Columbia." In the Geographic Areas Reference Manual, Chapter 2, the U.S. Census Bureau says the "Nation (of the United States)" has legal status with a footnote (no. 1) saying, "Officially, "the United States" consists of the 50 States and the District of Columbia." [1] TFD (talk) 19:22, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

TFD: You are cherry picking footnotes. The first sentence at the chart includes the five major territories. "The table below provides ... measurements for the 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico and the Island Areas." You have no source to exclude territories, but at the official publication by Homeland Security summarizing U.S. law, Welcome, a guide for immigrants citizenship, p.7, it reads, “The US now consists of 50 states, the District, the territories of Guam, American Samoa, and the U.S. Virgin Islands, ... Puerto Rico and the N. Marianas." TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:52, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

That would make an interesting case in a U.S. court. On the one side a lawyer would present the insular cases, legal textbooks, statements from the state department and UN resolutions. On the other side a lawyer would whip out Welcome to the United States A Guide for New Immigrants and the fact that the Census Bureau not only provides stats for the U.S. but for some of its overseas possessions as well. TFD (talk) 17:43, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

The Insular Cases established an internal tax regime to support the "domestic" sugar industry. That is still good tax law. They also declared the Supreme Court incompetent to make U.S. citizens of "savages", allowing only Congress was able to do so. Well, Congress has now in the 21st century mutually made citizens with islanders and organized three-branch self-government in the five major territories, under federal court jurisdiction, with representation in the "national councils" of government by territorial Delegates in Congress equivalent to the "incorporated" District of Columbia. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:03, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

• What does the U.S. Homeland Security say? "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" [2]. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 20:44, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

American Samoa

@Collect, do you have any sources to back up your legal opinion? And does that exclude American Samoa, since they do not have and apparently do not want U.S. citizenship?[3] TFD (talk) 22:07, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

American Samoans have U.S. citizenship by blood of either parent, and nationals have "court house" citizenship on application at age 18. No one loses their U.S. citizenship by permanent residence in American Samoa. Some islanders are accommodated with hereditary local officials rather than holding elections. This exception of U.S. nationals amounts to 581 square miles, less than the total 55,519 population, and it should not be the basis to exclude Puerto Rico. The sources generally include five major territories in the United States such as Executive Order 13423. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:45, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Right. Children of U.S. citizens born in American Samoa are U.S. citizens, as are children of U.S. citizens born in any other country in the world. And citizens of American Samoa may apply for U.S. citizenship. But otherwise they are not U.S. citizens. And Americans do not lose their citizenship by living in American Samoa, just as they do not lose their citizenship by living in any other country in the world. TFD (talk) 17:53, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

And U.S. nationals owe allegiance solely to the United States, and they are include in a "geographical sense" for Homeland Security, Transportation, Environmental Protection and other purposes; but finding an exclusion has been impossible. I believe one source described it as the "last overseas territory". They have republican three-branch self-government except in the remote areas where islanders still use hereditary majors or county supervisors. All the larger population areas elect local officials. American Samoa is under the protection of federal courts, and it has the same Congressional delegate Member of Congress as does judicially "incorporated" District of Columbia. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:03, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

RfC wording

I tried to accommodate comments in the wording of the RFC. I revised the wording in response to a comment. If anyone thinks that the question is the wrong question, they can post their own RFC, because I think that this question is a valid question. User:Golbez: If you want to post another RFC, you are welcome to do so. Also, once there is consensus, other lists can also be edited to be consistent. Just because I specified the scope of this RFC, which is really about the scope of the United States, doesn't exclude other changes for consistency. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:25, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Again, you are asking editors to provide their personal opinions and arguments, rather than providing the opinions in published sources. So one editor has said, without providing any support, that if people born in a territory are U.S. citizens, that territory is part of the U.S. That of course does not apply to American Samoa and there is a case before the courts about that. But articles are not supposed to reflect editors' opinions. TFD (talk) 18:38, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

We have a source summarizing current U.S. law to include American Samoa that is not a dated footnote in Executive Order 13423, "‘‘United States’’ when used in a geographical sense, means the fifty states, the District … Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, the US Virgin Islands, and the Northern Mariana Islands."

So you concede that the article should include Puerto Rico, U.S. Virgin Islands, Northern Marianas, and Guam in area and population. --- For American Samoa, you would exclude the U.S. citizens by blood, "Court House" citizens at age 18, and those who are nationals owing allegiance to the United States. Is that correct? By what source, or is it your own opinion unsupported by sources, only an unsourced footnote from a 2010 document? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:15, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Puerto Rico

Puerto Rico, the largest and most populated of the five major territories (58% their area, 91% their population) is included in the United States, by Presidential Executive Order, by statute "as a state", by federal judiciary, and by legal scholars explaining the "incorporation" judicial term of art.

• John F. Kennedy San Juan, PR, 1961. “…I am in my country… and I am glad to be in America this afternoon.”
• '[U.S.]' when used in a geographical sense, means the fifty states, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, the United States Virgin Islands, and the Northern Mariana Islands, and associated territorial waters and airspace.”, |Executive Order 13423 Sec. 9. (l)
• 48 U.S. Code § 737 - Privileges and immunities. "The rights, privileges, and immunities of citizens of the United States shall be respected in Puerto Rico to the same extent as though Puerto Rico were a State of the Union and subject to the provisions of paragraph 1 of section 2 of article IV of the Constitution of the United States.”
• In the 2008 Consejo v. Rullan case, “[Congress’] sequence of legislative actions from 1900 to present hs in fact incorporated the territory.” The territory has evolved from an unincorporated to an incorporated one.” [p.26,28] The court case was upheld on appeal in 2012.
• Lawson and Sloane in the Boston College Law Review, “Regardless of how Puerto Rico looked in 1901 when The Insular Cases were decided or in 1922, today, Puerto Rico seems to be the paradigm of an incorporated territory as modern jurisprudence understands that legal term of art.” [p.1175]

Insular Cases no longer apply to U.S. citizenship, it has been extended to Puerto Rico and the others of the five major U.S. territories. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:00, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

It has not been extended to American Samoa. apparently because the citizens of that country do not want it. And it is possible to renounce U.S. citizenship in Puerto Rico and remain a citizen of Puerto Rico. TFD (talk) 02:11, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Do these assertions reflect the latest referendums in American Samoa and Puerto Rico endorsing political union with the United States, or are they internal details of the U.S. federal republic accommodating local desires as it does with self-governing Native-American reservations?

U.S. citizens and nationals owe sole allegiance to the U.S. in American Samoa, there is an accommodation for local hereditary rulers in remote areas. Are PR citizens renouncing U.S. citizenship tracked in the Census reports, is it less than the 3% desiring independence in the last referendum? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:04, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

They are not independent of the U.S. because they are possessions subject to the U.S. TFD (talk) 00:35, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Regardless of how acquired, in the 21st century territories are not independent of the U.S. because they have chosen to be a part of it in referendums. Congress has now mutually accepted them as U.S. citizens and nationals. That politically incorporates them in a way explained by legal scholars sourced in our discussion [4]. (The Supreme Court is incompetent to make citizens of islanders as the Court explained in the Insular Cases.) TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:51, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Whether or not they have chosen to be part of the U.S., they have not yet been incorporated into the U.S. by Congress and remain possessions. TFD (talk) 20:03, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Possessions need not be incorporated into a nation-state politically. But the five major U.S. territories are constitutionally more than mere possessions, though they are not states. They are politically incorporated into the United States -- not for internal taxes, see Insular Cases -- but politically incorporated by citizenship, protection under federal courts and territorial representation in Congress by the U.S. national tradition, as sourced above. You refuse to acknowledge the U.S. tradition of politically incorporated territories which the Supreme Court has said depends on citizenship. You have no reliable source of scholarship to exclude the five major territories in the 21st century. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:17, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

• In view of the Supreme Court’s holdings in Califano v. Torres, Rodriguez, and C.F. Harris, considering “Puerto Rico’s “similarity to a state, it is incorrect to refer to the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico as a possession of the United States.” p. 83 from GAO report [5]. Legal scholars Lawson and Sloane find Puerto Rico politically “incorporated” as 21st century jurists understand that term of art, p.1175, [6].

• "As a general observation, we would avoid the use of the term “possession” when referring to the territories of American Samoa, Guam and the Virgin Islands, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands and Puerto Rico. The term appears to be offensive to the people living in those areas, and has the connotation of an area that has neither an organic act nor a constitution.” p. 64 from the Attorney General’s office [7].TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:55, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Montevideo Convention

The five major territories meet all the criteria to be a part of the United States as a "sole person" nation-state under the Montevideo Convention. There is a permanent population of mutually U.S. citizens and nationals owing sole allegiance to the U.S. They are by law and practice, under permanent, exclusive control of the U.S. territorial administrations, and the U.S. enters into legal relations with other nations regarding all of them. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:49, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Support. The Montevideo Convention is nowdays (beyond its original scope and intent) considered part of Customary international law as the key definition of sovereign statehood. RicJac (talk) 15:16, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Do you have any sources that say they meet the criteria and therefore are part of the U.S."? In fact the U.S. plus its dependencies do not meet the criteria, and to say they do is a mockery of what the convention determined. TFD (talk) 15:41, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

There are sources to say they meet the criteria, and none to say they do not.

• Art. 2. The federal state shall constitute a sole person in the eyes of international law. CONVENTION ON RIGHTS AND DUTIES OF STATES, Montevideo December 26, 1933.
• “The constituent states, and the internal and external territories, are not recognized as international actors and do not possess international legal personality.” p.272. Internatinal Law by Donald Rothwell, et al. (2014)
• The U.S. officially asserts its territory as the ‘‘United States’’ when used in a geographical sense, means the fifty states, the District … Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, the US Virgin Islands, and the Northern Mariana Islands." Executive Order 13423.

Unsourced editor POV to devolve elements of a federal state in a WP article makes a mockery of what the convention determined. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:17, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Do you have any sources that say for the purposes of the Montevideo Convention, the U.S. includes its overseas territories? If you do not then using it to make that claim is original reasearch. Note however that according to the president of the of the Puerto Rico-USA foundation, in evidence presented to Congress in 2006, Puerto Rico meets the criteria for statehood under the Convention. (p. 136)[8] TFD (talk) 15:51, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Your source is testimony of an advocate, not a peer reviewed reliable source. He places Puerto Rico on a spectrum which does not achieve status as an independent international "sole person". He concedes a critical point in the Montevideo Convention, on p.136, “their relationship to the United States perforce qualifies their capacity to exercise their sovereignty…in ways that traditionally might have been viewed as incompatible with the idea of sovereign statehood.” WP should use mainstream sources, not self-admitted WP:FRINGE advocacy testimony. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 17:12, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

You have provide nil sources that anyone anywhere has ever claimed that under the Montevideo Convention the unincorporated territories are part of the U.S., let alone that that is a generally accepted opinion. Could you please read "synthesis": "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." In this case you are comparing various attributes of the U.S. and its unincorporated territories with criteria in the Convention and concluding that they meet it, then providing your opinion that said territories are part of the U.S. While it is tempting to point out the multiple errors in your argument, that would just compound the OR distraction.

Incidentally, you should not dismiss the opinions of advocates for the people of the territories and their elected representatives and set yourself up as an advocate for them. TFD (talk) 02:39, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

insert Territories are a part of the U.S. internationally, What does the U.S. Homeland Security's Customs and Border Patrol say? "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" [9]. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 21:08, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

In the 2012 Puerto Rican referendum with a 78% turnout, 61% sought statehood, only a 5% wp:fringe voted for independence. TFD should not advocate a fringe POV to artificially devolve territories which are in political union with the U.S. by territorial referendums -- the U.S. is a "sole person" in international affairs.

I did not reach a conclusion, I cited a supporting scholarly source including territories by the Montevideo Convention [10], and that the U.S. officially asserts its territory as the ‘‘United States’’ when used in a geographical sense, includes the five major territories [11].

