Talk:United States/Archive 111

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 105 ← Archive 109 Archive 110 Archive 111 Archive 112

Are unincorporated territories indisputably part of the United States?

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

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

If I recall the wording here was intended to reflect US government geographical publications, which did not make a distinction, rather than the strict constitutional situation. CMD (talk) 14:10, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
Yes @Beland: to what you wrote "Would it be more accurate to say the United States "has" or "possesses" or "exercises sovereignty over" as we say now, "five major unincorporated territories and nine Minor Outlying Islands"?"
Any of these would be more accurate than what the article says now. --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 18:29, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
Unicorporated literally means "not part of." The distinction is that the U.S. constitution applies in full throughout the U.S. including all states and other incorporated territories and the District of Columbia. {D.C. was originally part of Maryland so remained incorporated when it became D.C.)
So for example, the 14th Amendment ensures that people born in the U.S. have U.S. citizenship. People born in Puerto Rico become citizens because of an act of Congress passed in the early 20th century. But a similar law has never been passed for American Samoa or for any of the uninhabited unincorporated territories.
The U.S. government however treats unincorporated territories the same as states in most ways. For example they deliver the mail, although they have no constitutional obligation to do so. TFD (talk) 22:26, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

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

Thanks. The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 02:57, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
Your re-wording makes the description clear and accurate. TFD (talk) 03:33, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
  • We need to stay away from phrases like "it also has five major" (User:Beland) and "There are also five major" (User:Mason.Jones) because they are ambiguous. We need to use words that convey the difference the unincorporated territories and those that are incorporated (i.e., the states/DC), which are the areas that actually comprise the US.
On the first phrase ("it also has five major..."), the use of "has" does not portray possession, which is what the unincorporated territories are. There is a difference between having something, and possessing something. For example, a man has two hands, but he possesses two cars; a woman has a beautiful figure, but she possesses great wealth; a girl has blonde hair, but she possesses degrees in music and history; a boy has a good heart, but he possesses a bike. "Having" connotes being an integral part of a larger whole, (in this case, those people's bodies) while possessing connotes ownership (cars, wealth, degrees, bike.) Thus, the US has 50 states but, possesses (owns) the unincorporated territories. Likewise, the US does not possess the 50 states because it doesn't own them.
On the second phrase ("There are also five major..."), the use of "there are" does not convey any of the significant difference between the (incorporated) states and DC and the unincorporated territories, because it is unquestionable that in the US "there are" 50 states. (Example, Q:"How many states are there in the US?" Ans: "There are 50 states.") As in the case with "has" above, "there are" isn't equivalent to ownership, which is the main difference between the states/DC and the unincorporated territories as well as the precise relationship between the US and its said territories. We need a phrase that portrays ownership such as "The US also possesses five major..." Mercy11 (talk) 03:56, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
I do see the problem. The lede of the WP article Territories of the United States might offer some of the vocabulary needed to express the unique relationship. Perhaps: "Other U.S. possessions, which are not considered to be an integral part of the United States, include five major..." There must be an economical way to describe these non-sovereign possessions outside the Union.
Mason.Jones (talk) 04:36, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
OK, I've changed the intro to "asserts sovereignty over" to try to be more precise while remaining economical. I thought "has" was sufficiently ambiguous as to whether it implies possession ("I have $100 in cash") vs. "being an integral part of" to be neutral, but since there were objections to that, I did not go back to it. Assertion of sovereignty over is also somewhat neutral, as the US federal government asserts sovereignty over the 50 states, but European powers have also asserted sovereignty over entities that are clearly colonies. It also intentionally avoids saying the United States exercises sovereignty in all 16 places, which may imply actual administration. As far as I can tell, some of the disputed islands are de facto administered by Colombia, or no one in particular? Readers can decide for themselves whether the assertions of sovereignty are legitimate or make the territories part of the United States. -- Beland (talk) 20:35, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
@Beland: the problem with "asserts sovereignty over" is that it doesn't answer the question that brought us to this Talk Page discussion in the first place, namely:
"Are unincorporated territories indisputably part of the United States?"

