Talk:Territorial evolution of the United States/Archive 7

Ratification, re the maritime border between the United States and the Soviet Union
This edit caught my eye; please see the edit summary there for context. I am no expert here, but it occurred to me to wonder whether ratification by the Soviets was necessary. The WP article on that says that ratification is a principal's approval of an act of its agent that lacked the authority to bind the principal legally. I think that the need for such approval needs support if that need is to be asserted here. Without supporting this here, I know that the U.S. makes a distinction between treaties, which need ratification, and executive agreements, which don't. One case where this has become an issue is the Philippines–United States Visiting Forces Agreement (some in the Philippine govt have taken the position that it is invalid because it ought to have been ratified by both governments; some in the U.S. govt have taken the position that the U.S. considers it an executive agreement, not a treaty, and it doesn't need ratification). For WP to presume that Soviet law required this agreement to be ratified without supporting that position (that the Foreign Minister of the USSR, who apparently signed the agreement, lacked the authority to bind the USSR legally) seems a bit, well, presumptuous on the part of the presumer. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:22, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Also, on the merits of the edit itself, if we can't find something on Google about an obscure topic like treaty ratifications, because there is in fact no source saying whether or not the Soviets/Russians ratified the treaty, what exactly is "Johnny Editor" supposed to put? Not mention the lack of knowledge? Don't mention their side of it at all? Instead of criticizing what's there, please tell us what you propose to replace it. Also, a bit irked since this would have been better dealt with if had brought up the subject here first instead of going through the trouble of inserting a citation issue into a featured list that was recently on the front page. I think we've earned that little bit of courtesy. --Golbez (talk) 02:57, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Hey, sorry if I offended you all! I had no idea anyone would ever see what I wrote there- I usually work on minor geography articles that seemingly no one looks at, haha! It was quite an ascerbic remark on my part, and I apologize! haha! Anyway, my criticism is based only on the good-sense notion that ALL things on Wikipedia must be cited. Sometimes editors will add a sentence to a page that they are pretty sure is true, but they don't have a good source for. I think that the sentence is probably in this category. I am not an expert in this field, so if I have made a mistake here, just revert me, or reword my comment!  Thanks for your diligence. Geographyinitiative (talk) 04:31, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I'll apologize too because, I mean, 2020. We're all stressed. Thank you for responding. I like having everything cited, but sometimes that's not possible or reasonable. On the other hand, I do see your point about it being an affirmative statement that something is unknown, implies that it's famously unknown. But this is a case where that's not the case ... in my research I was simply unable to find any ratification from the Soviets/Russians. Maybe it's extraneous information and it shouldn't be there? I don't know. Worth discussing. --Golbez (talk) 04:35, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * My initial comment made in haste here re an edit that irked me in passing re a tangential point re a minor item in a complex article on a topic about which I know little has stirred up more reaction than I expected. Looking at the article, I see that there are a number of instances (I count half a dozen) where "it is not known" is asserted, most not involving ratification and most followed by supporting cites. Looking at one or two of the supporting cites, I see that those involve confirmation of items asserted to have been known, not confirmation of items asserted not to have been known. These seem to have come from this 2016 edit by Golbez, who has weighed in above and who, from looking at that linked edit, appears to know much more about all of this than I. The edit which caused me to raise all this furor added a  to one of these instances. It seems to me that all of these instances ought to be handled similarly rather than a  being added to one of them. Removing the added  doesn't seem to me to be a good solution to this. Hmmm... -- I see that the article has a Notes section; How about removing this particular  and adding a clarifying footnote to this and other instances to the effect that no supporting sources have been found regarding what is asserted there to be not known? I think this might be useful, but I'm reluctant to do this myself lest, in my topical ignorance here, I ham-handedly cause more upset to the article than improvement. Golbez, if you agree, could you perhaps implement this? If not, what do you suggest? Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 08:22, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Constitutional ratification
Why is each state's ratification of the constitution included here? Obviously these are important events, but not relevant to this article. —GoldRingChip 20:48, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Constitutional ratification is seen as the date that a particular state became a member of the current version of the Union. Prior, the states were either independent or members of the predecessor Articles of Confederation. It's a change in status of a territory, and it's just as relevant as the admission of a new state from an existing territory. Astrofreak92 (talk) 20:53, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * That was my thought, yeah. I feel like it extended from my treatment of the Civil War - if I'm considering states/districts to be out if they are expelled from congress, then we should also include when they were added to same. For new states that's obvious, but for the first 13 the state being created and the state ratifying the Constitution were two distinct steps. It was also interesting since Rhode Island waited a full two years after the first 12 to get on board. --Golbez (talk) 21:21, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Didn't those states become "part of the Union" in 1776? Ratification is about adoption of the Constitution, not about the territorial evolution of the US. —GoldRingChip 00:36, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Strictly speaking, in 1776 the individual states were united only in their Declaration of independence from Britain. The wasn't a fully ratified national government until 1781. older ≠ wiser 00:53, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Perhaps. And even so, individual states' constitutional ratifcation really isn't relevant to this article. —GoldRingChip 01:46, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Until they ratified, there was potential for them to become independent from the newly formed union. older ≠ wiser 02:55, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm just looking at this simply, the way a reader might: this article is about territorial evolution. For example, Massachusetts was part of the United States before it ratified the Constitution and that didn't change afterwards.  Let's not include superfluous and irrelevant info. —GoldRingChip 14:07, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Let me put it in this way: Let's say the article started at 1787, as it used to, the ratification of the Constitution. Should we omit Rhode Island from the country? No? So it's part of the country but hasn't accepted the fundamental defining and governing document of the country? That doesn't seem right. This led to a discussion about what the status was of states in between the Declaration of Independence, the ratification of the Articles of Confederation, and the ratification of the Constitution. Since different states had different statuses, a change in that status must be noted. Otherwise it's confusing to the reader. --Golbez (talk) 15:10, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Treaties with sovereign Tribal Nations
This map is nearly silent on treaties with sovereign Tribal Nations. I am not an expert on this subject, and if so included, this should be done right. There are literally hundreds of treaties with over 574 sovereign Indigenous Nations which are all part of the United States and the history therein is relevant to the territorial evolution of the United States. -TenorTwelve (talk) 04:13, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I decided to look for a random one and came across the 1790 treaty with the Creek. It contains specific boundaries, but says that they are between "the citizens of the United States and the Creek Nation". This seems notable; the US was not saying the land was not part of the US, just that US citizens were not permitted. (Of course exemplifying that at the time, natives weren't citizens) But that's an important distinction - it doesn't change the borders of the country, either internally or externally. No state border changed or was even referenced. The top level arrangement is state and territory; Indian treaties and reservations almost exist on top of that, as another layer, but one not really compatible with the goals of this list. States have little to no jurisdiction over native nations, but their borders do not exclude them. Otherwise every map of the US would look much different.
 * I fully agree that the evolution of Indian treaties and borders should be handled, but I don't think this is the correct place for it. --Golbez (talk) 17:48, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Water Island
Our article at Water Island, U.S. Virgin Islands states: "While the rest of the Danish West Indies were purchased by the United States in 1917, Water Island was not purchased by the U.S. until June 19, 1944, when it was purchased for $10,000 to protect the submarine base on Saint Thomas during World War II."