Territories unincorporated for tax purposes are politically incorporated by U.S. citizenship as cited above, see court case [12] and legal scholars [13]. TFD shows no sources which report the official United States as the judicially “incorporated” 50 states, DC and Palmyra Atoll”, that is superseded by Congress mutually making U.S. citizens with territorial referendums. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:26, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

You reached a conclusion because your source mentioning the Montevideo Convention says nothing about U.S. overseas territories. You need a source that says something like, "according to the criteria of the Montevideo Convention, the terrtiories are part of the U.S." TFD (talk) 15:46, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Territories are included in the international State as sourced. We have the Executive Order defining the U.S. in a “geographical sense” including the five major territories. The State Department Legal Advisor’s office communicates to all five major territory Governors in relation to international treaties as applying “throughout the territory of the United States” (2010) [14] and refers to the "dedicated efforts of state, local, insular, and tribal governments throughout our country.” (2014) [15] — the State Department acts for the U.S. as a “sole person” in the international community with exclusive treaty making powers for the “territory of the U.S.” — opposed we have an unsourced 2010 database footnote. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 17:16, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

You have provided no sources that says following the Montevideo Convention, the territories are part of the U.S. It makes mockery of the Convention to use it that way, considering that the signatories were all committed to decolonization and self-determination of peoples. TFD (talk) 02:35, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

One of the choices available to a people is self-government within an existing nation state such as the U.S., which the five major territories have chosen in referendum. They are mutually accepted by the Congress as U.S. citizens and nationals. In Puerto Rico only 5% chose independence in the 2012 referendum on political union with the United States. TFD persists on the wp:fringe.

“Territory [of a State in an international treaty] comprises the metropolitan territory of a State and its overseas territories…Because of their very nature, treaties such as the Charter of the United Nations have to apply to *all* the territory of the parties.” p.81 Handbook of International Law by Anthonly Aust, in addition to Rothwell [16] and official U.S. documents [17] quoted above.

The choice for the article is between using quoted sources from executive, legislative, judicial, legal scholars and political scientists to include the major five territories, **versus** POV without sourced quotes to exclude them. One unsourced footnote from a data base is not the preponderance of reliable sources. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:30, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

So you are now arguing that overseas territories are part of the metropolitian state because the metropolitan state can decide whether treaties it signs extends to them. Previously you argued that British overseas territories are not part of the U.K. So you are changing your argument. But you set up this section and have provided no evidence that any source interprets the Montedvideo Convention to incorporate territories. Incidnetally Puerto Rico rejected statehood, the only question that would have meant incorporation into the U.S. TFD (talk) 16:20, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

More unsourced Talk disruption. In another discussion, I suggested the U.S. Virgin Islands with a territorial Member of Congress like the “incorporated” District of Columbia, as sourced, is not the same as the British Virgin Islands with no Member of Parliament at all, as sourced.

TFD has no source to suggest devolving the territorial elements of the United States as a “sole person”. The U.S. "territory" includes the five major territories in a "geographical sense" as the two State Department memos and Executive Orders show. Two scholarly sources are in my last post above.

At Puerto Rican status referendum, 2012 the report of the second part of a two-part U.N.-style referendum found for STATEHOOD 61%. Legal scholars find Puerto Rico to be politically incorporated by Congress as a Territory.[18] Your unsourced misrepresentation is colored by your wp:fringe POV for excluding U.S. citizens from the United States for some unexplained reason. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 17:03, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Your link says "Puerto Rico seems to be the paradigm of an incorporated territory" (my emphasis), but according to the federal government it remains unincorporated (p. 1161). It does mention the Montevideo Convention (p. 1139) and says that freely associated states meet the criteria. TFD (talk) 23:37, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Territories remain "unincorporated" for internal tax purposes. Regardless of acquisition, they are now politically incorporated by Congress, as sourced and quoted above in full. p.1175 [19]. Puerto Rico in particular is now a Commonwealth, treated "as a state" as sourced above [20]. The U.S. territories under discussion are not FAS Palau, Marshall Islands, and Micronesia, no reliable source includes FAS in the United States, nor does TFDs lone reference to an unsourced database footnote. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:01, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Astonishing that TVH persists in believing that the opinions of legal scholars in argumentative positions have the force of law. Regardless of what you would like to believe, a significant distinction remains between incorporated and unincorporated. If these territories were truly incorporated, then dis-incorporation would no longer be an option (assuming they are considered as essentially equivalent to states with regards to incorporation) and yet, for each of the territories, the option of leaving the Union is a viable possibility (even if at present unlikely). older ≠ wiser 15:02, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

The Virginia Historian, your source says, "As to the first, recall that under the Insular Cases doctrine, the peoples of so-called unincorporated territories, which, according to the federal government, Puerto Rico remains, may be denied the full panoply of rights, privileges, and immunities enjoyed by citizens and inhabitants of incorportated territories-even though Puerto Ricans, by statute, technically qualify as ctizens." (p. 1139). TFD (talk) 16:29, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Correct, U.S. territories do not have, have never had, the constitutional status of states. The present major five territories have more privileges than those held by "incorporated" Alaska and Hawaii before their statehood. I prefer statehood for U.S. citizens over territorial status, but they must apply for statehood first themselves.

We have sources to include the five major territories, reliable peer reviewed sources which explain the political incorporation of U.S. citizens and nationals by statute and executive order with the force of law, and that law is quoted, cited and linked.

Opposed we have Editors without reliable sources, ignoring islander referendums and making a POV application of Insular Cases to a political question, relying only on an unsourced database footnote. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:54, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

I just provided the position of the U.S. government which is described in your source. Of course it could be that the U.S. government is wrong and Lawson and Sloane are right, that the U.S. has in violation of the U.S. constitution and international law, incorporated these territories. Surely that may be worth noting. But it does not mean that their position is the unquestionable truth, which is what is what you are claiming. None of this btw has anything to do with the Montevideo Convention. TFD (talk) 17:17, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

TFD misrepresents Lawson and Sloan. No source provided asserts the U.S. is in violation of international law or the U.S. Constitution. The U.S. politically incorporates territories within its historic tradition in the late 20th century by islander referendum.

No source suggests there are not referendum-approved U.S. citizens on the five major islands with representation in “national councils” of Congress as required for U.N. "self-determination" in a larger nation-state. No source asserts the U.S. is not the “sole person” in international affairs chosen by islander referendum for the five major territories in the meaning of the Montevideo Convention.

Sources to include the five major territories are quoted, cited and linked above. Provide something other than an unsourced database footnote to exclude islanders for no apparent reason. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 18:28, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

See page 1126 of your source, "as a matter of international law, it is unclear that the current relationship between the United States and Puerto Rico in fact conforms to customary international law on decolonization, human rights, and self-determination, as well as explicit U.S. treaty obligations...." TFD (talk) 19:19, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

There is further discussion which you omit. After considering many alternative perspectives, which you are now wp:cherry-picking, what is the sourced conclusion of legal scholars in a peer reviewed journal, as quoted, cited and linked before? "“Regardless of how Puerto Rico looked in 1901 when The Insular Cases were decided or in 1922, today, Puerto Rico seems to be the paradigm of an incorporated territory as modern jurisprudence understands that legal term of art.” The State Department Legal Advisor’s office communicates to all five major territory Governors in relation to international treaties as applying “throughout the territory of the United States” [21]. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:29, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

No I did not omit it. You have already quoted the sentence 7 times on this page alone - this is your eighth time. I wrote, "Your link says "Puerto Rico seems to be the paradigm of an incorporated territory (my emphasis), but according to the federal government it remains unincorporated (p. 1161). It does mention the Montevideo Convention (p. 1139) and says that freely associated states meet the criteria." [23:37, 15 November 2014] "Seems to be" and "are" do not mean the same thing, otherwise magicians who seem to saw people in half would be arrested. It is not the source that is the problem, but your misinterpretation of it. TFD (talk) 19:50, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

No source to exclude five major territories. You take an academic article and wp:cherry-pick discussion of alternative views and misrepresent them as the opinions of the authors, then misinterpret the meaning of the conclusion by truncating it. There appears to be only specious argument to support excluding the five major territories.

It seems you still have a) no primary source, b) no secondary governmental summary of the law, and c) no reliable scholarly sources to exclude the five major territories from the United States -- either as geographical area or as citizen population. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:42, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

How is it cherry-picking to present the view of the U.S. government? TFD (talk) 15:33, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

No source to exclude five major territories. You persist in taking the good internal tax law (one view of the USG) and misapplying it to U.S. citizens politically incorporated in the 21st century (another view of the USG), ignoring the sourced conclusion pointing out your error. Here are three additional reliable sources in peer reviewed publications to include the five major territories to help clarify that status of the U.S. as a "sole person" internationally includes the five major territories:

• "The five island political communities in the Pacific and Caribbean that are part of the United States but are not states have always had a unique legal status under U.S. law.”, reports legal scholar Jon M. Van Dyke [22]
• "At present, the US includes the Caribbean and Pacific territories, the District of Columbia and of course the fifty states.” from political scientist and historian Bartholomew Sparrow, listing the five major territories. p.231-232. [23]
• “'the people of the United States'…in a geographical sense…may mean all the people living within these limits, without reference to the States or Territories in which they may reside, or of which they may be citizens.” see W. L. McFerran [24].

At Wikipedia a position including five major territories in geography and population, supported by quotes from reliable sources in peer reviewed publications should persuade versus no wp:reliable source to exclude them. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 17:02, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

• Why is this still going on, really? The numbers and territories you both are talking about are a tiny fraction. The US government claims it has territory and claims it has citizen/nationals. Just a tiny fraction of that territory is not on the main continent, nor the Hawaiian archipelago, nor is it the District of Columbia -- but for certain purposes and reasons almost all those small islands are "States" [25]) - and regardless, it is all US territory. All citizens are US Nationals, and an extremely tiny fraction are United States Nationals but not citizens . [See id.] Would you two be interested in mediation or Dispute resolution? 17:44, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
  • It comes down to the nature of the U.S. - whether it is a constitutional republic, as the article claims, or an empire, as The Virginia Historian's sources claim. If we state for example that birthright citizenship is guaranteed by the constitution, that would be false because it only guarantees that right in part of the U.S. Similarly, the claim that the U.S. is in violation of its own constitution and international agreements by unilaterally incorporating foreign countries as The Virginia Historian's sources claim, reflects on the nature of the country. TFD (talk) 03:32, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

@Alanscottwalker: Sure, mediation or dispute resolution. How is that supposed to work?

First we have to do away with specious conflations. No peer reviewed source TVH cites excludes the five major territories from U.S. territory or population, TFD has no sources to exclude. More misrepresentation to exclude the islander citizens and nationals with "permanent allegiance" to the U.S. No direct quote from a reliable source supports excluding islanders, Sparrow would have state privileges conferred on territories before they are made states, but even he still includes them in the U.S., what of Van Dyke and McFarran?

In the U.S. constitutional tradition, territories never have enjoyed all status as states until statehood; birthright citizenship applies everywhere in U.S. territory, except American Samoa and Swains Island, and they are included in TVH sources as a part of the U.S., all 55,500, or 0.018% of the total population, by mutual referendum with Congress, U.S. nationals with right of free travel throughout U.S. territory, access to U.S. passports, and permanent allegiance to the U.S. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 06:35, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, start at WP:DRN; they maybe able to help you come to an understanding with each other, and either help you both not see that the others' argument is as you currently think it is (i.e help communication without vitriol), or even compromise by looking further into the matter, having new ideas, etc. - but the present back and forth has likely gone beyond its limit of usefulness (without generating more heat than light). Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:40, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I am told this RfC must be closed first, which I believe now has TheVirginianHistorian, and Collect for A., RicJac supporting the U.S. as a “sole person” including the five major territories, Alanscottwalker supporting “regardless, it is all US territory” including the five major territories, and Golbez and TFD obtaining. I read that as a 2-2-2, or 4-2 split, similar to the poll above to include the five major territories in the U.S. geographical area at 4-2-1-1, and similar to March 2013’s majority which I remember as 8-3 to describe the U.S. federal republic as “50 states, DC and five territories” in the introduction as sourced with DC and the five major territories enumerated as having the same territorial delegate Members of Congress.