The endless argument we face from editors (the argument manifests itself in numerous distinct ways) is the mistaken notion that "the territories are part of the United States."
Some (many?) editors just don't seem to have enough with the fact that, as User:The Four Deuces stated above, "unincorporated literally means not part of " and, thus, the issue should not be open to any debate. And yet, one editor after another pops up and wants to argue that the unincorporated territories "are" part of the US. The problem, to be clear, is not only the hours spent reverting text in articles, categories, lists, templates, etc., but also the near-edit warring that we become exposed to. Two examples, this and this, somewhat show the problem. I have come across many other cases, but only these two I kept around. Their edit summaries show the problem.
That said, I wouldn't worry much about the smaller islands also claimed by Colombia, nor about what or how European powers see this issue relative to their territories, etc.; those cases rarely come up. I would simply take Puerto Rico as the model for answering the question of this discussion, is only because Puerto Rico has over 95% of the total population of all the U.S. territories combined; thus, our focus should be Puerto Rico (as in, "Is Puerto Rico indisputably part of the United States?") and then extrapolate from there to the other territories.
That is, if we, after 3 days discussing this issue here, are going to take the position you are suggesting, namely, that "Readers can decide for themselves whether the assertions of sovereignty...make the territories part of the United States [or not]", then we haven't solved problem, have wasted our times, have paved the way to perpetuate confusion, and have not performed our function as editors, namely, to educate the reader.
I would support user:Mason.Jones's suggestion that it could read "Other U.S. possessions, which are not considered to be an integral part of the United States, include five major..." I feel we need to grab the bull by the horns and settle this matter once and for all, and not leave it half-attended to which is to no one's benefit.
Mercy11 (talk) 01:11, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
@Mercy11: While we've established that the claim "Puerto Rico is part of the United States" is not undisputed, I also see reliable sources and notable commentators that dispute the claim "Puerto Rico is not part of the United States":
Some essentially say "it's complicated":
There are certainly people who feel Puerto Rico is part of the United States despite the Insular Cases that labelled it as "unincorporated" in order to deny it various rights and powers, similar to how South Africa created "independent" Bantustans in order to deny citizenship rights to Black South Africans. It seems like some people simply don't feel such legal distinctions are important or determinative, and some explicitly deny their validity because of they were blatantly motivated by racism.
Whichever point of view we might agree with, I think the existence of a substantial controversy means Wikipedia needs to stay neutral, either by using ambiguous phrasing or by explaining the nuance that causes the disagreement without making any categorizations that would be disputed.
The addition of Puerto Rico to Police ranks of the United States makes sense to me; Puerto Rico police are delegated their authority by the federal government of the United States, not from an inherent police power as a sovereign entity like, say, occupied Iraq. Puerto Rico is listed separately from the states, so it should be clear to readers they are not equivalent. The assignment of "U.S." as the nationality of Milagros Benet de Mewton also makes sense to me based on Puerto Rican citizenship and nationality, which describes Puerto Ricans as both U.S. and Puerto Rican citizens, but only U.S. nationals. (Similarly, I am a citizen of both Massachusetts and the United States under the Fourteenth Amendment, but Massachusetts is not my nationality. Neither Massachusetts nor Puerto Rico issue passports.) But it seems she should also be listed as a Spanish national because she was born when Puerto Rico was part of the Spanish Empire. I will update the infobox. -- Beland (talk) 03:26, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
While some jurists and legal experts have asserted that Puerto Rico has been incorporated into the U.S., that is  minority position. No one argues that acquisition of territory automatically incorporates it into the administering state. Some overt act is required to do this. Hence Massachusetts when it was ruled by England was not part of England.
The overt act is normally an act of Congress that specifically says a territory is incorporated on a specific date. The opposing argument is that various acts of Congress over the years have had a cumulative effect of incorporation.
Incidentally, the article by the professor at FIU says, "Technically, Puerto Rico is an “unincorporated territory” that legally belongs to but is not a part of the United States." You have to be careful when citing sources to make sure they support your opinion and they are sourced to experts.
The most important legal consequence is that if Puerto Rico is an unincorporated territory, an act of Congress could give it independence. But if it is incorporated, it would require a constitutional amendment. Congress would be unlikely to incorporate Puerto Rico without the consent of its citizens. TFD (talk) 06:28, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
Also, Nationality unlike citizenship, comes from international law and means someone owes allegiance to a particular sovereign state. PR and MA are not recognize a sovereign states. Similarly, until 1948, all Commonwealth citizens were considered to be British nationals subject to the UK.
The fact that citizens of Canada, Australia, etc., were considered British nationals under international law until the late 1940s did not mean those countries were part of the UK.
TFD (talk) 16:40, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
@The Four Deuces: I think the point of the FIU professor's article is that the technicality of Puerto Rico being an unincorporated territory that "legally belongs to but is not a part of the United States" is an absurdity that doesn't make it not part of the United States in his opinion, or in moral or economic or practical ways that he feels are more important to this categorization than the legal technicality. The last line of the article points out it's considered "foreign in a domestic sense", which I think is there because sounds like an oxymoron, and don't forget that the headline reads "Puerto Rico has been part of the US for 125 years".
Likewise, I don't think the other sources cited above are necessarily arguing that Puerto Rico has been legally incorporated into the United States in the same way that Palmyra Atoll has. That's a narrow legal question which is a little more black-and-white. Some commentators are clearly aware of that question and agree with the majority view that it has not been incorporated; they just don't consider that determinative when deciding what is and isn't part of the United States.
I don't necessarily endorse any particular POV here, but we're supposed to give due weight to significant minority views, too. Given that mainstream news organizations are also asserting that Puerto Rico is part of the United States, it does not appear this is a fringe view which should be mostly ignored when speaking in Wikipedia's voice.
The United Kingdom is not the United States. I don't know of any mainstream news organization that has ever asserted that Massachusetts was ever part of England; everyone seems to agree that the colonies of the British Empire are outside of the UK. Maybe that's because the UK has a monarchy which unites its empire and the US does not, maybe it's because the United States doesn't like to think of itself as having a multi-country empire like the UK did, or maybe it's just a quirk of public opinion. We don't have to get to the bottom of why, just respect the differences in what people assert. -- Beland (talk) 00:51, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
The minority opinion is arguing that Puerto Rico has for all intents and purposes been incorporated into the U.S. and therefore should be treated as part of it, whether it actually is or is not. The White House, Congress and the Supreme Court are all in their opinion wrong in their interpretation as are the overwhelming majority of legal experts.
English precedent is of course relevant because the Framers of the Constitution used English legal concepts, particularly through reading Blackstone. The Insular cases drew heavily for example on Calvin's Case decided in England. They would be aware of the distinction Blackstone made between Wales, which Parliament had incorporated into England, and Ireland, which it had not.
English citizenship is also the basis of U.S. nationality law and was the sole precedent for determining who was or was not a citizen prior to the resolution of meaning of the 14th Amendment in the 1890s.
While "foreign in a domestic sense" may seem ironic, those are the words used by the justices who decided Puerto Rico was not part of the U.S.
The U.S. has also told the U.N. that none of the five territories have been incorporated into the U.S. and at least two of them have an inalienable right to declare independence, which sets them apart from incorporated territories. TFD (talk) 01:38, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
@Beland: regarding your "While we've established that the claim 'Puerto Rico is part of the United States' is not undisputed...", not only are you in violation of WP:CLAIM but additionally, and for everyone's sake, let's talk straight: the un-wordy way to write that would be "While we've established that the claim "Puerto Rico is part of the United States" is disputed...
That said, it begs the question, Who is your "we"? Excuse me, but the participants so far, at that point in time, besides yourself (namely, Eloquent, TFD, Mason Jones and myself) we had all shared our opinions and they were all contrary to yours.
  • Eloquent: "it [would] be more accurate to say the United States 'has' or 'possesses'..."
  • TFD: "Unincorporated literally means 'not part of'."
  • Mason Jones: "Perhaps: 'Other U.S. possessions, which are not considered to be an integral part of the United States,...' "
  • Myself: Everyone of my edits here make it categorically clear my view is that the (un-incorporated) territories are not part of the United States.
Despite that WP:SNOWBALL, you have now gone to great lengths to try to show the contrary with your list of so-called reliable sources ("NBC, Professor at FIU, USA Today, The Charlotte Observer, Travel site, Time"). Of course, all of those sources are "correct" and, of course, it was also true that Dewey Defeated Truman, right? None of your sources, singly or combined, trump the SCOTUS which has established the un-incorporated territories are not part of the United States. Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244 (1901)
So, when you share your opinion in this discussion, it would be hugely beneficial if you stated it is your opinion instead of attempting to speak for the rest of us four other participants at that point in time so far, all of who had stated opinions contrary to yours. Please do not speak for me or put words in my mouth; otherwise, I will tend to believe you started this discussion with a political agenda in mind and not to actually seek to gain WP:CONSENSUS. Thank you. Mercy11 (talk) 01:36, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
@Mercy11: I'm really scratching my head here. I certainly don't ever want to put words in anyone's mouth, but you seem to think I was saying you think Puerto Rico is part of the United States? I was saying the opposite, that you and other editors thought Puerto Rico is not part of the United States, and I accept yours views as widely held by a significant faction of thinkers on this topic. "Mercy11 thinks Puerto Rico is not part of the United States" is evidence that "'Puerto Rico is part of the United States' is disputed".
It is not my opinion that "Puerto Rico is part of the United States". That is the opinion of some of the sources I cited. I collected them not to argue for my personal opinion, but to demonstrate the existence of a notable faction which should be taken into account for the purposes of NPOV. If I was interested in promoting that opinion on Wikipedia, I would have simply ignored your complaint on the other talk page. I took your complaint seriously because well-written articles shouldn't strike reasonable people on one side of any given debate as incorrect or biased, whether I agree with them or not.
Nor is it my opinion that "Puerto Rico is not part of the United States". I observe that people on both sides of that question have strong feelings about it, and they point to different facts to argue their assertions. So to me, this is a classic case of, in the information theory sense, a fuzzy concept. Some attributes point to membership of the class, other attributes point to non-membership, and people argue about which attributes constitute the "proper" definition of the class. It can be fun to ask if a hot dog is a sandwich, but for serious topics, posing a binary membership question seems to cause people to endlessly argue about what words mean instead of arguing about - or actually agreeing on - more important things like policy choices. I don't want to say the question is unimportant because I know some people find the answer important to their political rhetoric or their personal identity, so, I dunno, am I rejecting the logical premise of the question? Accepting Puerto Rico as non-binary? Not taking sides because I know as soon as I do someone's going to get angry at me? Yeah. -- Beland (talk) 08:44, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
I thought opinions and facts were different. Everytime I tell my sister my opinion, she tells me I'm wrong but my opinion can't be wrong, it's my opinion. Whether a hot dog is or is not a sandwich is one of the entries on the fuzzy concept WP article and some people enjoy wasting their time with such discussions. Whether the territories are or are not in the US is not an entry on the fuzzy concept WP article. When pressed the US has clarified that PR (in particular) "belongs to but is not part of the US." Also wanted to mention that over the years there is an IP editor placing "hot dog y se come con pan" on Puerto Rico articles. They must think that Puerto Rico and its status is a fuzzy concept when time and time again it writes things such as "hot dog y se come con pan" and " hot dog, se come con pan y tiodos son locos" on Puerto Rico articles. Well someone is enjoying making PR a fuzzy concept. Someone may treat an adopted child as their own but I'm sorry to say it will never be your biological child, no matter how much you treat it as your own. The same with PR and the territories. That they are sometimes "treated" as part of the US doesn't make them so. The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 17:05, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