However, the treaty ceding the Virgin Islands states, "His Majesty the King of Denmark by this convention cedes to the United States all territory, dominion and sovereignty, possessed, asserted or claimed by Denmark in the West Indies including the Islands of Saint Thomas, Saint John and Saint Croix together with the adjacent islands and rocks.". "all territory... claimed by Denmark" would seem to include Water Island, and even if not, it's not specifically omitted and one would think it would count as an "adjacent island" to St. Thomas.

I also cannot find any primary government sources on a 1944 purchase, and very few on a 1996 handover. I don't doubt they happened - what I do doubt is that it was somehow a change in status.

The article presents history thus:
 * The USVI were bought from Denmark in 1917 except for Water Island;
 * Water Island was bought in 1944;
 * and transferred to the USVI in 1996.

What I'm starting to think happened was:
 * The USVI (including Water Island) were bought from Denmark in 1917; Water Island remained privately owned.
 * The US government bought Water Island to turn it into a coastal garrison, but this doesn't mean it had to be bought from a foreign power - the government buys American land all the time.
 * In 1996, it no longer being needed for defense, responsibility was transferred from Interior to the territorial government.

Based solely on the wording of the treaty and the lack of proper contemporary sourcing, it seems to be original research to say anything other than the US obtained Water Island in 1917 with the rest of the Virgin Islands, and that there should be no mentions of this situation in the article, except perhaps as a "some people are mistaken about when this happened" footnote.

Does anyone have any thoughts on this? --Golbez (talk) 20:03, 14 January 2022 (UTC)