I wish it were mere confusion on TFDs part. I reference citations which include the five major territories, and somehow I am misconstrued as saying, that "the U.S. is in violation of its own constitution and international agreements by unilaterally incorporating foreign countries as The Virginia Historian's sources claim.” That is not my position, nor that of islander referendums in every territory, nor Congress mutually making U.S. citizens and nationals, that is not what the referenced citations say. Is this not bad faith as TFD saying the majority vote last year to “include” the five major territories was a consensus to “exclude” them? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 15:44, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

You are just repeating yourself. This is the fourth time youy have quoted Van Dyke on this page for example. But your comments are still inaccurate. Incidentally, do you have access to the 1992 Van Dyke article and have you read it? And why are you posting all this stuff in a thread you opened to discuss the Montevideo Convention? TFD (talk) 21:47, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

TFD: All thee scholarly secondary sources per WP:PSTS include the five major territories in the U.S., which is a “sole person” under the definition of a federal State in the Montevideo Convention. And primary source State Department documents refer to the five major territories as “U.S. territory” and “our country”. No scholarly counter-sources exclude. No counter-source says the scholarly inclusion is inaccurate, TFD merely repeats himself to disrupt, objecting to the sourced evidence without anything to support a wp:fringe effort to devolve the U.S. territories from the U.S. info box.

There are also scholarly quotes to include from Jonathan Sparrow and Warren L. McFerran. TFD accuses me of being each of these scholars, but I am not, it is not my “original research”, but secondary scholarly sources. Per wp:psts. “Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation.” Without counter-sources to exclude, wp:psts requires including the five major territories according to three secondary scholarly sources. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:31, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Do you have any sources that draw the same conclusion about the Convention and U.S. overseas territories you do? TFD (talk) 15:08, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

I don’t remember the term “overseas territories” in the Montevideo Convention, only reference to federated States. There are three scholarly sources to include five major territories as a part of the United States federal republic. Scholar Donald Rothwell includes territories in “constituent states” as international actors. I have no source to exclude them from the “sole person” of the U.S. internationally, do you? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:20, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Isn’t the term “overseas territories” generally used for the United Kingdom, I thought they were included in the U.K. as they are in our Australian scholarly source, and as they are in our three U.S. scholarly sources. --- Only the U.S. territories are included in the federal republic more so, because they have participation in the "national councils" as the U.N. puts it to *include* them in a larger nation-state, delegate Members of Congress with floor privileges, right to propose legislation and amendments, voting privileges in committees and party caucuses, offices and military academy appointments --- which mere parliamentary "observers" do not have.

In a phrase similar to "overseas territories", the State Department refers to American Samoa as the last “outlying territory”. Is your only substantial objection against including the five major territories American Samoa? But the general convention is to include American Samoa with Puerto Rico as "insular territory", and PR alone is larger in population of U.S. citizens than 20 of the U.S. states. The five major territories should not be excluded from U.S. Infobox area and population statistics. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:58, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Instead of posting all your theories to every discussion thread, let's stick with the topic for each one. This topic is the Montevideo Convention. You correctly stated that Article 2 states "The federal state shall constitute a sole person in the eyes of international law." That is why DC and the 50 states each have no international personality, while Puerto Rico has observer status in Caricom, associate membership in the United Nations Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean and the World Health Organization, and many other roles not allowed to territories that are part of the U.S.[26] TFD (talk) 02:23, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Your 2006 source is advocacy by the Popular Democratic Party beginning p.99, of Puerto Rico during a Hearing before the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources of the U.S. Senate, not a scholarly peer reviewed wp:reliable source or a secondary wp:psts source. At the hearing, Senator Martinez (R-FL), noted “Puerto Rico is undoubtedly a territory of the United States. Puerto Rico is subject to the Territorial Clause of the U.S. Constitution” p. 3 The hearing related to a plebiscite that would ask Puerto Rico to continue its status, or to pursue some other permanent non-territory option. In 2012, 3% voted for independence 61% for statehood. One of your advocacy co-authors, Robert D. Sloane, concluded in a co-authored scholarly article of 2009 that Puerto Rico was "incorporated" into the United States as that judicial term of art is currently understood.

• As for WHO, "Territories which are not responsible for the conduct of their international relations may be admitted as Associate Members upon application made on their behalf by the Member or other authority responsible for their international relations.” [27] But Puerto Rico is not listed on the World Health Organization’s “Full list of all members and partners” [28]. If it were true, it is no longer so.

• Caricom’s membership consists of 15 full members, and 5 associate members, none of which is Puerto Rico. [29]. Puerto Rico is listed as an observer [30], which is consistent with foreign missions by other politically incorporated constituents of the United States.

• The Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean notes, "Thirteen non-independent territories in the Caribbean are Associate Members of the Commission.”, and it lists Puerto Rico as one of the non-independent associate members [31].

Incorporated provinces, states and territories which are a part of the “sole person” of a State are allowed a foreign presence. Canadian provinces such as Quebec and Alberta have missions in international capitals and U.S. states and these are reciprocated by U.S. states such as New York to Quebec and Mexico [32]. Will you now wp:fringe devolve Quebec from the Canada article Infobox because of its foreign missions? Puerto Rico is under the Territorial Clause, and like an incorporated state and DC, it is under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Congress as the sole agent of sovereignty, which you have agreed to in another context, why not here? You have no source to exclude the five major territories, TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:01, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Proposed dispute resolution wording

The five major U.S. territories are politically a part of the U.S. territory and population according to scholars Jon M. Van Dyke [33], Bartholomew Sparrow [34] and State Department [35], legislative [36] and judicial [37] primary sources, and official USG summaries of the law [38] include territories as a part of the U.S. --- versus --- One unsourced database footnote suggests the U.S. “officially” consists of the 50 States and the District of Columbia [39].

Shall the U.S. article report A) the U.S. totals to include the five major U.S. territories for the purposes of info box area as in the “Total" area at the U.S. Census [40] and Infobox population as at “Total U.S. Territory” in List of U.S. states and territories by population, -- then footnote citations for "50 states and DC" subtotals --- or --- B) report the 50 states and DC subtotals alone? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:31, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Maybe you shouldn't be wording this. I think courts of law call this leading the witness. And still, this is the wrong question, so y'all have fun. I'll come by to clean up after you at some point. --Golbez (talk) 14:16, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

The Virginia Historian, you use the definitions section of a presidential order on the environment, energy and transport as your evidence of the "official executive" position. It has already been explained to you that "Definitions. As used in this order" are not intended to be used for other purposes, and no rigorous editor would use a source so far removed from the subject anyway. This is the sort of approach one confronts in discussions with people who not only hold fringe views, but use a different logic in approaching topics. So I do not think any progress can be made in discussions with you. TFD (talk) 03:55, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

TFD: Again, your wp:original research into primary documents has led you astray. WP should be governed by reliable resources, the best are scholars in peer reviewed publications. So far we have 3-0 reliable scholarly sources to include the five major territories in the United States. Jon M. Van Dyke [41], Bartholomew Sparrow [42] and Warren L. McFerran [43]. Opposed we have misrepresentation, logical fallacy and an unsourced database footnote. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:22, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Presidential orders and pamphlets called "Welcome to America" are not "peer reviewed publications". They are "primary documents" to which you have added origianl research. As for the peer-reviewed sources you have used, they all claim that the official position of the U.S. government is wrong. That is an interesting postiiion, but is better presented in other articles. TFD (talk) 16:03, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

TFD: You have no scholarly source to support excluding the five major territories from the U.S. -- something to counter "The five island political communities in the Pacific and Caribbean ... are part of the United States but are not states … ". Jon M. Van Dyke, “The evolving legal relationships between the United States and its affiliated U.S.-flag islands”, (1992) University of Hawai’i Law Review.

The primary USG and secondary government sources from Homeland Security and State Department as referenced all include territories, none exclude them but your unsourced database footnote. The three scholarly sources are clearly named, directly quoted, cited and linked in our earlier discussion. You still have no counter-source but your own original research into primary documents, which fails WP:PSTS. -- I reference three scholars to include, you can find none to exclude.

"Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published SECONDARY sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary [textbook and encyclopedia] sources." “Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation.” You have no reliable source to omit the five major territories in the 21st century U.S. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 19:41, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Have you read the Van Dyke article, which you have now mentioned several times, or just the preview? TFD (talk) 15:52, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

-The quote speaks for itself to include the territories as a part of the U.S. internationally, and you still have no counter-source from a scholar to support your wp:fringe POV to devolve U.S. territory from the info box totals in area and population relative to the subject of the discussion.

-You seem to be uncomfortable with scholars who desire more rights and privileges for citizens in U.S. territories to more closely approximate those living under the constitutional status of states --- within the United States. Have you found Van Dyke to be another such as Sparrow? -- Some advocate eventual statehood with Hawaii or independence; that does not justify your unsourced excluding for the 21st century to date.

-On the other hand, we have another primary source direct quote supporting our three scholars, Title 19 of the U.S. Code, "Customs Duties" p.7, [44] "The term noncontiguous territory of the United States includes all the island territories and possessions of the United States.” Still nothing but an unsourced database footnote to exclude. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 18:02, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Normally we do not report the views of small minorities in articles where they comment on minor aspects. You would be better off discussing these views on articles about the territories. Have you read the article, or just the sneak preview you linked to? Because it could be you have taken it out of context and mixed up his personal comments with what he says about mainstream opinion.

Incidentally, no one has stated that there is not "noncontiguous territory of the United States [that] includes all the island territories and possessions of the United States.” The dispute is whether the possessions of the United States are possessions of the United States (as I argue) or whether they are part of the US. In your words, "your wp:original research into primary documents has led you astray."

TFD (talk) 05:30, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Insert. Puerto Rican population alone among the five major territories is larger than 20 smaller states. They should be included in figures taken from reliable sources for total U.S. area and total U.S. population including the five major territories. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 20:32, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

TFD: You are conflating U.S. political practice which distinguishes between possessions and territories. Territories have a constitutional status above possessions. Previously you have not been able to distinguish between Guantanamo with a military governor versus self-governing Puerto Rico. Only the 50 states, DC and 5 major territories are politically a part of the federal republic with delegate Members of Congress.

In the U.S. political tradition, as we learn in “Louisiana Purchase and American Expansion” (2005) by Levinson and Sparrow eds., --- In the U.S. after 1805, most U.S. territories have had a four-stage life-cycle of 1. Possessions. Military governors...; 2. Unincorporated territory. Presidentially appointed governors ...; 3. Incorporated territory. Locally elected governor of U.S. citizens, elected legislature, Article III federal courts, and a Member of Congress with debate privileges; 4. Statehood. —

All five territories in the 21st century meet the historical standard of a politically incorporated territory; they are judicially “unincorporated” for domestic tax purposes only, with the Court ruling in 1901 that only Congress can make citizens, which it has now by referendums. Critics believe that racism will prohibit modern territories from ever achieving political union as states. Of course the tradition is that the territory must petition Congress for statehood first, and some such as Lawson and Sloane believe islanders see greater advantage in territorial status.

The three scholars who confirm -- the five major territories are included as a part of the U.S. -- meet the test for secondary sources in WP:PSTS, --- a position excluding them without supporting secondary sources will fail the test. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:59, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Montevideo Convention ii

"You have been repeating this for years now. Can you explain what this has to do with the Montevideo Convention? TFD (talk) 03:56, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

TFD: This is a proposed wording section. A majority of editors in Dispute Resolution, a Talk poll and this RfC agree with me. Why? You still have no reliable scholarly counter source to exclude the five major territories, only an unsourced database footnote. You are reduced to reporting an 8-3 dispute resolution majority to *include* as a "consensus" to exclude.