With regard to WP:CLAIM, I assume you are referring to the proposed article text and not talk page statements. It is very right to point out that "asserted" and "claimed" can be used incorrectly if they are simply blindly substituted for "said" to avoid repetition, because they imply dubiousness of the statement. But those words can also be used correctly for statements that Wikipedia has deemed dubious (e.g. people claiming to do things that are physically impossible) or disputed. For example "John claimed to enjoy winning the Oscar" is overly skeptical, but "John claimed to be able to levitate" is appropriate. Claim can also be used in a technical legal sense, which sometimes overlaps. For example, "The United States claims to be a federation of 50 states" is inappropriate, but "The United States and Columbia both claim sovereignty over Bajo Nuevo Bank" is appropriate. "Assert" can also be used in a logistical sense, as in "the United States asserted military control over Afghanistan after the 2001 invasion". I think it's appropriate to say the US asserts sovereignty over Puerto Rico in the logistical sense that it indisputably administers it, but it asserts sovereignty over Bajo Nuevo Bank in the air-of-dubiousness sense that this statement is disputed by Colombia. Maybe "asserts" isn't the best word for the lede of this article; I don't think WP:CLAIM is a reason why it wouldn't be, but I'm open to alternative suggestions for neutral language. -- Beland (talk) 09:22, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
Is it necessary to get into nation-state semantics at all? Simply put, PR and GU and the USVI are not federated states. The U.S. Census Bureau doesn't include them in its national population figures or rankings. (The WP article List of U.S. cities by population doesn't list San Juan, because the U.S. Census Bureau doesn't consider it a U.S. city.) In the lede, I'd prefer more emphatic wording: "Outside this union of states, the U.S. also holds possessions that are not considered to be an integral part of the United States. It thus administers, and claims sovereignty over, five major unincorporated territories and 11 minor outlying..." Something this detailed might be helpful. Mason.Jones (talk) 17:12, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
@Mason.Jones: That seems a bit too wordy to me. Highlighting that the territories are "unincorporated" is enough to highlight the distinction you are making; saying they are not considered integral parts of the United States is in some way repeating the same point in different words. And it's also treading on thin ice in terms of neutrality. I'm not sure what fraction of commentators would dispute "PR is not part of the US" but would not dispute "PR is not an integral part of the US". Are we talking about bill-of-rights integration here, or economic or moral? Sticking with "unincorporated" makes it clear we're talking about a narrow legal issue which everyone pretty much agrees on.
List of U.S. cities by population does list San Juan, it's in the Puerto Rico section. I don't see any evidence the Census Bureau doesn't consider it a U.S. city; it's just reported separately from the 50 states + DC. Which makes sense; it's not part of the apportionment calculation for the House of Representatives. I'm not sure the Census Bureau has an official opinion on the claim "PR is part of the US", but even if it did officially endorse that view, the official position of the US government or one or more of its agencies is only one point of view. Apparently some mainstream news organizations would disagree with the government if that were its official position, so we have to take both into account. -- Beland (talk) 01:07, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
Actually, no, the U.S. Census Bureau does not list, nor does it rank, Puerto Rican cities with U.S. cities—that is significant. And in every census and estimate, "United States population" specifically excludes the territories. They're effectively considered to be outside the federation. Otherwise, fair enough. Their status is complicated. I can live with the current wording. Mason.Jones (talk) 01:52, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
Disagree. No, Mason Jones's suggestion is not a bit too wordy. Highlighting that the territories are "unincorporated" is necessary but it is even more important to highlight they are not considered integral parts of the United States. This is what the SCOTUS has determined, found, and stated. So, this is important to state here as well. Mercy11 (talk) 02:00, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
I just happened to stumble across this debate, and wanted to give my take. Personally, I think the issue over whether U.S. territories are "part of the United States" is much more complex than people make it out be. On the one hand, yes the Insular Cases held that unincorporated territories were not automatically protected by non-fundamental rights of the Federal Constitution due to racist reasoning, and thus "belonged to, but not part of, the United States" for certain constitutional purposes (in the case of V Bidwell, the Uniformity Clause). Now, we could take the position that these rulings settle the matter, and thus the status of being "unincorporated" unambiguously means that the territories in question are not "part of the United States". However, there are several problems with this:
- The SC itself has not been entirely clear as to if the term "unincorporated" to describe the existing inhabited territories means that the territories are outside the U.S. in all contexts. In fact, that very same Court ruled in 1945 [1] (pg. 324, U.S. 652) that, in different contexts, the term "United States" may be used in any one of several senses. It may be merely the name of a sovereign occupying the position analogous to that of other sovereigns in the family of nations. It may designate the territory over which the sovereignty of the United States extends, or it may be the collective name of the states which are united by and under the Constitution. (This is also mentioned in the U.S. territorial sovereignty page). Now if we interpret the Insular Cases to have held that all unincorporated territories are outside the U.S. in "all" contexts, then this 1945 ruling somewhat contradicts it, as it also suggests that all areas under the sovereignty of the U.S. can be considered to be encompassed by the term "United States" in the general sense of the word, so it's worth considering whether the term "unincorporated" was intended to mean that the territories in question are flat out outside the U.S., or whether the Court intended for this to only apply to certain constitutional contexts (i.e., the territories aren't automatically protected by all non-fundamental constitutional rights and are outside the "Union of States", but not necessarily outside the sovereign boundaries of the U.S. (this is alluded to in Downes V Bidwell, where the justices mention that the term "United States" can apply to its whole territory when used in an international context amongst a "family of nations.").
- The notion that unincorporated territories are unambiguously outside the U.S. is further undermined by the fact that, in the modern understanding of what sovereign states are, U.S. territories meet the majority of the criteria which is usually used to determine what is and isn't part of the country. The most glaring example of this is the fact that the vast majority of U.S. federal laws apply to the territories in much the same manner as states, including federal employment laws [2], federal drug laws [3], federal highway laws [4], environmental protection laws [5], immigration laws [6] (this excludes American Samoa), and I could go on, but the point I'm making is that, saying that these territories are outside of the U.S. may be more misleading than helpful, as the general modern understanding of what it means for a region to be part of a sovereign state is (i.e., under the sovereignty of the said country, and subject to most of the laws of said country) apply in practice to the territories as much as they do to the states and DC. This is why the Insular Cases is rarely taken into consideration in day to day life as to whether to refer to these territories as part of the U.S. or not, and even the U.S. federal government itself often refers to the territories as part of the U.S. today, such as this [7]] report by the State Department to the UN, which states that The United States of America is a federal republic of 50 states, together with a number of commonwealths, territories and possessions. Because the truth is (1) SCOTUS is only one of three equal branches of U.S. government, and what it decided in the Insular Cases is nowhere written in the Constitution, and merely the opinion of a few old men from the early 1900s; (2) secondly, the fact that all U.S. federal agencies have jurisdiction over the territories, the U.S. federal immigration process applies when travelling to the territories (excluding American Samoa), the U.S. Postal Service is responsible for mail in the territories and the territorial National Guards are under the overall command of the U.S. Army means that the practical basis for the territories being within the U.S. administrative system far outweighs any technical rationale that a few powerful men from the early 1900s said that the territories weren't true parts of the country under the Constitution due to their non-white customs.
- Here's an international analogy which may help (as a British editor): London isn't technically a city, since the Greater London Authority (the London-wide govt body) hasn't received Letters Patent, and the "city" status only applies to the cities of the City of London and City of Westminster within it. However, London's wiki article and most people nevertheless refer to London as a city [8] because, in the UK, we have a centuries-old outdated practice of only the places which the Monarch thinks are cities are "official" cities, which is why populated places such as Reading and Northampton (which would be considered "cities" everywhere else in the world), aren't official cities. So, if we can refer to London as a city when it de jure isn't, then if we interpret the Insular Cases to mean that unincorporated territories are definitely not in the U.S." (which is definitely debatable), we shouldn't necessarily state that on WP, as the racist views of a few men from over a century ago shouldn't change the practical reality on the ground today, which is why, when most people learn that, e.g., PR is a U.S. territory, is inhabited by U.S. citizens and is subject to U.S. federal law, they assume it's "part of" the country, which IMO makes sense from a practical standpoint.
So in summary, this article's lead should stay as it is. The arguments both for and against whether the territories are part of the U.S. are valid, so we only need to state facts (i.e. that the territories are under the sovereignty and jurisdiction of the United States.). In individual articles too, we shouldn't explicitly state that the territories are either in the United States or outside the United States. Instead, we should use purely factual wording such as under the U.S. flag, under the jurisdiction of the United States or within the sovereign territory of the United States, etc. Also, IMO, info boxes on places in the territories don't need to exclude "United States" and only included the territory and town/city/village/municipality, as if we use subsections such as "sovereign state" (as the articles of non-U.S. territorial places do, like Stanley, Falkland Islands and Nuuk, Greenland) alongside "United States", it merely informs the reader that the location which is the subject of the article is within the sovereign territory of a sovereign state, rather than "inside" or "outside" of the country proper.
Anonymous MK2006 (talk) 20:34, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
International law is only concerned what is part or not part of a country, which is a matter for domestic law. International law is only concerned with what territories come under the sovereignty of a state.
Also, it doesn't matter that the judges were white supermacists. So were the Framers of the Constitution.
One obvious example of where the U.S. constitution does not apply is the Uniformity Clause: "all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States." Yet PR is exempt for income tax to this day for the sole reason that it is not in the United States. TFD (talk) 02:02, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
Is is that simple though? Take the Donetsk, Luhansk and Crimea regions, for example. According to Ukrainian law, they are 100% part of Ukraine, but according to Russian law, they are 100% part of Russia. So, if we go by domestic law, then we have 2 conflicting answers as there are 2 countries' domestic laws which lay claim to the same regions. However, international law makes it quite clear that these annexed regions are de jure part of Ukraine, since Russia's annexation of the regions was illegal as it wasn't approved by the majority of UN member states. Same with Serbia vis-à-vis Kosovo. This is why we can't solely rely on domestic law when determining whether a place is "part of" a country or not.
Regarding the U.S. territories - does it say anywhere in the Constitution that the so-called "unincorporated" territories are not part of the U.S.? No, because this jargon was just made up by the SC to deny territorial residents' certain benefits that people from the states have, obviously for racist reasons. What the justices said is not fact, and is widely disputed by legal experts today [9]. So yes, for certain constitutional purposes the territories aren't integrated into the country, but this doesn't change the fact that, as I have previously cited, even U.S. federal branches don't strictly use the term "United States" to refer to just the states, but also accept that it can refer to all areas under U.S. sovereignty (look at the 1945 ruling). Also, look at the State Department's report to the UN that explains the makeup of the U.S. "federal republic" in a way which includes the commonwealth, territories and possessions alongside the states.
Anonymous MK2006 (talk) 10:01, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
@Anonymous MK2006: Yes, I agree with your that the issue over whether U.S. territories are 'part of the United States' is much more complex than people make it out be. However, we are here to determine what wording in the lead paragraph of this article would be most appropriate, and giving an explanation anywhere close to 1% of what you --quite eloquently-- provided in your contribution above would be, IMO, not in order for the lede. Mercy11 (talk) 02:08, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