By the Montevideo Convention, a federal State is a “sole person” internationally, so this article should not wp:fringe devolve elements of the federal republic of the U.S. from its Infobox U.S. area and population. Those constituent elements have delegate Members of Congress, such as non-states DC and the five major territories. Those federal elements sourced as “a part of the United States” and “included” are politically incorporated by Congress with the 50 states for the 21st century, "permanent populations" mutually U.S. citizens and nationals with "permanent allegiance" to the United States. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:53, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Could you please point out where in the Convention it says Puerto Rico and the other territories are part of the U.S. or any reliable secondary source that has used the article to incorporate it. TFD (talk) 15:47, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

What do you mean? Nothing in 1933 excludes 21st century DC and the five major territories. The Convention does not enumerate the states of Mexico or Washington DC in the U.S. Those are constituent elements of a State, as are the five major U.S. territories in the 21st century as referenced, cited and linked above. If you have no secondary sources to exclude, isn't this repeated unsourced caviling a wp:disruption?

As explained at the 2012 Sofia Conference of the International Law Association, on “Recognition/Non-recognition in International Law", The Montevideo Convention was “excluding entities whose international relations were confessedly subordinate to another state – i.e., units of federal states (e.g., Michigan, Tasmania) and territories that have full internal self-governance but are dependent in external affairs." See Donald Rothwell, “constituent states, and the internal and external territories, are not recognized as international actors” p.272 [45]. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 18:05, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

The fact that the Convention does not mention Puerto Rico and therefore does not say it is not part of the U.S. does not mean that we can infer the signatories believed it was part of the U.S. You left out last part of the Sofia Conference quote ("e.g., "associated statehood" arrangements, such as the relationship of the Cook Islands to New Zealand). The Montevideo Convention did not recognize any of the European colonies as states, although there was no claim that because the European nations were "sole persons" regarding the foreign affairs of the colonies, that the colonies were part of the mother countries. Rather, the logic was that the colonies should be granted independence. In international law for example, the UK is the "sole person" for the BVI, and citizens of the BVI are recognized as British nationals. That does not mean the BVI is recognized as part of the UK. TFD (talk) 03:34, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, you agree the U.S. is a “sole person” internationally with a "defined territory" including the five major territories. Incidentally, no one has stated that there is not "noncontiguous territory of the United States [that] includes all the island territories and possessions of the United States.” The dispute is whether the possessions of the United States are possessions of the United States (as I argue) or whether they are part of the US.

Your unsourced dispute depends on a logical fallacy from faulty definition. In the common usage of the term "U.S. possessions” in a legal sense, they are nine uninhabited places [46], not the five major territories with a constitutional status above “possessions” including territorial Members of Congress with floor privileges, just like judicially “incorporated" DC and unlike British Virgin Islands with an "observer" to Parliament. While not states, territories have always been a part of the U.S. when residents gain citizenship with permanent allegiance to the United States; now they are mutually united by local referendums.

• In Harris v. Rosaria, 446 U.S. 651 (1980), the Supreme Court declared, “it is incorrect to refer to the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico as a possession of the United States." In the Journal of Transnational Law and Policy we find, "It must be noted that the term 'possession' [for inhabited territories], while once a common moniker, is no longer current colloquial usage.", p.235 [47]

On the other hand three scholars say the five major territories are a part of the United States, and TFD disputes it without sources, — but to accommodate, I propose including figures for “50 states and DC” alone in Infobox footnotes for area and population to align with other database figures on the page. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:05, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Your source says, "The Department of the Interior currently considers the term “U.S. insular area” the proper appellation for all U.S. territories, possessions, commonwealths and freely associated nation states." (IOW it includes Palau.)Here is a link to the current DOI web page. Notice insular areas include states in free association "with the capacity to conduct foreign affairs", something not allowed under article 2 of the Montevideo Convention for parts of federal states. TFD (talk) 15:59, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

I do not source all "insular areas" as a part of the U.S. federal republic, all populations and areas are not included in the RfC, --- only the five places of U.S. citizens and nationals with territorial Members of Congress. So, I have proposed no figures from databases to include its three Freely Associated States for population or area, (the Marshall Islands, Micronesia and Palau, as sourced at the State Department [48]), nor the nine uninhabited possessions for area, — we are agreed not include them, they are not under consideration.

Isn't this wp:straw man, with no source to exclude the five major territories under discussion. As to the five major territories under discussion, Jon M Van Dyke [49], Bartholomew Sparrow p. 231-232. [50], do include DC and the five major territories as a part of the U.S., so we should be governed by the preponderance of secondary sources according to wp:psts. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 19:48, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

What does that have to do with the Montevideo Convention? TFD (talk) 16:17, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

The “sole person” of a federated state as defined in the Montevideo Convention is the government with a defined territory encompassing a permanent population under a central governmental authority with the capacity to conduct international affairs. [51]

• a) You admit the five major territories are under the sovereignty of the United States by the Territorial Clause of its Constitution, they are “within the spheres of responsibility assigned to the central government” [52]. b) You admit all five major territories have permanent allegiance to the United States of America in a “uniformity of nationality” required of the federated State. [53]. c) In an unsourced POV, you cannot bring yourself to include islanders who are under U.S. jurisdiction with U.S. citizenship because of an internally domestic tax regime. But "international law does not inquire into the nature of the internal political systems of the State.” [54]. And Territories are included in the federated State internationally [55].

It would help if you had sources to justify excluding islanders under U.S. jurisdiction with permanent allegiance to their U.S. nationality in the five major U.S. territories. As it is now it just seems wp:disruption, your Senate testimony source, professor Sloane, has published calling Puerto Rico “incorporated” into the United States which is more than is required to meet the inclusion standard of "sole person" internationally. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:31, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

• What does the U.S. Homeland Security say is part of the U.S., and what is foreign? "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" [56]. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 20:39, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Why do foreign nationals need a passport to travel from the U.S. to Puerto Rico if Puerto Rico is in the U.S. and why can anyone travel between different countries in the EU without a passport if they are different countries? Your "sole person" argument btw rests on a fallacy. The UK is a sole person, but that does not mean the B.V.I. is part of the UK, just that the UK is recognized as the administering power. Are there any actual sources that make the types of arguments you are presenting? 02:43, 4 December 2014 (UTC)TFD (talk)

U.S. citizens are expected to carry their passports with them to Europe, because it is a foreign place, they are not expected to do so for places within the United States such as Puerto Rico. Otherwise, to your passport question, I’m not sure your premise is correct, but you can write your Congressman or Congresswoman, a U.S. Representative for states or territorial delegate for DC and the five major territories.

Territories are included in the “sole person” of a federated State, p. 272 [57]. The internal forms of governance in the federated State is of no concern to the international community. p. 277 [58]. But beyond including the five major territories in the United States internationally as a "sole person" federated State, they are a part of the United States according to two scholarly sources, Jon M Van Dyke and Bartholomew Sparrow.

In the case of the British Virgin Islands, they are not of the federal republic tradition of the US. They are not constitutionally equivalent to the U.S. Virgin Islands because there is no representative of any description in Parliament but an observer. However there is a U.S. territorial delegate in Congress with floor debate and committee privileges — for DC and the five major territories — in the U.S. constitutional tradition — as sourced at Levinson and Sparrow, GAO Report on Insular Territories, and the House of Representatives webpage.

Above in the various sections of this RfC, there are are linked sources to support including the five major territories as a part of the United States, — and none to exclude but a) an unsourced database footnote and b) a TFD-introduced Senate hearing advocate (Sloane) who three years later published that Puerto Rico was “incorporated” as 21st century jurists understand the term of art p. 1175 [59]-- it seems there is no counter-source available for the modern era. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:28, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Isn't this settled by the simple definition of the term "unincorporated territory"? Unincorporated territories are possessions of, but not constituent parts of, the United States. The fact that the United States represents them internationally does not and cannot change the fact that domestically they are defined as being separate things. --Khajidha (talk) 15:01, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, yes, territories are different than states constitutionally, but the US has always had territories considered part of the nation. Further, from B.A. Boczek, we have that "international law does not inquire into the nature of the internal political systems of the State.” p. 277 [60]. The century-old judicial doctrine of “incorporation” is for the purposes of an internal domestic tax. It does not relate to territorial extent of the US or the common nationality it shares with the five major territories today.

The five major territories are sourced in the 21st century as a part of the United States by scholars Jon M. Van Dyke [61] and Bartholomew Sparrow p.231-232 [62] and Homeland Security, ""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) …" [63].

And from scholar Carlo Focarelli, "As specified in Article 2 of the 1933 Montevideo Convention: ‘The federal state shall constitute a sole person in the eyes of international law’, its member states not being independent … Statehood is not affected by ... the form of government of the state ... p. 160-161 [64]. However, from legal scholars Lawson and Sloane, Puerto Rico, 91% of the insular territory population, is “incorporated” into the United States as 21st century jurists understand that term of art. p.1175, [65]. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:23, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

"the US has always had territories considered part of the nation." Part of the nation, not part of the state. "international law does not inquire into the nature of the internal political systems of the State.” How is this article about international law? This is about what makes up the US, which is a question of the internal political system. "It does not relate to territorial extent of the US or the common nationality it shares with the five major territories today." The nationality issue I have already covered. The "territorial" extent is exactly the point of them being unincorporated. The Constitution does not necessarily apply in toto in an unincorporated territory, but only to the extent that Congress decides. As they are not subject to the Constitution, they are by definition not part of the United States. "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) …" This amounts to a definition of a shorthand term for use within that document, not a redefinition of the US. --Khajidha (talk) 16:59, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

So there is still no counter-source to exclude the five major territories in the 21st century. Khajidha merely points out that territories are constitutionally inferior to states. Territories with organic acts and constitutions, comprised of self-governing U.S. citizens and nationals are constitutionally superior to mere possessions, they are politically incorporated into the U.S. There are more U.S. citizens in Puerto Rico than in 20 smaller states. --- Khajidha's “unincorporation” as a judicial term of art for restricting the Commerce Clause in territories is still good law for internal tax purposes, but that does NOT relate to the extent of the U.S. territorially or nationally, no source disputes the jurisdiction over, or the nationality of, the five major territory populations. In the 2012 Puerto Rico referendum, only a wp:fringe 3% sought independence.

Limited application of the Constitution’s state privileges to territories is true throughout U.S. history, including the territorial delegate representation in Congress, now with expanded privileges more than the territories of Alaska and Hawaii before their statehood. That is not a prohibition of Constitutional provisions, they expand over time as Congress incorporates possessions into territories. Congress politically incorporates the territories into the United States by organic acts and accepting their self-governing constitutions as though they were states, subject to national Congressional review, just as the state constitutions are subject to national judiciary review.

There is no “shorthand use” within the Homeland Security document, it is not in a “definitions” section, though definitions in executive orders and statutes define the scope of the United States to include the territories. The primary Homeland source supports the scholarly inclusion of the five major territories as a part of the U.S. in the 21st century [66]. It applies universally to all U.S. citizens in all parts of the U.S., naming the five major territories as parts of the U.S. along with 50 states and non-state DC. The legal scholars Lawson and Sloane explain how Puerto Rico is "incorporated" by Congress in the 21st century. The five major territories are a part of the U.S., as the scholarship of Van Dyke and Sparrow establishes for our use in the Infobox. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:00, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion 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.

---

You know, this discussion might be able to progress if you would stop reiterating ad naseum your hobby horse scripts on the topic of incorporation. There is no authoritative source that supports incorporation of the current territories (other than Palmyra atoll). U.S. statute still considers them as unincorporated. Scholarly arguments do not have an authority to change this. Yes, they may be a part of the United States in a broad context, but your constant repetition does nothing to help move forward the discussion about what figures should be given for the geographical area of the U.S. and how presented (as well as the related and very relevant concern about introducing inconsistencies). older ≠ wiser 11:27, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

"Part of the nation, not part of the state." What does that matter? The article is about the nation and the state. "How is this article about international law? This is about what makes up the US, which is a question of the internal political system." What? This article is about both, and at any rate as the State Department source above said most these places are "states" according to domestic immigration law. "The "territorial" extent is exactly the point of them being unincorporated. The Constitution does not necessarily apply in toto in an unincorporated territory, but only to the extent that Congress decides. As they are not subject to the Constitution, they are by definition not part of the United States." What? The Congress of the United States is created by the Constitution and owes its entire existence to the Constitution - that the territories are subject to Congress means that the constitutional actor is acting in accord with the constitution's territory clause. Even in examining the phrase "unincorporated territory" - "unincorporated" does not erase "territory" - it is still territory. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:42, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

You'll soon get into difficulties using original interpretations of technical terminology. Whether the unincorporated territories are a dependent territory is an interesting question and not something that is easily resolved. And various sources differ in whether to include statistics for dependent territories with that of the controlling state. older ≠ wiser 12:45, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

The only difficulty is the unsupported and original claim that "territory" is not "territory". If sources differ than show the difference, but first produce the source. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:41, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

There is nothing unsupported or original in the claim that some types of dependent territory are different from territory that is incorporated into the controlling state. older ≠ wiser 14:06, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Irrelevant. This article covers these places as political subdivisions, so they are in scope and already a part of this article and this subject called the United States. It is moreover odd to invoke the "technical meaning" of "dependent territory", where "dependent" is "unresolved" - and no one is arguing to resolve it, here. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:54, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

no one is arguing to resolve it, here Have you not been paying attention to the volumes of irrelevance being inscribed on this page? In any case, YOU made a statement that was blatantly incorrect (or just deliberately obtuse), I merely pointed out the issue. In any case, my basic point was in fact essentially the same as yours that most of the voluminous discussion about incorporation is entirely irrelevant. older ≠ wiser 16:53, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

What? Odd to call something obtuse or incorrect, where we are making the same point. The term "dependent territory" has barely if at all, been used on this page, so resolving it is practically unimaginable. It was just not relevant to any point I was making, (which is, apparently, your point) so I said so. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:00, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

You used an original and grossly incorrect reading of the term unincorporated territory. In many senses, that term approximates the term dependent territory, which is why I made reference to it. Other than that, I don' understand what you are going on about. older ≠ wiser 19:25, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

No. I did not. As you now say you don't understand what I am talking about, you have suggested the basis for your error. Apparently you decided to over-read into something that is at best tangential and irrelevant to what I was saying. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:40, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Since you seem to want to prolong this, yes you did. You said Even in examining the phrase "unincorporated territory" - "unincorporated" does not erase "territory" - it is still territory. 1) This is prima facie making an original reading of a technical term. 2) And at most charitable, you are simply stating a pretty mundane tautology based on you misreading of the term. older ≠ wiser 19:58, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

It's not prima facie anything. You merely overread it - and decided to focus on something that does not matter, which is odd since you now complain of prolonging. If you read it in context, I was saying that the focus on "unincorporated" is irrelevant. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:03, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

In context, it is a significant qualifier. "Territory" with no qualification does not necessarily indicate ownership or possession. In many dictionaries, the first definition (and a definition given in most every dictionary) is simple "an area of land; a region". So your statement is practically without any meaning unless the specific context of unincorporated is considered.

No. It's preceded by a bunch of other arguments and merely brought it back to the relevant issue at hand US territory (but your fixation on that last sentence that does not matter is just not informative) Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:17, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

So you agree your statement was at best pointless. That's fine. older ≠ wiser 21:36, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

No. I said it had a point, just not the one you became fixated on. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:02, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

You said something stupid and now you're piqued because I pointed it out. older ≠ wiser 01:50, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

No. Not in the least. You just got it wrong. Alanscottwalker (talk) 02:31, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

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.

Montevideo ii edit break

WP uses a preponderance of reliable resources to determine editorial questions, which can be used here. There are scholarly sources to include the five territories in the United States. There are none to exclude them, only an unsourced database footnote to date. WP:PSTS requires using secondary sources such as those from Van Dyke, Sparrow, or Lawson and Sloane. They all include territories and should be determinative over either editor original research into primary sources without scholarly support, --- or unsourced assertions alone, which older≠wiser favors us with. It is reasonable to report the subtotal "50 states and DC" as a footnote to area and population in the Infobox. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 17:29, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, at least you didn't quote at length all the same sources you have been regurgitating now for what seems an eternity here. If you had been paying attention, I actually don't entirely disagree regarding whether geographical data about the territories should be presented as part of the United States. I do strongly disagree with presenting any conclusions regarding the incorporated/unincorporated status of these territories that are explicitly contrary to what is contained in U.S. code and GAO reports. Regarding scholarly arguments, the best we can say is that some scholars argue that the explicit status of these territories in law is inconsistent with how these territories are treated in practice (or some such similar wiffle waffle). older ≠ wiser 19:25, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

I think we should not say that the unincorporated territories have somehow become part of the U.S. when the executive, legislature and judiary of the U.S., as well as the UN and most legal experts say they have not. The Virginia Historian provides a view popular with Castro and other Latin American critics of the U.S. that is has incorporated these territories which of course is contrary to U.S. and international law. Sparrow further says that the U.S. is not a republic, it does not respect the bill of rights and is an empire. These are interesting views, but I do not think that this is the proper article for them. Perhaps it would be better to explore it more in articles about criticisms of the United States. TFD (talk) 02:52, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

TFD: No source for which Castro, still with no source cited to exclude territories, you are misrepresenting my "sources" as references and conflating them with "sources" as authors, confusing my citations of scholarship with author advocacy. Do all Caribbean nations acknowledge the United States to include the five major territories, what source asserts there is a violation of international law after local referendum for political union by Constitution and international acceptance? The "sole person" of the nation-state does not depend on how territory is acquired, only that peoples have self-determination, within a larger State or in independence, and only a wp:fringe 5% voted for independence in the 2012 Puerto Rican referendum [67]. What are your sources, are they no more than the Castro brothers? Are they scholars publishing in a peer reviewed journal, or another un-bylined report from a weekly Cuban newspaper like your source last year?

Were you to offer references yourself on your representations of Sparrow, we may find you are referring to Sparrow objecting to the treatment of Native-American tribes in their Insular Affairs, unrelated to the five major territories under discussion, but your hobby here is to pontificate without sources. I do note that one source you provided here, author Sloane, later found Puerto Rico "incorporated" as 21st century jurists understand that term of art. p. 1175. [68]. Are you bound by your authors in scholarship? I am not bound by views held by authors in advocacy, they do not meet the standard of wp:reliable source. You are simply trying to use ad hominem attacks to build a straw man without doing any research into sources for your own POV. There should be a balance struck among differing scholars as editors may find them. Find them. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:28, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

older≠wiser: Thank you for your consideration. Wiffle-waffle is inherent in the judicial “incorporation” doctrine holding territories “foreign in a domestic sense”. It is still good law for internal tax purposes. But Lawson and Sloane show how Congress over time has made Puerto Rico politically “incorporated”, and by statute “as a state”, --- while there was a statute proclaiming Guam “unincorporated” as it seeks Commonwealth status and --- Northern Marianas attained “political union” with the U.S. -- wiffle-waffle. However, scholars include territories due to expanding Constitutional provisions, republican self-government, territorial representation in Congress, protection by federal courts — expanded markedly in the 1950s and again in the 1970s and incrementally after by Congressional action, islander referendums and Court action.

In any case, the “incorporation” doctrine is limited to the Commerce Clause to make territories specifically in a limited way “foreign in a domestic sense” for an internal tax regime. — The Court defers to Congress when to make islanders citizens, and Congress having made citizens and nationals, — And as “international law does not inquire into the nature of the internal political systems of a state”, --- the scope of the United States SHOULD INCLUDE 50 states, DC and the five major territories — WHILE NOTING domestic political arrangements and distinctions among states and territories and cities and counties and tribes. There should be a balance struck among differing scholars as editors may find them. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:42, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Scholars engaging in scholarly argumentation do not have any authority to change facts. The fact is that under federal law and confirmed by the GAO reports, the status of the territories remains unincorporated. older ≠ wiser 12:22, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

We seem to be agreed that both area and population can be noted for a) "50 states and DC", and b) "50 states, DC and five major territories". I would prefer stating the larger totals first in the Infobox, footnoting the smaller subtotals for the Infobox. --- As to the “facts” of the case, the facts of editor original research into primary documents “must be used with caution”, the wp:psts preference is to use secondary sources of scholars. The idea is that scholars knowledgeable in a field of study weigh competing arrays of verifiable facts, and on balance come to a studied conclusion. This is not reductio ad absurdum, “authority to change facts”.

I do not propose simply asserting political incorporation of territories as sourced in an unqualified way, — not where there are counter-sources referring to the Insular Cases the GAO reports 1991 [69] and 1997 [70], referencing Insular Case “foreign in a domestic sense” for an internal tax regime which is still good law. But that is a separate consideration from the meaning of United States as a “sole person” internationally, or Puerto Rican political “incorporation” as referenced in a 2009 article over ten years later; — more current peer-reviewed articles and published books from reliable sources should not be dismissed, but included in the article narrative. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 15:41, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Stating what primary sources say without any interpretation is not original research. Interpreting primary sources to mean something other than what they state is original research. Presenting the conclusions of scholarly arguments as fact is not appropriate use of sources. Any claims made by such scholarly research would need to be appropriately attributed as an argument made by the respective scholar(s). PS, and before anyone draws incorrect inferences from your sloppy use of quotations, the phrase "foreign in a domestic sense" is not contained in either GAO report. older ≠ wiser 16:05, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Okay, but a legal term of art requires scholarly interpretation of what “unincorporated” means as found in Downes v. Bidwell referenced eight times in the 1997 GAO report, that unincorporated means "foreign in a domestic sense". If you refer to another meaning not found in the primary document Insular Cases, it is original research, by reference, isn't it? I am interested in improving the article, so wp:psts, “WP articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources.” — At wp:or, it explains, "In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published by university presses.” Your insistence on the pre-eminence of the primary source over the secondary turns that guideline on its head.

It seems to me that if you would like to attribute an argument by a respective scholar to exclude the territories from the 21st century United States, you must make a reference to the scholar to say so. Then we can balance two scholarly points of view. We have found reliable, published secondary sources for including the territories, we have yet to find any to exclude them. The primary source is lesser than reliable, published secondary sources per wp:psts, but I would like to include both as I count GAO and Congressional Research Service reports as reliable governmental sources on the subject of the Insular Territories. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 17:59, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Definitions are provided in the source documents. For example, the 1991 GAO report: "The Constitution does not apply in full to the five insular areas, which are considered 'unincorporated.' Unincorporated areas are under the sovereignty but not considered an integral part of the United States". Interpretation is only necessary to support a convoluted line of reasoning contrary to what is clearly stated in the primary sources. And I am not arguing to exclude these territories. However your arguing that they are incorporated based on an extremely complicated line of interpretive analysis needs to be clearly identified as speculative. older ≠ wiser 18:29, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for not arguing to exclude these five major territories for area and population. My arguing that they are politically incorporated by Congress in the 21st century is not speculative, it is sourced to reliable scholarly sources with direct quotes. It is not extremely complicated, given the subject of the article --- While territories remain “foreign in a domestic sense” for an internal tax regime, --- from an international perspective, the U.S. is a sole person governed by a federal republic with sovereign area and common national population including the five major territories, --- or ---, the U.S. federal republic includes 50 states, DC and five territories.