@Mason.Jones: regarding your "I'd prefer more emphatic wording: 'Outside this union of states, the U.S. also holds possessions that are not considered to be an integral part of the United States. It thus administers, and claims sovereignty over, five major unincorporated territories and 11 minor outlying...' Something this detailed might be helpful.", I would agree with that 110%. The intro to the article has been misleading for way too long and only some emphatic wording could rectify that, would stop the ambiguity, and could stop spreading false information. Mercy11 (talk) 01:56, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
@Mercy11 My more "emphatic" take seems not to be shared below. As you have a background in the status of Puerto Rico—always the default among U.S. territories—you might want to respond to the concerns of editors Beland and Anonymous, who believe the legal history and scholarly research out there are too mixed to justify more muscular wording. Mason.Jones (talk) 02:22, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
@Beland: Regarding the article on Milagros Benet... many articles, most articles about Puerto Rican people state they are Puerto Rican... scientist, Olympian, boxer, saint, musician, biologist, whatever. I believe the WP:WikiProject standards / guidelines has decided by consensus that a Puerto Rican person should be listed as Puerto Rican. It's also the way the news articles and sources normally describe such people. With regards to the "part of the US", should we not go with what the US Supreme Court said? The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 21:54, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
@The Eloquent Peasant: I ended up putting Spain, the U.S. and Puerto Rico in the Milagros Benet de Mewton article; if this is not satisfactory, let's continue discussing on Talk:Milagros Benet de Mewton. If you're referring to Wikipedia:WikiProject Puerto Rico/Standards, it does not say what to put in the "nationality" field of biography infoboxes, but it does say to put both the U.S. and Puerto Rico under "citizenship". MOS:INFONAT actually says both should be avoided "when the country to which the subject belongs can be inferred from the country of birth", which arguably applies for someone who has lived in Puerto Rico their entire life. I don't know if you are referring to the nationality field or some other way of "listing" people as Puerto Rican. Are there specific articles you're thinking of as examples? -- Beland (talk) 00:05, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
What about the 1945 SC ruling that gave many potential definitions of the "United States", which I have cited? Anonymous MK2006 (talk) 22:44, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
Also we have failed to mention that Puerto Rico and Puerto Ricans is on the Wikipedia List of Controversial topics, so I doubt this will be "settled once and for all" but good luck, I guess. The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 21:55, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
@Eloquent -- Good comment. Yes, how U.S. territorial cities are named in English Wikipedia infoboxes (i.e., without referencing the U.S.) was part of a broad consensus—reached years ago—about Puerto Rico being "a nation within an nation." The island even fields its own team at the Olympics. The U.S. territories are complicated and are treated differently in WP after much discussion with editor-residents. I would thus prefer more emphatic phrasing about the territories' apartness from the federation of states, but consensus might be too hard to reach. Mason.Jones (talk) 22:40, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
Yes, I do agree that PR is definitely a nation (in the sociocultural sense) within the sovereign territory of another nation (in the political sense) (i.e., the U.S.). However, I do still think that the sovereign state should me mentioned as well as the territory, as San Juan (for instance) is very much a city which the FBI would be involved in, in the event of say a terror attack, and would be protected by the U.S. Army in the event of an invasion, so in that sense, whilst San Juan might not be in the "union of the United States" like the states, D.C. and technically Palmyra Atoll are, it's very much a U.S.-controlled city like Honolulu is (btw, WP even does this for the SARs of China, which have much more autonomy from the Chinese govt than U.S. territories do from the U.S. govt (e.g. New Kowloon has both Hong Kong and China in the infobox)).
Regarding the wording of this article's lead, I think "outside of this Union of States" already gives adequate detail of the distinct relationship which states have within the U.S. political system vs the territories, although we could reword it to something like... outside of this Union of incorporated states, a federal district and Palmyra Atoll, the United States asserts sovereignty over 14 unincorporated territories and possessions, five of which are permanently inhabited... In the absence of a concrete answer from federal institutions (which may be deliberate), this is the best we can do. Anonymous MK2006 (talk) 23:28, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
Dependencies are controlled by definition by another state. You seem to be arguing that the more tightly they are controlled the less of a dependency they are. The South Georgia and South Sandwich Islands have no local government and all government activity is carried out by the UK. Does that make it part of the UK? TFD (talk) 02:07, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
@The Four Deuces: Our personal opinions on those questions don't particularly matter; what matters is that there are notable commentators on both sides of the question for US territories. For South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands, as far as I know all notable opinions line up supporting the idea they are not part of the UK but are controlled by it. (If that's not the case, I'd be interested to read more.) -- Beland (talk) 09:09, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
You presented your opinion that control of a territory incorporates it into the U.S. I was merely showing the problem with your argument.
What matters of course is expert opinion which is nearly unanimous that the "unincorporated territories" have not been incorporated into the U.S. There are scholars who argue that United States v. Wong Kim Ark was wrongly decided and Trump said he would deny citizenship to anchor babies. Some even argue that D.C. is not part of the U.S. But fringe constitutional opinions don't belong in in this article. TFD (talk) 13:53, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
Actually the South Georgia and South Sandwich Islands do have their own local govt [10], which has jurisdiction over internal affairs in the territory [11]. Besides that, the UK government actually does say of its territories:[12] under International Law the Territories are part of the UK, so they are represented on international institutions, such as the UN, by the UK Government. They are therefore bound by International law, such as the implementation of sanctions, through the UK, although They are constitutionally separate from the UK. Whilst this does show how the question over whether dependent territories are part of their ruling sovereign state differs between domestic and international laws and contexts, the British Overseas Territories and Crown Dependencies are usually not talked about as being part of the UK proper as they have almost complete control over all affairs besides foreign affairs and defence, and on occasion other matters such as taxation, corruption and security [13]. This is a significant contrast to U.S. territories, which are bound by almost all U.S. federal laws in the same manner that states are [14], and this includes matters such as immigration (except American Samoa), federal criminal justice, food and water standards and currency. This is not true for British OTs and CDs, which largely operate their own immigration policies (i.e. British citizens are not guaranteed automatic right of abode in territories other than Gibraltar, the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man), and UK law is very rarely directly applied to them, among others. So, even in a domestic sense, there is a much greater argument to be made that U.S. territories practically function as parts of the U.S. than the UK's OTs and CDs function as part of the UK.
It should also be mentioned that, yes, expert opinion generally agrees that the status of "unincorporated" means that said U.S. territory hasn't been incorporated into the full body of the Federal Constitution, and isn't part of the "Union", but I don't believe that the notion that the "territories are not part of the U.S." because of the lack of constitutional incorporation is explicitly endorsed by most modern jurists. This doesn't seem to be the case with regards to the legislative branch (i.e. most federal legislation encompasses the territories alongside the states and D.C.), and even the executive branch [15][16] (the 2021 press release is of Biden arguing that SSI shouldn't be expanded to PR to uphold "federal statutes", but then later argues that there can be no second-class citizens in the United States of America., in this case probably referring to PR and the territories.).
Anonymous MK2006 (talk) 16:00, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
@Mason.Jones: Thanks for all of that but it really doesn't matter that Puerto Rico has its own Olympic team (whose basketball team members once won against the US Olympic team) or that it has its own Miss Universe beauty pageant representation (which has own more Miss Universe contests than the United States' pageants have). What matter is that the SCOTUS has stated the un-incorporated territories are not part of the US. There is no complexity in it. The complexity comes from statehooders standing on soap boxes and perpetuating fake news that PR is part of the US when it isn't. Mercy11 (talk) 02:31, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
The Puerto Rico topic does not need to be uncontroversial to state in the lede of this article that Puerto Rico is not a part of the United States, which is what the SCOTUS says. Statehooders will always be saying that Puerto Rico is part of the US because of citizenship, is not a country, doesn't sit in the UN, doesn't have its own president, gets US state-like treatment, etc., etc., etc., but none of those state it is part of the US, only the SCOTUS can --and already has-- made the determination that Puerto Rico and the other territories are not part of the US. Mercy11 (talk) 02:21, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
@Mercy11: As Anonymous MK2006's points out above, the Supreme Court has also ruled in two cases that "United States" has multiple senses, one of which includes territories like Puerto Rico to which its sovereignty extends. Some constitutional protections have been extended to Puerto Rico by the courts, so it seems their opinion on the semantic question here is somewhat mixed. I think your opinion that the Insular Cases designation as "unincorporated" is determinative of Puerto Rico's status is a fine one, and I know lots of people agree with you, but it is an opinion about a complicated socially constructed relationship, and not an objective fact. And there are reliable news sources and notable commentators who disagree with you, so even if I agree with you and you convince all the other editors here to personally agree with you, the article still needs to reflect the real-world debate over this question. It seems you have identified statehooders as an even larger group of people beyond the quick-web-search collection above who consider Puerto Rico to at least in some sense be part of the United States. We can't just dismiss their point of view because we might not agree with it, and write the United States article only from a pro-PR-independence point of view or only from a racist Insular Cases judge point of view. -- Beland (talk) 08:05, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
Certainly, the United States can mean different things. Under one definition for example, D.C. is not part of the U.S. But that's too much information for this article which is about the U.S., not U.S. constitutional law. TFD (talk) 14:02, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
I agree that all this article's lead needs to state is that there are 50 states and a federal district (and maybe Palmyra Atoll) which are constitutionally incorporated, and the U.S. also asserts sovereignty over various other territories and possessions which are constitutionally unincorporated, and explain what this stuff means in the main body. I don't agree with the use of the word "integral" as its ambiguous; yes, the territories aren't fully integrated into the U.S. for constitutional purposes, but are pretty damn integrated into the U.S. with regards to federal statute and international law. So the inclusion of the term "constitutionally" to describe incorporation vs non-incorporation is key to a non-POV, but sufficiently factual, brief explanation. Anonymous MK2006 (talk) 16:12, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
Pretty damned near integrated is subjective. The Supreme Court recently upheld California's right to refuse employment to an American Samoan because he was neither a U.S. citizen nor permanent resident. It refused the right of a Puerto Rican to become naturalized so that her citizenship would be protected under the 14th Amendment. It upheld the right of a man who renounced U.S. citizenship to remain in Puerto Rico because he was a PR citizen. It allows unequal federal taxation in the territories. The U.S. government has to report annually to the UN on its administration of three of the territories. While residents of the territories may enjoy the same rights as other Americans, these are done by legislation and are not constitutionally protected.
Asserting sovereignty over does not mean claiming to have incorporated them. Until 1783, Britain claimed sovereignty over the 13 colonies, yet did not incorporate them. And British law did not discriminate between subjects born in Britain and the colonies. TFD (talk) 16:55, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=prev&oldid=867674379#Incorrect_definitions_and_references_throughout_Wikipedia_of/to_various_countries_and_territories Led8000 (talk) 17:49, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Well, well, well. I was trying to address this multiple times and long ago here, and even on the Jimmy Wales talk page. As seen in my contribution history. You guys had to have this ridiculous huge talk page section just to not have people reversing a correction on a ridiculous legal term and grammar and comprehension error like this.... Led8000 (talk) 16:03, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

UPDATE. —WELL, THANK YOU, bitter anti-intellectuals, ! you have reversed it again! Can't be having a legitimate website concerning any country or vaguely political issues, no,no,no. Of course @KlayCax: saw my text here and thought, "I'm not going to respond on the talk page, let's just revert back to our nice little lead paragraph", then made up a bizarre lie about word count for the reason. Led8000 (talk) 01:10, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=prev&oldid=867674379#Incorrect_definitions_and_references_throughout_Wikipedia_of/to_various_countries_and_territories Led8000 (talk) 16:18, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

So, @KlayCax:, has reverted it to the non-factual lead again, disregarding this talk page and everything else. Is nothing going to be done about this? I cannot edit since I am not extended confirmed. @Beland: @Chipmunkdavis: @The Eloquent Peasant: @TFD: @Mercy11: @Mason.Jones: @The Four Deuces: @Anonymous MK2006: ___________________________ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=prev&oldid=867674379#Incorrect_definitions_and_references_throughout_Wikipedia_of/to_various_countries_and_territories Led8000 (talk) 18:07, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

@Led8000: 1.) This is a question of what reliable sources say about a single fact, and is not a big important policy question where it might be appropriate to ask Jimmy Wales to weigh in. 2.) Alanscottwalker points out in that discussion that sometimes the government uses "United States" to explicitly include the inhabited territories, like 8 USC 1101(a)(38): "The term “United States” . . . when used in a geographical sense, means the continental United States, Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, Guam, the Virgin Islands of the United States, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands. 3.) I've listed above a mainstream newspaper, television network, and anthropology professor who assert that Puerto Rico is part of the United States. I respect you and the other editors who assert that it is not, and your legal reasons for doing so, but WP:NPOV means we cannot exclude significant opinions just because many people strongly disagree with them. I like Anonymous MK2006's example of London, which says in the intro both that London is that largest city in the UK and that it is not a city in the legal sense. No one seems to have their hair on fire about that. 4.) Calling other editors "anti-intellectual" is insulting, uncivil, and inaccurate, and only serves to make other people discount your opinion and be more likely to insult you in return. Wikipedia policies require us to criticize ideas, not people, unless we're filing a report at WP:AN/I or other dispute mechanism. 5.) Per WP:PRIMARY, given that this seems to be a complex and disputed issue and not a simple question of fact, we should probably be looking at secondary sources, not drawing our own conclusions from primary sources like court decisions and US laws (even though I myself have done so before and just did so again) . -- Beland (talk) 20:19, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
Title 8 of the United States Code relates to aliens and nationality. It would make sense to include the four organized territories because birthright citizenship has been extended to them by statute. It saves having to name them all countless times throughout the statutes. But note that American Samoa is omitted from the list. That's because different citizenship rules apply to its citizens.
Anyway, this is all OR. "As used in this chapter" means exactly that. It means that the intention is that it does not define the United States for any other purpose. The Fair Labor Standards Act defines state as "any State of the United States or the District of Columbia or any Territory or possession of the United States." So why doesn't DC have two senators? Or Palmyra for that matter? TFD (talk) 21:09, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
You are a very confused and misled power-hungry person, @Beland:, as seen again in how you misrepresented the text in the link, took a small part of the paragraphs, and did not mention how he did not respond to my response. You have been nearly successful at having almost every modern popular or even potentially at least mildly controversial article in Wikipedia state what you want it to. People like you, or even non-administrators, also edit the so-called "Wikipedia guidelines". Led8000 (talk) 05:32, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
Feel free to unconfuse me with citations to reliable secondary sources that support a suggested wording change that also accommodates the reliable secondary sources cited above. The only power any of us have here, both to change articles and to make policy, is in our ability to do quality research and make convincing arguments. Hardly any of the changes I've actually made to the lede of this articles have stuck, so I empathize with you if you think the process of consensus-building is frustrating. -- Beland (talk) 08:31, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
Let's start with the very webpage that you supposedly referenced. https://www.usgs.gov/faqs/what-constitutes-united-states-what-are-official-definitions
quote - "United States: The 50 States and the District of Columbia."
and, anyone else seeing this, please see the talk page link above, also Led8000 (talk) 21:41, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
This is not an actual issue. No one literally says that the territories are "in the United States". This is an error on Wikipedia. Led8000 (talk) 21:45, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
Yes, there are 100% genuine arguments supporting the view of yourself, and many others, that the unincorporated territories are not, strictly speaking, in the U.S. However, there are also many genuine arguments supporting the view that they are in the U.S. Take the USGS article you cited for instance: whilst its "United States" definition on the third paragraph includes only the states and D.C., its very first sentence is Geographically (and as a general reference), the United States of America includes all areas considered to be under the sovereignty of the United States, but does not include leased areas., which implies that it is potentially plausible to include the territories (per, all areas considered to be under the sovereignty of the United States...) within the scope of the "United States" (note how it says general reference, and not for a specific purpose, e.g., nationality law as you have previously cited). And this 1945 ruling by the SCOTUS [17] also says that one definition of the "United States" is all areas under its sovereignty. So, as you can see, this debate is not unambiguous in either direction, it is very complicated, and I preferred this article's previous lead where it stated that the U.S. asserts sovereignty over 14 territories..., which does not take a POV which has not been agreed upon, on either side. Anonymous MK2006 (talk) 00:51, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
Please provide any news story or even other text saying any territory is "in the United States", including maybe Puerto Rico, Guam, or the others. And not one that is from a Google search of "is Puerto Rico in the United States", or discussing the terms/grammar/law specifically, just a story or news or anything else about anything. Led8000 (talk) 01:54, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
Here's some: [18] (USA Today), [19] (Council on Foreign Relations), [20] (CNN), [21] (Snopes), [22] (U.S. National Park Service), [23] (U.S. Department of Transportation), and more. Anonymous MK2006 (talk) 10:42, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
HMMMMMMM. ctrl-f "in the u" --- the CNN is the only one, and grouped together with Hawaii in the phrase about health measure news reporting. Why are you doing this, and what or what positive thing are you trying to accomplish? Is there any advantage to having a purposely non-factual popular Wikipedia article? Led8000 (talk) 21:00, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
plot twist - try actually Googling "is Puerto Rico in the United States" Led8000 (talk) 21:16, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
Ok, if you really want the emphasis on the "in the": [24] (Biden, yes, Biden's 2020 campaign where he mocks Trump for implying that "Puerto Rico isn't the U.S." at the end), [25] (the official Puerto Rico Tourism Company describing San Juan as being the oldest city in the United States), and this [26] and this [27], which refer to the Point Udalls in Guam and the USVI as the westernmost and easternmost points in the United States, and also quoting from Bill Clinton who referred to both as the westernmost and easternmost points of the United States (rather than of the United States and its territories), and sign by the National Park Service which reads “Point Udall, St. Croix, VI. Easternmost point of the United States of America.” Now it doesn't really matter whether the cites say "part of" or "in" the U.S. (they essentially mean the same thing), but this shows how, yes, this topic is genuinely debatable, and not necessarily black and white as some editors like to think. Anonymous MK2006 (talk) 23:48, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
All right, good response. But, are these errors, exceptions, or unusual wording? Look at what people in Puerto Rico or from it talk like in English and Spanish that way, and of course everyone else. I do not think there is actually a debate about this, just people that use unusual or actually self-acknowledged non-factual phrases of convenience sometimes instead of a 3 or 5+ word phrase repeatedly Led8000 (talk) 01:37, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
Oooh so there's no debate is there?! [28] (the Trump admin. refers to the territories using phrases such as for the first time in our Nation's history, every State and Territory... and States and Territories across the country), [29] (John Hopkins University listing PR under the "United States" and part of their overall U.S. COVID cases count), and [30] (the CDC including the territories as part of COVID statistics for the "United States (and COVID-19 hospital admissions levels in U.S. by county)). I could go on and on and on... The point is, yes it is debatable, so for the love of God lets stop pretending its not. There are many valid sides to this debate, and there is most certainly not "no debate." Look at the 1945 SC case, and various other reliable sources cited that contradict your argument. See how to use article talk pages and WP: Good faith. Anonymous MK2006 (talk) 19:57, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
Also, I could of course be wrong, but one of the reasons why many Puerto Ricans may say that they are "going to the United States" from PR (aside from the fact that PR isn't fully constitutionally incorporated into the U.S.), is that, as this [31] article explains, After the constitution was approved, the ‘commonwealth’ [which has been in power in PR many times] party began to assert that Congress had given up its territory governing powers over Puerto Rico. And obviously, since most islanders speak Spanish natively [32]], they are most likely to associate the status of PR to the territory's official name in Spanish (which translates to "Free Associated State"), so it is possible (but again not certain) that many Puerto Ricans think that their territory has more autonomy from the U.S. than it actually does. Anonymous MK2006 (talk) 20:57, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
Again, that's all OR. None of the other possible meanings of the U.S. were the Ratio decidendi for the decision. Only statements that support the ratio decidendi are binding.
The court decided that goods from an unincorporated territory were subject to duty because they originated outside the U.S. Court decisions are primary sources and Wikipedia requires secondary sources to interpret them. Editors are not lawyers and are not supposed to know what is ratio decidendi, dicta or minority opinions in decisions and whether the main issues decided have been overturned on appeal or made moot by later legislation. Furthermore, expert opinion in some cases may be that decisions were wrongly decided.