I understand that you do not want to weigh secondary sources for the political union of territories as much as counter primary sources. --- QUESTION: are governmental reports from GAO and CRS summarizing the law, a hybrid "secondary" governmental source or are all government reports "primary" sources? --- We are disagreed on source emphasis, I prefer to build WP on secondary scholarly sources in accordance with wp:psts and wp:or. --- Again, I think it important to note the area and population of "50 states and DC" in reporting the Infobox area and population in some fashion, best in a footnote alongside the larger totals including the five major territories. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:41, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Those reports are primarily secondary. But the real issue maybe that it is difficult to say much that is uniform about these territories beyond the salient point that the United States asserts and maintains sovereignty in and over them. A general tertiary reference for this would be West Publishing a leading legal publisher. [71] There is only one authority that can "incorporate" territory - Congress (with the president's signature); there is a second authority that can deem them incorporated based on what the political branches have done - the federal judiciary. "Incorporated" is less a fact than a status, and it is status that is affected by legislation or recognized by judicial decision. At present there is not the unambiguous legislation, nor final judicial decision for incorporation - so they remain unincorporated in the authorized sense (as it was when this gloss or doctrine was formulated), although legal scholars can certainly argue over what would/should be were one of the authorized actors to act. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:51, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

TVH, perhaps it seems not extremely complicated to you as you've steeped yourself so deeply in the matter, but whenever you try to explain your position, the result is a wall of virtually impenetrable text. And I quite agree with Alanscottwalker's summation, essentially that the political status of these territories is at best murky. older ≠ wiser 12:58, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

I suppose I should add that the status of the people who live in those places is rather unambiguous in comparison, they are citizen/nationals of the United States of America. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:56, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

The legal definition from West Publishing’s Legal encyclopedia [72] admits including the five major territories as a part of the US: “Territories of the United States: portions of the United States that are not within the limits of any state and have not been admitted as states.” --- It explains a) three territories with a "lesser legal and political status” than states within the United States, and b) two commonwealths, “a legal and political status that is above a territory but still below a state." c) uninhabited “U.S. possessions have the lowest legal and political status" Finally, d) "land used as a military base is considered a form of territory.” Three excluding editors have admitted none of these distinctions, offer no counter sources, but conflate military bases with Puerto Rico, a reductio ad absurdum of my argument.

The mechanics of Congressional incorporation is discussed at some length by the Supreme Court in the Insular Cases, incorporation hinges primarily on making U.S. citizens and nationals, which the Court deferred to Congress to decide when islanders had demonstrated a capacity for republican forms of government. — Well, the self-governing status of the five major territories for the last half of the 20st century has progressed to include citizens and nationals by the GAO report (1997) and for Puerto Rico, federal jurists such as Gustavo Gelpi (2008) and scholars such as Lawson and Sloane (2009) to observe the Congressional process of political incorporation is effected for Puerto Rico, 91% of the Insular Territories population. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:14, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

It is always best to use secondary rather than tertiary sources, that way any anomalies can be cleared up. Your source says that military bases, such as Guantanamo and Okinawa are part of the U.S., which you say is absurd. Incidentally the same source says elsewhere "No current U.S. territories, including Puerto Rico, were deemed incorporated as of mid-2003."[73] And incorporation does not hinge on making U.S. citizens and nationals. People born in U.S. territories have always been U.S. nationals, but the Constitution only dictates citizenship for persons born in the U.S. Hence Congress was required to enact legislation to provide citizenship for people born in U.S. territories and also for children of U.S. citizens born outside the U.S.

I notice you agree that only Congress can incorporate territories. Can you provided the legislation which you think incorporated these territories.

TFD (talk) 16:45, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

TFD: It is you who have equated all “possessions” of the U.S. as the same without regard to their varying Constitutional status as shown at the West Publishers Legal Encyclopedia [74]. The source says the inhabited territories are a part of the United States, but with a lesser Constitutional status than states (along with judicially incorporated DC). My position is that it is absurd to equate military bases such as Guantanamo and Okinawa to the Commonweaths of Puerto Rico and Northern Mariana Islands. You misstate or simply mistake my argument to include the five major territories as a part of the United States, I do not suppose military bases are a part of the U.S. as they have no permanent population and a military governor ... Have you no secondary counter-sources with which to base your opposition?

I rely on the judgment of scholars rather than my own, but I think Lawson and Soane in arriving at their conclusion p.1175 [75] referred to statutes cited in Judge Gelpi’s decision in Consejo v. Rullan (2008) see the chart for the statutory evolution and discussion of what Congress has accomplished to incorporate Puerto Rico at [76]. See also, U.S. statute 48 U.S. Code sec. 737 [77] - Privileges and immunities. - "The rights, privileges, and immunities of citizens of the United States shall be respected in Puerto Rico to the same extent as though Puerto Rico were a State of the Union.” ... Have you no secondary counter-sources with which to base your opposition?

Your paralleling citizenship in families and citizenship in self-governing territories with elective legislatures is absurd. I acknowledge that no territories are "incorporated" in the judicial sense of the Commerce Clause, that they are "foreign in a domestic sense" for an internal tax regime. That is what your tertiary source applies to. And you have no source to justify not including the territories as a part of the "sole person" internationally, the subject of this string. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 18:29, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

"secondary scholarly sources outweigh primary and tertiary sources." I'm not getting into the primary sourcing issue at the moment, but if secondary matters more than tertiary then why have you started pasting your latest pet link, a link to an encyclopedia, which is by definition tertiary? And interesting that you specify the West Publishers Legal Encyclopedia, while there is that tab next to it [78] to the Dictionary of American History, which doesn't state that the territories are part of the country. Why are you cherrypicking references? If one encyclopedia is acceptable, why not the other? What makes one so much more scholarly than the other? (protip: neither is acceptable. because they're encyclopedias.) --Golbez (talk) 21:05, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Your tertiary source (West Publishers Legal Encyclopedia) says, "No current U.S. territories, including Puerto Rico, were deemed incorporated as of mid-2003." Sure it's absurd to include overseas military bases as part of the U.S., just as it is absurd to include overseas possessions, unless they have been incorporated into the U.S. While you are correct in the conclusions reached in your primary source, Consejo de Salud Playa de Ponce v. Rullan, you would need to show the reasoning has been generally accepted. See for example the reliable secondary scholarly source '"They say I am not an American…” The Noncitizen National and the Law of American, which says PR is unincorporated.

It is possible that your view that PR is part of the U.S. is correct. The problem is that the U.S. government, foreign governments and the legal experts have not yet come to that conclusion, which means we cannot either.

TFD (talk) 22:37, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Your government source is an unsourced database footnote, the foreign governments you previously represented to be — Cuba admitting that the U.S. has incorporated Puerto Rico by your unsourced account, --- and your legal expert is a tertiary source which Golbez notes will not be admitted at Wikipedia as a source, indeed it is found murkily self contradictory, with dated sources for the article relating to Puerto Rico. ---

Your article "Noncitizen Nationals" discusses the 1901 case of Isabel Gonzalez, stranded on Ellis Island in 1901. Isabel suffered an outrageous injustice in 1901 to be sure, and it was so for her child as well, but that is irrelevant here. Congress has since amended relations. In the 21st century, there are now more self-identified U.S. citizen Puerto Ricans living in New York than in Puerto Rico; they live there in the millions --- they are not stranded on Ellis Island per your post relating poor Isabel's condition, another anachronistic absurdity on your part. — in the 21st century, American Samoan nationals have free travel throughout the United States, as American Samoa and the other major territories are now “parts of the United States” according to a government source [79].

Like other references you use, they do not apply to the 21st century five major territories which are included in the U.S. per scholars such as Van Dyke and Sparrow. --- Again we have reference by your source Christina Duffy Burnett to unincorporation meaning “foreign in a domestic sense” which does not apply to the United States as a “sole person” internationally. Rather, it applies to an internal tax regime, and for international relations, internal governance is not applicable in evaluating the federal State. But I still do think it important to footnote “50 states and DC” totals for the Infobox area and population figures. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:38, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Although the secondary scholarly source I provided begins with an historical event, that does not mean the article does not comment on later events. The author writes, "the Court held that not even the grant of citizenship had incorporated Puerto Rico into the United States, thus leaving untouched the island’s status as an “unincorporated” territory. This, too, remains the case today: even as Puerto Rico has become increasingly integrated into the United States, it still has not been “incorporated” into the United States in a constitutional sense. Thus Puerto Ricans remain a population of U.S. citizens subject to U.S. sovereignty without a clear or permanent relationship to the rest of the United States—a situation that has given rise to a seemingly interminable debate over the island’s political status."

Incidentally you not I provided the "government source" with an "unsourced database footnote." You said the source proved that PR was incorporated, I merely pointed out it said no such thing and thank you for now agreeing.

Cuba does not "admit" the U.S. has incorporated PR any more than a prosecutor "admits" an accused person is guilty. Cuba accuses the U.S. of incorporating its territories, which would be a violation of international law the U.S. denies. It bemuses me that you cannot realize how abolutely wrong it would be for a large country to swallow up a smaller state without that state's explicit agreement.

TFD (talk) 03:06, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

The source in 2008 said “remains today” with a citation to 1922 Balzac v. Porto Rico. p. 714 [80]. To the contrary, we have the 2009 Boston Law Review, one author a previous source of yours, “regardless of how Puerto Rico looked in 1901 when the Insular Cases were decided or in 1922, today, Puerto Rico seems to be the paradigm of an incorporated territory as modern jurisprudence understands that legal term of art.” p.1175 [81].

I used a U.S. Census Source to show the five insular territories in a total geographic area of “State and other areas” as 3,805,927 square miles [82]. It is based on the MAF/TIGER database for Homeland Security, USGS National Map Program, federal redistricting, distributing federal funds. You found another database with an unsourced footnote for "50 states and DC" which I would allow in an Infobox footnote for area and population.

The sole person of a federated State does not depend upon how territory was acquired, you persist in a century’s old past. There is no “swallowing up” of Puerto Rico, — since mid-20th century there have been five plebiscites to confirm Puerto Rico as a self-governing Commonwealth "as a state" in political union with the U.S. Only 3% of the total votes ever opt for independence. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:08, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

So you should have no problem pointing out the precise days and legislations, executive orders, or high court rulings that changed Puerto Rico's and American Samoa's statuses. If they weren't part of the country when Balzac declared them unincorporated, then presumably at a specific point they were made part of the country. Name that point. --Golbez (talk) 14:23, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

I have provided executive, legislative and judicial references to show the five major territories are politically a part of the U.S., although “foreign in a domestic sense” for an internal tax regime. The criteria of a federated State “seek to make no judgment, for the purposes of international law, as to how the government came into existence,... or the political system which is the basis for governmental control.” p.277. [83].

"The five island political communities in the Pacific and Caribbean that are part of the United States but are not states ...” have a complex constitutional status, reports legal scholar Jon M. Van Dyke [84]. Federal judge Gustavo A. Gelpi explained in the Consejo v. Rullan case p. 27, “Although Congress has never enacted any affirmative language … its sequence of legislative actions from 1900 to present has in fact incorporated the territory.” noting constitutional status changed, “the territory has evolved from an unincorporated to an incorporated one.” This is Lawson and Sloane's “paradigm” for the political incorporation of territories. The ruling was not overturned on appeal, Puerto Rico continues to be treated “as a state” in its Commonwealth status. There is no secondary source to counter, only an unsourced database footnote.