If you want to argue that American Samoa is part of the United States or D.C. isn't, there are articles for that. But it is has no weight for inclusion here. TFD (talk) 14:53, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
Pardon me for my stupid naivete, but why couldn't we just use what the online Encyclopedia Britannica states on the US article, "Political units in association with the United States include Puerto Rico, discussed in the article Puerto Rico, and several Pacific islands, discussed in Guam, Northern Mariana Islands, and American Samoa." The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 17:53, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
In response to what TFD said, what was the actual intention of the Insular Cases. Was it to establish that the unincorporated territories were, flat out, completely outside the U.S. as a matter of law, as well as not having the Constitution fully applied to them, or was it merely to establish that the unincorporated territories weren't fully protected by the Constitution, and the opinion of some of the justices that the territories were outside the U.S. because they are inhabited by "alien races" was not intended to be enshrined into law itself, but was rather an opinion which informed some of the judges to take the action of not applying the whole Constitution to the unincorporated territories. Because remember, the Court also states that the territories were domestic in an international sense, already meaning that in some contexts, the territories can fall within the scope of the "United States." So the 1945 ruling isn't actually challenging the Insular Cases itself, as they were only with concerned how the Constitution applied, and not whether the territories were part of/not part of the U.S. in the "general sense" of the word "United States." Because the Constitution itself never discusses what is and isn't in the U.S. So three equal branches of govt, the judiciary, the legislature and the executive decide on a case by case basis the extent to which the territories are integrated with the U.S. political framework.
In response to Eloquent, whilst I do think neutral wording is appropriate for the time being, I don't agree with Britannica's assessment that the territories are merely "associated with" the U.S., as this terminology makes it sound like the territories are entities equal to the U.S. federal government, which they aren't (unlike Palau, the Federated States of Micronesia and the Marshall Islands which are sovereign states in free association with the U.S.). All the unincorporated territories are under the sovereignty and jurisdiction of the United States [33][34], so I prefer terminology such as within the sovereign territory of the United States, within U.S. territory, on U.S. soil, under the U.S./American flag, under the jurisdiction of the United States, etc. We shouldn't use statements which make it sound like the territories are sovereign entities on equal footing with the U.S. government. Anonymous MK2006 (talk) 18:47, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
This is just more OR. Now you are arguing that because dependant states are not independent, they must be part of the administering state. But then they would not be dependant states. And let's not use wording such as "within the sovereign territory of" because it could be ambiguous to readers. And don't forget that Guantanamo Bay is also within the sovereign territory of the U.S. as are for that matter American ships at sea. TFD (talk) 20:22, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
Nowhere did I say there that the territories are "within the U.S." I was just pointing out how I feel that the term "associated with" to describe the relationship between the territories and the U.S. federal govt. is misleading as it could be misinterpreted to read that they are sovereign states in Free Association with the U.S. like 3 sovereign states in the Pacific are. And to the comment below, yes I am aware of the SC stating that the territories are foreign in a domestic sense; however, I was also pointing out that the same Court also stated that they are domestic in an international sense (or something similar), meaning that the debate as to whether the territories are part of the U.S. most definitely is ambiguous and debatable, and can be interpreted from different angles, as stated by various U.S. govt legislation, federal agencies which have been cited above, and the 1945 SC ruling. I am not taking a position here. I am just stating that this debate is absolutely ambiguous, so let's stop pretending that it's not. Anonymous MK2006 (talk) 20:33, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
Also, Guantanamo is under the jurisdiction, but not sovereignty of the U.S. [35]. These are two entirely different concepts. Anonymous MK2006 (talk) 20:42, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
Again, you are using your own OR to interpret sources. Out of curiosity, could you point to a source that explains the difference between sovereignty and jurisdiction? TFD (talk) 01:28, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
Here: [36] - It is this immunity that confuses folks when it comes to sovereignty. The mission is protected and is considered U.S. property, but the territory does not belong to the U.S. (or any other country with an embassy). Again, the Vienna Convention does not state that the property belongs to the embassy’s country. So, in summary, jurisdiction [37] is de facto sovereignty whereby the country which owns the embassy, military base, or Guantanamo Bay exercise effective control over these complexes, but is still recognised by international law as being on the soil of the host country, which is why they can declare that foreign missions must close down [38]. In contrast, de jure sovereignty refers to the territory which a state controls that is recognised by other states and the UN. [39][40]. Yes, the 2 definitions are confusing to differentiate from one another. But PR has no authority to kick the U.S. govt out of the island because it's under its de jure sovereignty, whereas Cuba has a right under int'l law to demand that the U.S. leaves and closes down Guantanamo Bay as the sovereign authority over the territory which GB is situated in (although the U.S. is a superpower, so int'l law is dysfunctional here). Anonymous MK2006 (talk) 20:29, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
Reading the summary and following the citations in our own article Guantanamo Bay Naval Base, I see the original 1903 lease agreement ([41]) explicitly says "the United States recognizes the continuance of the ultimate sovereignty of the Republic of Cuba over the above described areas" and "the United States shall exercise complete jurisdiction and control over and within said areas". I don't see how anyone could come to any different interpretation than what Anonymous MK2006 said about Guantanamo. I think I understand what TFD was getting at, though, and it's correct for different examples. The United Kingdom exercises sovereignty over Bermuda, but is Bermuda "UK soil" given that everyone seems to agree that the UK only extends to England, Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland? I think people would disagree about whether that's a correct statement, meaning the people who think the US is only the 50 states plus DC would also disagree about that phrasing for US territories. I think the phrasing currently used by the article, "asserts sovereignty over" avoids implying that these territories are part of the US, as TFD might object to, but also avoids implying that they are sovereign countries, as Anonymous MK2006 might object to. (BTW, I think some of the disputed Caribbean islands are de facto under the jurisdiction of Colombia because the US doesn't have a physical presence there? Though I usually see the phrase "administered by" to describe practical conditions, whereas "jurisdiction" might be described as it is on paper.) Anyway, if no one has a reason to object to "asserts sovereignty over", we need not consider the other potential alternatives suggested by Anonymous MK2006 or Britannica. -- Beland (talk) 23:09, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
When a territory is said to be on a sovereign state's soil, it means that the state in question controls the land (i.e. including soil) of said territories, and this is why we have concepts such as Jus soli (birthright citizenship within a state's territory), for instance. So, therefore, whilst Bermuda may not be considered to be part of the UK proper, it is on the UK's "soil" as Britain has control and ownership over the land of Bermuda. The same can be argued for the U.S. territories - whether or not they should be considered part of the U.S., they are on "U.S. soil" because the U.S. has control and ownership over the land of its territories. This is a good substitute for the POV-sounding in the United States and United States and its territories, as sovereignty is something that most can agree on with regards to dependent territories (and this should IMO be applied to articles about settlements and statistics in the territories, etc.). Anonymous MK2006 (talk) 00:14, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
Again this is all OR and your conclusions do not coincide with constitutional law textbooks. There is literature about the distinction between the two terms in U.S. law, so no need for us to re-invent the wheel. Cuba cannot btw kick the U.S. out. TFD (talk) 00:32, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
Ok, well it seems like you don't have much interest in debating the actual subject of the matter, and just want us to keep going in circles over pointless topics. Referring to the territories as being under the sovereignty of the U.S. (or "in" its sovereign territory) is factual, whether they're part of the U.S. or not, which was the point I was making. All this discussion was about how to refer to the territories in the lead of this article, and how to discuss them more generally within the context of all states and territories under U.S. control (i.e. San Juan is the 57th largest city under the jurisdiction/sovereignty of the United States). No need to complicate things further, and the article's current lead is the best we have atm. So let's stop these debates about the difference between jurisdiction and sovereignty, being "in" vs "part of" a country, and what is on a country's soil and what isn't. Anonymous MK2006 (talk) 14:11, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
Of course not on equal footing with United States, "under the sovereignty of" yes "associated with" is what EB writes because it's complicated and each territory has a different relationship with the US and those particulars can And should be written and seen within each territory's article. And the people who want to insist in the Wikipedia ecosystem-to say that the territories are in the US - it's either a mistake, or they like to see us argue. The consensus was that "Puert Rico is a nation within a nation". It's a country, just not a sovereign state. And if even the US territories that are "sovereign states in free association with the United States" are still under the sovereignty of the US then I do understand EB says " association with" and we shouldn't say things that are "Foo in the United States by state or territory" as some editors try. Mostly this has led the whole world who rely on English Wikipedia to believe that the territories are in the US part of the US and they don't see the complicated differences and so they immediately want to group the territories with the states, Incorrectly because they are entirely different. And I think you meant to say "foreign in a domestic sense." — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Eloquent Peasant (talk • contribs)
The FSM, Marshall Islands and Palau are sovereign states [42], most certainly not territories under United States sovereignty, like PR, Guam, USVI, the CNMI and American Samoa are (even though the inhabited U.S. territories can all be considered nations in their own right, just not sovereign independent ones, a notion which I absolutely agree with, but is not the subject of this debate.). Anonymous MK2006 (talk) 20:42, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

@Led8000: I can't find a record of me citing that USGS article, nor does it seem to be in the article or cited by anyone else in this discussion, so I'm not sure why you say that I or we "supposedly referenced" it? The Wikipedia article does not say that the territories are "in" the United States, it says that the United States "is a republic of" a list of things that includes "unincorporated territories". I agree that is less than satisfactory. Actually, it sounds like everyone in this discussion would prefer the "asserts sovereignty over" language compared to the "republic of" language for territories? User:KlayCax changed it in this edit, apparently only to get the word count back under 450? I have just restored the earlier phrasing while condensing other parts to keep the length constant. Does that help? -- Beland (talk) 02:39, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

The U.S. was able to have PR removed from the list of non-self-governing territories by saying the two countries had entered into a "free association." However, most experts disagree with that description, because it is administered by the U.S. and PR has no powers to secede.TFD (talk) 02:30, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

  • The mere length of this discussion can be considered evidence that it is a disputable that Puerto Rico is part of the US. However, being disputed doesn't mean is is part of the US, nor it means it is not part of the US; it simply means that that some have an opinion one way while others have an opinion the other way. The question that PR is part of the US has been brought before the SCOTUS and they, too, have rendered their opinion. However, some fallacies just die hard and, so, some people will choose to believe one way or the other way merely justified on "this" and based on "that"; that is, based on a personal criteria they consider to be the litmus test for being or not being part of the US, yet, a personally fabricated criteria nevertheless.

It, however, never ceases to amaze me to read long-time editors (who, as long-time editors, should know better) making loaded statements such as "most experts disagree with that description, because it is administered by the U.S. and PR has no powers to secede." "Most", really? "Experts", really? In that case, where are their names, who are they, where is their list of names? what makes them experts? where is the evidence that such grouping of experts constitutes the alleged "most" of them? Com'on, this is simple mathematics, why not present the evidence? "Most" has a meaning and it has to do with numbers and percentages. It's simple mathematics -- it's that simple! Yet, not a shred of evidence is given, just a claim. Oh, "because it is administered by the U.S.?" so I guess suddenly there is a brand new alleged definition of what constitutes 'free association'. Great, but still no evidence that what is presented as fact isn't actually anything more than an editor's loaded opinion. Finally, on the, "PR has no powers to secede"...really? Someone seems to have forgotten that only states can secede because, to begin with, your must first be part of the Union for secession to even be an issue, else it's a moot point. Again, not much enlightenment here. Mercy11 (talk) 02:35, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

I agree - some people try to oversimplify an issue which in reality is incredibly complicated, and it's not as simple as saying that PR is 100% part of the U.S. or that PR is 100% outside the U.S. I think with the debate over free association though, it's clear that that refers to free (i.e. sovereign) entities which are merely associated with rather than under the control over another sovereign state. This clearly encompasses the Federated States of Micronesia, Palau and the Marshall Islands as they are full UN member states which have total control over all internal and external affairs, and the defence and programs provided to them via the U.S. is merely on a voluntary basis [43][44], unlike PR, in which the United States federal government retains actual control [45]. But yes, what we should do is stick with the facts: the inhabited U.S. territories are under the sovereignty of the United States, but they are unincorporated into the Union (meaning that the Constitution doesn't fully apply in those territories) and are not states of the Union, nor a federal district. In the many cases where they are integrated with the states and D.C. (e.g. for legislation), this should be clarified, and factual language such as under the jurisdiction/sovereignty of the United States or on U.S. soil should be used. And where there are differences, those too should be clarified. Anonymous MK2006 (talk) 22:22, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Resident vs. apportionment population

Should we be using resident population or apportionment population for states? Per the U.S. census bureau:[1]

The 2020 Census apportionment population includes the resident population of the 50 states, plus a count of the U.S. military personnel and federal civilian employees living outside the United States (and their dependents living with them) who can be allocated to a home state.

I see Arkansas is currently using the apportionment population in its infobox. Kk.urban (talk) 16:31, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

No, resident populations are the official numbers. Unfortunately, in December each year, new state population estimates are announced with their apportionment stats first (which are used to give the proper number of that state's seats in the House of Representatives). Then some WP editors jump the gun and insert those numbers in state articles when they shouldn't. Arkansas should be changed. Mason.Jones (talk) 22:41, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
@Mason.Jones Okay, I will change them to the 2020 Census resident population. But I thought apportionment only happened once per decade, after the census? Kk.urban (talk) 22:47, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
Apologies -- yes, once every 10 years, right after the decennial census. That's when I've noticed editors citing the wrong column of numbers from the U.S. Census website. The population should be resident only. Mason.Jones (talk) 00:06, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.census.gov/data/tables/2020/dec/2020-apportionment-data.html