Van Dyke and Sparrow acknowledge the five major territories are a part of the United States, although noting differences between the constitutional status of territories and states, which is also explained in some detail at West’s Legal Encyclopedia of American Law [85]. Do you proceed from a premise that territories must be equal to states to be legitimately within the same federated State as a sole person internationally? That has not been the U.S. historical practice. What is the scholarly source for such an innovative definition of the federated State? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 15:40, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

So you should have no problem pointing out the precise days and legislations, executive orders, or high court rulings that changed Puerto Rico's and American Samoa's statuses. If they weren't part of the country when Balzac declared them unincorporated, then presumably at a specific point they were made part of the country. Name that point. --Golbez (talk) 16:41, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

? The dates and legislation for PR are referenced in Rullan but again this 'dispute' is off the rails -- Burnett's: "This, too, remains the case today: even as Puerto Rico has become increasingly integrated into the United States, it still has not been “incorporated” into the United States in a constitutional sense." Is not actually contrary to: L&S's: "regardless of how Puerto Rico looked in 1901 when the Insular Cases were decided or in 1922, today, Puerto Rico seems to be the paradigm of an incorporated territory as modern jurisprudence understands that legal term of art.” They are quite complimentary in context, but to the extent there is any contradiction, represent both statements. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:55, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

A territory, in the modern age, does not 'gradually' become part of another country. There is a solid date of annexation and incorporation. If Puerto Rico was not made part of the U.S. when it was acquired from Spain (as no one seems to deny that the 'unincorporated' status existed) then on what date was it made part of the U.S.? Also, Rullan does not have the authority (by his own admission) to overrule the Insular Cases. --Golbez (talk) 18:35, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

No one is arguing Rullan overruled anything. It did make a holding which has not been overturned and is still apparently "good law" in the United States District Court of Puerto Rico; regardless, the issue with these territories is not that it's been overnight but a century, and allot of legislative water under the bridge - and obviously the Federal court says what it says - which is according to the court that a long history of acts has laid the foundation -- this generally accords with the scholar's "seems" formulation, and even, to a lesser extent, Burnetts' formulaic emphasis. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:26, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

OK, so even if I granted that in the District of Puerto Rico, Puerto Rico is considered an incorporated territory... what about the other four populated and myriad unpopulated territories? On what date, for example, did American Samoa become incorporated? --Golbez (talk) 19:46, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Why does it matter - "incorporated" - cf. given a corporeal form, as in, that municipality is incorporated - is just a domestic doctrine that does not either erase the area over which the United States is sovereign, nor expunge citizen/national population. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:56, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Because you were looking for dates and it has a whole series of acts and dates on which it reached its conclusion, my comment then followed "but again . . . ". Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:04, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

If incorporation doesn't matter then why did you bring up Rullan??? Purely as a date reference? A date reference for what, then, if we're talking about something other than when the U.S. acquired Puerto Rico? --Golbez (talk) 20:35, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

American Samoa has an organic act with U.S. nationals owing permanent allegiance to the U.S. based on a local referendum, does it not? --- Puerto Rico holds 91% of the five major territories' population. American Samoa holds about 1.5%. --- Most data bases report all five major territories together, now we have secondary governmental summary of the law explaining all five major territories are “parts of the United States” [86].

The criteria of a federated State “seek to make no judgment, for the purposes of international law, as to how the government came into existence,... or the political system which is the basis for governmental control.” p.277. [87]. The five major territories are a part of the United States as a “sole person” in international affairs. Is there a scholarly source taking a contrary position? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 20:19, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

So you should have no problem pointing out the precise days and legislations, executive orders, or high court rulings that changed Puerto Rico's and American Samoa's statuses. If they weren't part of the country when Balzac declared them unincorporated, then presumably at a specific point they were made part of the country. Name that point. --Golbez (talk) 20:35, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Your presumption is unfounded for the American experience. Calling for a date of incorporation is unrelated to the evolving constitutional status which has actually occurred in history, most recently pointed out here by sourcing Judge Gelpi’s account of the evolving Congressional incorporation of Puerto Rico. You seem uncomfortable with the realization that Congress and the courts may not be perfectly aligned in everything at all times everywhere, and now you presume that there must be a uniform policy towards all territories, which there is not. Some inconsistencies and inequities remain, but some scholars observe that a territorial status without personal or corporate federal income tax may be deliberately chosen.

Territories are declared judicially “unincorporated” in Balzac, meaning foreign in a domestic sense. They are judicially “unincorporated" not in an international sense, but for internal governance. In an international sense, they are now politically incorporated in the U.S. as a sole person federated State. Historically this is done by Congress as explained in federal courts and scholarly sources in stages with several identified elements accruing over time. As we learn in “Louisiana Purchase and American Expansion” (2005) by Levinson and Sparrow eds., --- Politically incorporated territory is characterized by a locally elected governor of U.S. citizens, an elected legislature, Article III federal courts, and a Member of Congress with debate privileges.

While all five major territories including American Samoa have most of the historical elements of a politically incorporated territory, some still have Article I federal courts. How is an editor to decide which territories are to be included as a part of the US? Let’s follow wp:psts and search scholarly secondary sources for a judgement. We find Van Dyke and Sparrow include all five major territories as a part of the modern United States. And to date, none to oppose. What are your sources for challenging these two secondary sources this century? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:22, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

I still do not know your point with the Montevideo Convention. As that article correctly points out, "the only avenue open to self-determination for colonial or national ethnic minority populations was to achieve international legal personality as a nation-state....[The signatories] agreed among themselves to criteria that made it easier for other dependent states with limited sovereignty to gain international recognition." The United States has respected the Convention by allowing Puerto Rico the option of independence and not incorporating it into the U.S. unless that is PR's wish. In the meantime, states act as sole person on behalf of themselves and all their dependencies etc. Notice for example the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 which codifies a treaty between the sole persons UK (for Canada) and the US. It does not mean that Canada was part of the UK. And of course regarding Puerto Rico, the U.S. has always been the sole person, just as the Empire of Spain was before annexation. TFD (talk) 03:51, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

The point of the Montevideo Convention is that a federated State is a sole person in internationally. POTUS Barack Obama is the Head of State for 50 states, a federal district and the five major territories, --- which is my point here to support including the five major territories in the U.S. Infobox area and population figures.

But your parallel with the Empire of Spain fails, given the five Puerto Rican plebiscites voting overwhelmingly for political union with the United States. Why do you persist in discounting islander majorities for self-determination as a Commonwealth of the United States, accepted by Congress “as a state” within the United States, "incorporated" as modern jurists use that term of art? What is wrong with islanders voting their own self-determination to hold permanent allegiance to the U.S.?

Wikipedia cannot be used as a source for Wikipedia. Unlike the Van Dyke source on page one, we cannot see what is said on page five of the Pahuja article referenced. Don’t get trapped into another anachronism. Today, the United Nations recognizes that a colonial people can find self-determination a) within a nation-state, b) as a freely associated state, and c) as an independent state. Puerto Ricans have chosen political union within the United States, 61% of the last plebiscite for statehood, only 5% for independence. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:27, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

All federated states are sole persons, but not all sole persons are federated states. Sole persons included states and possessions that are not part of those states. Your view that the illegal incorporation somehow respects self-determination was a bad argument in the Sudetenland and Crimea, and certainly not something the U.S. would do. TFD (talk) 15:33, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

The U.S. by purchase and by treaty acquired the five major territories, but international law does not inquire as to the mode of acquisition so that's another straw man. The five major territories have a constitutional status within the United States as a federal republic above that of mere possessions, due to their organic acts and constitutions, referendums and self-governance within the national councils with delegate Members of Congress, as sourced above.

"As a general observation, we would avoid the use of the term “possession” when referring to the territories of American Samoa, Guam and the Virgin Islands, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands and Puerto Rico. The term appears to be offensive to the people living in those areas, and has the connotation of an area that has neither an organic act nor a constitution.” p. 64 from the Attorney General’s office [88].TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:30, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Actually international law does enquire into the mode of acquisition, which is why the incorporation of Crimea into Russia is not recognized. The U.S. has however says it has not incorporated PR, contrary to what its critics claim. But the point is that dependencies, like states, have limited or no international personality, so whether PR was part of the U.S. or not is irrelevant to its international personhood. The US was a sole person when by your own admission PR was unincorporated - it is a sole person today. TFD (talk) 06:58, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

The U.S. claims PR to be a part of the U.S., as sourced in scholarly citations, supported by current executive, legislative and judicial references. ----- To counter you have a reference to the 1922 court decision establishing internal governance, "foreign" only in a domestic sense. The judicial “unincorporated” is superseded for Puerto Rico by acts of Congress as sourced. ----- That is why the Infobox database should report the U.S. area including the five major territories. You are merely making unsupported assertions, you have no scholarly source to exclude. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:23, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

arbitrary edit break

The U.S. does not claim PR is part of the US, in fact it maintains it is not part of the US. "...the United States has maintained that Puerto Rico...has decided freely and democratically to enter into a free association with the United States." (UN report, p. 11, para. 46)[89] The CIA World Factbook says "unincorporated, organized territory of the US with commonwealth status; policy relations between Puerto Rico and the US conducted under the jurisdiction of the Office of the President."[90] TFD (talk) 18:51, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Does this mean you have given up on asserting the five major territories are mere possessions --- without a superior constitutional status closer to the states in a political union with the U.S.? This is progress. Still no scholarly secondary source to exclude territories from the U.S. so as to comply with wp:psts? --- Were you referring to paragraph 46 in the U.N. report? -- Puerto Rico has attained a full measure of self-government in a free association with the United States as though it were a state. After repeated plebiscites, the results show there is little support for independence, the vast majority support Commonwealth status.

Paragraph 8. the PR legal system is integrated into the U.S. federal judicial system. Para. 9. "all laws concerning the Territory’s relations with the U.S. continued to remain in force”. Puerto Rico is subject to the Constitution’s Territorial Clause as a part of the U.S. with an organic act, constitution and a Commissioner who serves as its delegate Member of Congress, --- unlike the Freely Associated States of Micronesia, Marshall Islands and Palau which have no such voice in U.S. national councils.

You are again confusing “free association” by a colonial peoples entering into political union with a larger nation-state by self-determination on the one hand, and on the other hand, a “Freely Associated State” (FAS) which is independent with a seat in the U.N. General Assembly. The FAS contractually reviews its association every 14 years with the larger nation-state, there is no such provision in the Puerto Rico Constitution. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:42, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

States are not in free association with the United States, they are part of the U.S., Indeed, the U.S. may have created confusion by using the term "free association" which is a synonym for associated state. Not all associated states have seats in the U.N. btw, it depends on the terms of their association. NZ for example acts for the Cook Islands and Niue, although like the U.S. it allows them to have limited international personality through membership in international organizations such as UNESCO. You make a very strange argument that the more autonomy the U.S. allows Puerto Rico, the more it becomes part of it. By that reasoning, you should add the Philippines. TFD (talk) 17:13, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Puerto Rico has not chosen independence as the Philippines, only 3-5% Puerto Ricans prefer independence, the "vast majority" favor U.S. Commonwealth status, as reported in your U.N. source. The argument is not strange that within the United States federal republic, states and territories which are a part of it --- have constitutionally nearly equivalent self-government over time in stages --- as Puerto Rico has attained.

The U.S. of 50 states, a federal district and five territories is a free society with extensive local self-governance. But local governance of states is under national review by federal courts; local governance of DC and the territories are under national review by federal courts and Congress, --- as is Puerto Rico, as reported in your U.N. source.

As the self-government of the territories more nearly approaches that of states, constitutionally the more “as a state” they are, the more complete the political union, until cumulative Congressional political incorporation takes place. This according to U.S. federal judicial rulings and legal scholars for Puerto Rico --- the “paradigm” of territorial incorporation. Sixty-one percent of the last Puerto Rican plebiscite sought statehood, historically the next step for an incorporated territory after it petitions Congress. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 18:37, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

A plea for sanity

I feel the need to take a step back and explain my position. Despite TheVirginiaHistorian's dogwhistle accusations of discrimination and racism, I have absolutely no problem with including the territories, if it can be determined that they should be. The problem is, this constitutes a drastic change in the definition of the country. Among the things that would have to be changed if Wikipedia determined that the U.S. included these territories: Population. Area. Economics. Demographics. Linguistics. Its numbers and position on list articles such as 'list of countries by area'. The articles on the territories themselves. Articles that refer to the territories. Furthermore, there are varying possibilities to define the country (is American Samoa included? What about the uninhabited territories? What about Palmyra Atoll? Guantanamo? Were the Philippines part of the country? Cuba? Canal Zone? Berlin?) This is not a tiny change and requires more than TVH's disruptive, dishonest, sledgehammer debating tactics. This is not a 'dispute resolution', this requires a Wikipedia-wide discussion because the ramifications are Wikipedia-wide. And with that, I once again exit the discussion until it becomes relevant and useful. I suggest everyone else do the same. Good luck. --Golbez (talk) 14:42, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Your comments about User:TheVirginiaHistorian are very uncivil and do not contribute to improving the article. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:57, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, I will match your plea, with a plea for proportion - the matter before us is not as drastic as all that - you speak of statistics but the statistics you talk of will not be affected in more than a statistically de minimis sense - and explanatory text will explain everything. The world is not neat, and to maintain sanity is to reflect that. Nonetheless, it remains that this article covers the United States, United States territory, and United States citizens and nationals. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:15, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Define the present-day U.S. by using modern secondary scholarly sources for international readers — Barack Obama is the Head of State for 50 states, DC and five territories — without anachronistic references to early 20th century domestic maladministration that ignore subsequent islander referendums, elected governors, ...