Kk.urban (talk) 16:30, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

US ACCOLADES

Why was the description explaining how the USA "is a leading political, military and cultural power" removed? Was this consensus approved? NocturnalDef (talk) 21:51, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Opening a new topic doesn't change anything. But if you want the description to go back, make sure to provide some sources for the US'S political military and cultural power in your reasoning. ✨ΩmegaMantis✨blather 22:17, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
The sources have been provided for the past 2 decades. Ya'll keep deleting it regardless! May I ask (WHERE IS YOURS) for removing it? NocturnalDef (talk) 20:30, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
Are you implying that US political, military, cultural and soft power is no longer relevant because YOU deleted it without any sources? Because YOU say so? So then the UK is the leading cultural force in the world now, is THAT what you are implying because their description hasn't been deleted yet! NocturnalDef (talk) 20:38, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
I did not delete it, as you can see with the history tab. Please don't make these snap judgements.
Sources usually aren't in the lede section, so it's unlikely there are sources in the section. There might have been sources corresponding to what it said in the body, but it's your responsibility to find them if you want to convince @CurryCity and me.
And no, I am not implying US power is no longer relevant. The lede doesn't not imply it either: the description of the US as a superpower means that the US is an important force. (In the Superpower Wikipedia article itself it states that a superpower is not just military power [contrary to what you have stated] but also political, cultural, and soft, what you want in the lede.) The lede wasn't changed to remove such power, it was changed to not be redundant. Hopefully we can come to an agreement on this. 🤝 ✨ΩmegaMantis✨blather 21:29, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
No, being a superpower refers to hard-power: political and cultural significance is whats known as softpower; PLEASE know what you are talking about before you say it. And yes, it wasn't "you" that removed it; it was Mason. I have already scoured the archive to no surprise as he was the same culprit years prior-It's just you and those like you have a bad habit of enabling his actions without a proper consensus. If this is the route that you all chose to take then once again I am going to step in and i will provide all the sources to prove my claim (as i did before) but if you all decide to fight me toothe and nail (as you did before); there will be conflict. Please don't let it come to that again. Wikipedia is NOT the place to push a political agenda. It is about contemporary FACT and nothing more. I implore that you and your isolationist friends do not engage me as I make the proper changes as you fought me in the past as I WILL revise the article if it comes down to that. Let's keep it civil. NocturnalDef (talk) 21:00, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
Was it just you and Currycity who revised it or was it Mason alone as I presumed? He was the last one who initiated the change before I intervened it to its proper form. Why do I need to convice you and currycity ONLY? Who else is in on this? NocturnalDef (talk) 21:05, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
I'm sorry if I've gotten off on the wrong foot with you, NocturnalDef. But I simply think that it's not a political agenda to prevent redundancy in the lede, with superpower already encompassing political, military, and cultural power (which you wanted to stay in the lede) (sources: The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers by Paul Kennedy, Professor June Teufel Dreyer, and others [all accessible on the Wikipedia page about superpowers.]) And it seems that you are the only one to disagree, with nobody else seeming to have an issue with it and other editors (User:CurryCity and Mason) supporting or making the change in the first place. Some sources that superpower does not refer to cultural power would provide more of a reason to change the lede, but since you have not provided such sources, it should probably stay as is. ✨ΩmegaMantis✨blather 21:27, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
@NocturnalDef -- No, I always supported the original sentence: "a major political, military, economic and cultural force worldwide". That eventually became "the major etc. etc. force worldwide". Without sources, that seems hyperbolic for any country article. I think "the only [remaining] superpower" covers it fine, unless there is discussion later. But I've had nothing to do with the development of this wording over time. Mason.Jones (talk) 21:47, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
I approve of the revisionned article so long as it isn't reverted back to prior status before current satisfaction. Thank you for your cooperation and understanding. 🙏 NocturnalDef (talk) 22:05, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
I had nothing to do with making anything more "isolationist". Superpower is actually a better description in my view because it includes all dimensions in one word. I do think there are more than enough accolades already, but I suppose it wouldn't hurt too much to add a few more words about American culture, maybe along the lines of how self-absorbed it can be sometimes? CurryCity (talk) 15:16, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
It matters not anymore. The issue has been resolved without conflict and both parties seem satisfied so long as the newly revised article is not tampered with. I thank you all for your cooperation. 🙏 NocturnalDef (talk) 21:49, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
I am currently satisfied with the revisions made. As long as the changes remain, I have no problem with the overall consensus. I call for peace. 🙏 NocturnalDef (talk) 22:01, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

US ACCOLADES

Why was the description explaining how the USA "is a leading political, military and cultural power" removed? Was this consensus approved? NocturnalDef (talk) 14:43, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

There are many other accolades already, in addition to the mentions of superpower which implies all of that. CurryCity (talk) 19:18, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
No, it does NOT imply all of that. Being a superpower only implies military status; not political and cultural. I've read the UK description and there is clear indication that THEY enjoy cultural influence and yet OUR cultural influence is greater; so I ask again; why was it removed? NocturnalDef (talk) 21:54, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
I don't see any argument on here to downgrade America's accolade. Seems to me that you're all pushing some isolationist agenda as you have done years prior. I'll give you some time to change it back before I am forced to step in. Let's not do this again. NocturnalDef (talk) 20:34, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
I see that the proper changes have been made. I am currently satisfied and pray that we keep it thay way. NocturnalDef (talk) 22:07, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Wikification of third paragraph

See:

The U.S. national government is a presidential constitutional republic and liberal democracy with three separate branches: legislative, executive, and judicial. It has a bicameral national legislature composed of the House of Representatives, a lower house based on population; and the Senate, an upper house based on equal representation for each state. Substantial autonomy is given to states and several territories, with a political culture that emphasizes liberty, equality under the law, individualism, and limited government.

  • First of all, the first sentence is an uninterrupted sea of blue links, which makes it really hard to know where to click to find info on our particular type of government! Would it be possible to include commas between the bluelinked words and/or consolidate some adjacent links into one link toward a more general article?
  • Also, the links in the last sentence seems weird to my eye—the section about states' autonomy should link to States' rights or Federalism in the United States instead of an article on each state's individual policies. BhamBoi (talk) 06:02, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Military

The fact that the US has the strongest military in the world is not mentioned anywhere in the article. Why is this? Man-Man122 (talk) 21:54, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

"Strongest" might be tricky to precisely define, but the article clearly states "The United States spent $877 billion on its military in 2022, which is by far the largest amount of any country, making up 39% of global military spending...The United States has the third-largest combined armed forces in the world". CMD (talk) 01:28, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
All good. I was just a little curious because the page for the US armed forces describe it as the strongest, so I thought that would be mentioned here. Man-Man122 (talk) 20:31, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Suggestions from AI

Condensed by a human:

  • The number of Indian reservations is mentioned as 326. This number can vary due to changes in federal recognition and the establishment of new reservations. It's essential to verify the current number for accuracy.
    • 326 wasn't mentioned in the main body, now added.
  • The population number and global rank are correct as of the last update, but these are dynamic figures that change annually. It’s useful to note the year these numbers were reported for current context.
  • The discussion on the health care system, particularly the Affordable Care Act, may need an update to reflect any recent changes or impacts on insurance coverage and healthcare access.
  • briefly mentions the Civil War's impact on slavery but could elaborate on its profound effects on American society, including the Reconstruction era, the civil rights movement, and ongoing discussions around racial equity.
  • While discussing the economy, more emphasis could be placed on the shift towards technology and service industries over the past few decades, reflecting the current economic landscape.
  • The cultural section could benefit from a discussion on the influence of immigrant cultures on American cuisine, music, and festivals, highlighting the diversity of American cultural practices.
  • Geography mentions physical features but could discuss environmental challenges the US faces, such as climate change impacts on different regions, conservation efforts, and sustainability initiatives.
  • A brief explanation of the Electoral College system could provide readers with a clearer understanding of the presidential election process.
  • Mentions the popularity of American football, basketball, and baseball but could acknowledge the growing interest in soccer, both at a professional level and grassroots participation, reflecting changing sports preferences.

Tom B (talk) 09:15, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Genocide in California

Prominent historians have rebutted the idea that the California Indian Wars constituted genocide.

Benjamin Madley, for his part, has been almost single-handedly responsible for re-branding the conflicts previously known as the “California Indian Wars” as the California Genocide. It is worth remembering that these are conflicts that just over 20 years ago, the authors of the Cambridge History of the Native Peoples of the Americas saw fit to detail without a single reference to the term “genocide.” Madley himself resorts to describing this as a genocide “hidden in plain sight”—i.e. a “genocide” that generations of historians before him had simply failed to notice. With a relentless focus on violent killing, and a reluctance to contextualize the big picture for the purpose of exaggerating an impression of unending massacre, Madley’s account has convinced many a reader that American officials in California were responsible for something in the neighbourhood of 150,000 violent deaths—a number which is likely 10x higher than the true death toll (including war casualties). For example, Madley’s text prompted a professor at UC Hastings named John Briscoe to write an op-ed in the San Francisco Chronicle asserting that: “After 1834… when the native population plummeted from 150,000 to 18,000… Indian hunting was sport for the mostly white gold-seekers and settlers. Indian-hunting raids nearly annihilated the population.” In reality, Madley’s own figures show that “Indian-hunting raids” likely claimed something less than 5% of the 132,000 casualties that Hastings implies in his widely quoted op-ed. Many of the other “missing” Indians might never have existed (i.e. they might be the result of exaggerated population estimates, on which more below). In addition, large numbers will have emigrated to Mexico when the missions were disbanded or when the territory was handed over to the United States, and still others will have assimilated into the US population in various ways. One thing is certain: the nature of our sources requires a caution that the sensationalists singularly lack.

May someone note this on the page? HickTheStick (talk) 12:18, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

NB the "prominent historian" in question originally published this op-ed (outside his area of expertise, medieval Spanish economics) in The Spectator. (§) -- SashiRolls 🌿 · 🍥 01:42, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
You're responding to a single purpose account, @SashiRolls:. Look at the edit history. (I agree that Jeff Fynn-Paul is not a reliable source here.) KlayCax (talk) 14:43, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
(Update: It was a sockpuppet.) KlayCax (talk) 18:05, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

The Lead

I checked back here for the first time in a while. It's really nice to see that it's been shortened so much! Good job all. -- RockstoneSend me a message! 05:46, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

It definitely reads better but it's a giant sea of blue. ...... It's been used as an example of what not to do lately in discussions about accessibility for readers.Moxy🍁 19:10, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Request for edit on type of government.

I've noticed that there's been a change in the type of government on the page. Before it was "federal presidential constitutional republic", now "constitutional" was taken out which is a bad edit. The United States's rule of law is the constitution. To say we aren't constitutional anymore is taking away the true meaning behind the form of government. It's fundamental to our rule of law. I'm not sure if it was a mistake or intentional but putting "constitutional" back in is needed. 208.38.225.183 (talk) 01:00, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:United_States/Archive_111&oldid=1222204248"