Personal note: I observe only that opposition to including the five major territories is unsourced without any coherent reasoning to exclude, I do not “dog whistle” racism. Motives are a mystery, especially unexplained ones. How is calling for adherence to WP policy at wp:psts disruptive? The discussion is limited to Infobox area and population as sourced; I accept footnoting "50 states and DC" figures for continuity.

There is no source to include the uninhabited places and military bases of Golbez' straw man tactic — He strains at 1.5% of the Insular Territory population in American Samoa. We have two scholars who include the five major territories as a part of the United States for the general reader, none to exclude them. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk)

Your sealioning is disruptive. (you have google, use it) Your constant repetition of sources, as if repeating them a fiftieth time will finally get it through to us, is disruptive. Your dogwhistles about us wanting to deliberately exclude islanders is disruptive. Your lack of any interest in compromise or actual discussion, and merely repeating the same thing over and over again, is disruptive. Your infecting discussions that are not remotely relevant with your pet argument is disruptive. You are disruptive. Your apologists are disruptive. I said that would be my last word on the subject; I was wrong, and I apologize. This is. I will ask you and your apologists to not communicate with me further on this or any related matters. --Golbez (talk) 20:09, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

"Sea Lioning", like [91]? --- what gives you proprietary ownership of this article as in, “you’re in my house” of the comic strip? That relates to your earlier remark, “I can let it [including territories] in, I can take it out.” — violating your administrator's neutrality relative to the 2 to 1 majority to include territories 18 months ago. — See an alternative meaning: “Sea-lioning: A hip, new term to describe that terrible, horrible circumstance when you have to actually back up your statements with evidence.” [92]. — one can only hope for the sake of a sourced online encyclopedia, this is one place where you actually have to back up your statements with evidence. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:47, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Article Content Question

Does this discussion of the status of Puerto Rico have any effect on proposed article content? Robert McClenon (talk) 15:36, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

The issue this year is whether the Infobox should report U.S. area and population to include 50 states, DC and the five major territories: Puerto Rico, U.S. Virgin Islands, Commonwealth of Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI), Guam and American Samoa. --- footnoting the area and population of "50 states and DC" for continuity.

Last year in a dispute resolution, a majority agreed to include the territories in the introduction sentence to say some variation of "The U.S. is a federal republic of 50 states, a federal district and 5 territories." because DC and the five major territories have delegate Members of Congress. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:00, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

It affects the description of the area and the population of the U.S. We would have to change some wording of the text about constitutional law. For example, "Article One protects the right to the "great writ" of habeas corpus. The Constitution has been amended 27 times; the first ten amendments, which make up the Bill of Rights, and the Fourteenth Amendment form the central basis of Americans' individual rights. All laws and governmental procedures are subject to judicial review and any law ruled by the courts to be in violation of the Constitution is voided." We would have to mention that not all of these rights are protected, it depends on what part of the country one lives in. TFD (talk) 16:17, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

The area and population issue is the subject of an RFC. Is there a reason why the wording about constitutional law should not also reflect the outcome of the RFC? It appears that the discussion of this issue has been going back and forth and getting nowhere. (At least the exchange of insults has stopped.) Is there a need for another RFC, or for some other dispute resolution process? It doesn't appear that just repeating the same arguments is getting anywhere. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:23, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Which is why the territories should not be included. The Constitution does not fully apply to them, so they are not fully part of the US. --Khajidha (talk) 19:34, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

@ Khajidha: The Constitution does not apply fully to territories because they are not states. This differing Constitutional status is not new, the U.S. has always included territories, it includes all five major territories today politically as sourced, by extending fundamental Constitutional protections under the federal courts, providing organic acts or constitutions of three-branch republican forms of self-government, and establishing delegate Members of Congress with greater privileges than allowed Hawaii before its statehood.

@ Robert McClenon: The impact on article content if any will be benign. There is no reason why the constitutional inconsistencies and inequities facing U.S. citizens in the territories should not be noted in this article, as they are a part of the United States. It will take some work to ensure the narrative stays proportional to the populations affected, but the full length articles can be linked. Insular Areas can also include Native-American tribal areas... depending on the source... TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:55, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

It has included incorporated territories. Incorporated territories are those whose land and peoples have been incorporated into the US. It has always excluded unincorporated territories because they have not been incorporated into the US. It's in the name. --Khajidha (talk) 17:18, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

@ Khadijha: I get why you say "The Constitution does not fully apply to them", although what is meant by that must be that the United States Constitution does apply to them in 'fundamental' ways, particularly with respect to "fundamental rights" and to what is relevant here: "The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States" Article 4. Sec. 3, cl. 2 [93] Thus, this article already treats them as 'belonging' to the subject of the United States - they are 'part' of this subject. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:22, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

The constitution applies in full to incorporated territories and D.C., even though they are not states. Today of course there is only one incorporated territory, Palmyra. TFD (talk) 15:28, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

User:The Four Deuces: Is that a typo? Do you mean that there is only one unincorporated territory, Palmyra? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:35, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Palmyra Atoll. It's the one incorporated territory. The others are all unincorporated. This is ... kind of the crux of this entire discussion, how did you not know this? --Golbez (talk) 17:41, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

I see. So incorporated territory has a peculiar legal meaning that is counter-intuitive, because the other territories are bodies corporate, which Palmyra Atoll is not. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:00, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Did you seriously have no clue what incorporated territory meant before getting knee deep in this argument because if not holy shit. --Golbez (talk) 19:11, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

That term wasn't relevant to the issue of whether to list the area and population of the five territories. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:17, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

That is, unless you buy into the wiffle waffle about incorporation by scholarly analysis that TVH has been pushing for, well, what seems like forever now. older ≠ wiser 17:56, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Palmyra was part of the Hawaii territory that was incorporated into the U.S. and remains incorporated under U.S. law. The full constitution applies therefore for example a constitutional amendment is required to dispose of the island and any child born there is a U.S. citizen by virtue of the 14th amendment. Similarly the current area of D.C. was part of Maryland and remained part of the U.S. when it was transferred to federal control. TFD (talk) 18:06, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Were you responding to my comment, with your 15:28, 12 December 2014? It is hard to tell, as I said I understand, but they are still 'belonging'.

And Robert, Palmyra atoll [94] was incorporated with the Hawaii territory but it was not admitted as part of the state because it was too far away, back in the day - so it's just one of those artifacts (see also, Texas v. White, consent may alienate states). Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:49, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I was replying to Robert McClenon. To reply to him again, the terms at first may appear confusing. Incorporate means to become part of [the US]. Alanscottwalker, certainly Palmyra is an artifact. TFD (talk) 20:09, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

The definition of "incorporated territory" is a territory which has been made an integral part of the US (been "incorporated" into it). Thus, by definition, an "unincorporated territory" is not an integral part of the US. --Khajidha (talk) 17:18, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes. So, what. You're saying, "it's a [] part" and qualifying. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:27, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Organic acts and constitutions approved by Congress make a territory organically a part of the United States by definition.

The judicial term of art, “unincorporated” applies only to certain taxes and constitutional provisions which Congress have since extended incrementally to territories — internal governance -- which is within U.S. territory with populations of permanent U.S. nationality. For the general reader, the five major territories are "a part of the U.S." as Van Dyke and Sparrow note. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 18:32, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Of course it does. What is the point of this question? --Golbez (talk) 18:36, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

• Is it at all possible for the Dispute resolution outcome to have some weight here on the info box if it is in the body of the article? Would proposing that as a simple consensus !vote be of any help to begin moving this dispute towards a resolution itself?--Mark Miller (talk) 09:44, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

The passage allowed in is found In the body of the article introduction, it now reads, "The country also has five populated and nine unpopulated territories in the Pacific and the Caribbean."

The Dispute resolution 2-1 majority vote was for language in the introductory sentence similar to “The U.S. is a federal republic of 50 states, a federal district and five territories. Note: The five major territories of Puerto Rico, Commonwealth of Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI), Guam, U.S. Virgin Islands and American Samoa have territorial delegates in Congress.”

The three opponents sought to deny the two facets of territorial status, --- a) politically incorporated by organic acts, constitutions and citizenship, and b) judicially "unincorporated" for tax and some constitutional provisions --- they insist on only one aspect, the "unincorporated" part. They persisted in reverting the "five territories” phrase until the majority gave in, wp:bully? --- Including territories was the majority in the earlier poll for how to report the area of the United States, but it was another 2-1 majority, so not a “consensus” again. The preponderance of sources include the five major territories “as a part of the United States”. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 17:10, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

There was never consensus to include any language about incorporation based upon scholarly arguments. older ≠ wiser 18:01, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

With three in the minority, there was a 2-to-1 majority, --- to include the five major territories “as a part of” the U.S., five territories which are in the federal republic: they have delegate Members of Congress. The preponderance of sources supported including the five major territories, including modern scholarly, executive, legislative and judicial sources. The minority quoted the early 20th century Insular Cases and sources referencing them --- before modern territorial organic acts, constitutions, citizenship or referendums.

Which administrator Golbez conceded he would not fight, until he did by reverting three of the majority eight times, reverting until the majority deferred. As Golbez explained, I let it in, I can take it out. And so it was so.

Including the five major territories as it is now allowed does not reflect their constitutional status above mere possessions. It is found In the body of the article introduction, "The country also has five populated and nine unpopulated territories in the Pacific and the Caribbean.” But the five populated territories have organic acts, constitutions, citizenship and self-governance approaching that of states in the U.S. federal republic. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:34, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

You keep confusing the matter of whether and how to present the data for the territories in the article with irrelevant arguments about their political status. older ≠ wiser 13:31, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Agree. But TVH is not the only one. That said, the article covers this "area" and this "population", nonetheless. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:48, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

U.S. territory : All of the above

Define "United States of America." Then state the measure of its surface. It should be easy but it's not because there are many significances of the term itself. Ours is not to choose or explain away but to state whatever is significantly notable. My proposal is to state in the article the territorial measures of each and every entity denoted by the term "United States of America," in a compounded way, i.e. state the extend of the contiguous area, then of Alaska and Hawaii, the add them up, and so on. In this manner, readers are able to obtain the area for their particular search. -The Gnome (talk) 13:32, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Interesting, but I’m not sure how they fit in an Infobox except as an extended footnote. I wonder if there might be objection to too much space being given over to data variances in the summary article if the listing were in the mainspace of the article.

Nevertheless, for one iteration, we have a 1999 Presidential Proclamation which includes the five major territories, “in accordance with international law, …proclaim[ed] the extension of the contiguous zone of the United States of America, including the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, the United States Virgin Islands, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands…The contiguous zone of the United States extends to 24 miles from the baselines of the United States determined in accordance with international law…”, p.163 [95]

The U.S. Census Bureau as of August 2010 reports United States “State and other areas” Total Area (land and water) as 3,805,927 Sq. Mi., 9,857,306 Sq. Km [96]. This includes the states, DC, Puerto Rico, and "Island Areas" of American Samoa, Guam, Northern Mariana Islands, and U.S. Virgin Islands using the Census Bureau's Master Address File/Topologically Integrated Geographic Encoding and Referencing (MAF/TIGER®) database, --- But it does not include area calculations for the nine U.S. Minor Outlying Islands, leaving out judicially "incorporated" Palmyra Atoll as though "incorporated" has no currency. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 20:10, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

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.