 * I think you may be right that sovereignty transferred to US in 1917 treaty and what happened in 1944 was a wartime purchase of private property which was then transferred from the military in 1996. Of course, without any sources it remains speculative. older ≠ wiser 20:10, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
 * This doesn't mention prior ownership, but makes no mention of any negotiations with foreign powers. older ≠ wiser 20:15, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
 * This hearing in the 82nd Congress says much the same. older ≠ wiser 20:24, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
 * That Congressional hearing suggests the military may have transferred its interest to Interior in 1951 or 1952. Perhaps 1996 was a transfer from Interior to territorial control. older ≠ wiser 20:36, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
 * This Moon travel guide looks like a contributing source to the conception Water Island was first acquired by the US in 1944. Although it perhaps misconstrues concepts of sovereignty with private ownership. There's no reason to assume that because it was privately owned by the Danish East Asiatic Company in 1917 that it was excluded from the treaty. older ≠ wiser 20:43, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
 * This Dept of Interior publication is interesting. It states "Original ownership by the United States began in June 1944" -- but again this is ownership of property not territorial sovereignty. older ≠ wiser 20:47, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
 * This 1979 report is of particular interest It says the US government acquired the island in 1944 for $10,000 in through condemnation procedures. I do not think such a procedure could be used on territory in which it did not have sovereignty. older ≠ wiser 20:57, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
 * In addition, a commenter pointed out here in 2008 that, "Denmark was occupied by Germany in 1944. We didn't have a government, and there was no referendum about the sale." Jeff in CA (talk) 23:29, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Military occupation of Germany & Austria
Considering the annexations of the Philippines, the Panama Canal Zone, Pacific islands during WWII, etc. are included here, should these maps include the U.S. occupation zone in Germany from 1945-49? The zone included Bavaria, Hesse, Bremen, and northern Württemberg-Baden (more details on the relevant article) along with a part of Berlin. This could be dated from either May 8, 1945 (the date of German surrender) or June 5, 1945 (the date of the Berlin Declaration), and would end on May 23, 1945 (when the Basic Law came into effect).

If this were added, the article should also include the similar occupation zones of Austria. The American zone contained Salzburg, part of Upper Austria, and part of Vienna. It ended on July 27, 1955 with the Austrian State Treaty. SwensonJ (talk) 18:42, 12 June 2022 (UTC)


 * These are already listed under the section former U.S. military occupations. The U.S. never made any claim of sovereignty over territory in Europe unlike The Philippines and Panama Canal Zone. older ≠ wiser 20:02, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
 * As I've stated in reply to User:Golbez, in retrospect I do think it's better to look at this article from a civilian rather than military point of view. I don't see the section you're referring to in the article but do you think something on former military occupations would be beneficial or would perhaps be better on a different page? SwensonJ (talk) 17:03, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I somehow got articles mixed up. I meant the section in . As these were never considered to be territorial acquisitions by the U.S. except in a temporary custodial sense, I don't see any reason to include them in the territorial evolution of the U.S. older ≠ wiser 17:13, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
 * No problem, thanks for directing me to that section. As this is an article dealing with civilian territory I admit that such a list is probably not needed here. SwensonJ (talk) 00:36, 21 June 2022 (UTC)


 * The Philippines, Canal Zone, and Trust Territories were formally annexed/acquired, had civilian governance, and (apart from Canal Zone) they mark their independence as from the United States. Wartime occupation zones are explicitly omitted, because, first: That opens the door to a lot of chaotic [but interesting] questions, like: What about Okinawa? What about Iraq and Afghanistan? What about Cuba, Nicaragua, Haiti, etc.? The only sane way was to only include areas annexed in a civil fashion, and ignore military movements entirely.
 * But the better reason is, it goes against the spirit of the article, which is: At any given moment, how would the United States define itself? I think that, if you asked the United States as an entity in 1945 if it included the Philippines, it would say yes; if you asked if it included the Austrian occupation zone, it would say no, that it was just military occupying it. It was never included in American civil structure, no citizenship or nationality was conferred upon people there (unlike the Philippines, who by birth became U.S. nationals), there was never any consideration of staying longer than needed, etc.
 * This kind of article is impossible to fully please everyone, the earlier versions attest to that. The best method was to pick a very specific, narrow idea: How would the U.S. define itself? And while one could say it would include the others, I don't think the U.S. would ever claim that southern Germany was in any way part of the country.
 * I like the question and it's certainly interesting, but I think belongs in a different article, not this one. --Golbez (talk) 16:22, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
 * You've made some good points. I admit I wasn't really thinking about how the "spirit" of the article and I think you framed it nicely. I do wonder if it would be beneficial to list various military occupations in a new section on this page, without maps, or if that would be better handled on a separate page. SwensonJ (talk) 17:00, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Don't we already have articles listing military occupations? --Golbez (talk) 19:31, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
 * In fact we do. As older ≠ wiser helpfully pointed out above, the article Territories of the United States contains a section covering this topic. As this article deals with civil rather than military occupation, I admit that it's probably not the place for such a list. SwensonJ (talk) 00:34, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Why are the Cook Islands part of this article?
Forgive me if I don't know the answer, but why are changes to the status of the Cook Islands included in this article? They were never part of the United States, right? Tinmanic (talk) 03:45, 20 August 2022 (UTC)


 * The United States claimed several islands that are now part of the Cook Islands under the Guano Islands Act. So when the status of the islands changed, the nature of the entity disputing the U.S. claim on the atolls of Pukapuka, Manihiki, Penrhyn, and Rakahanga changed as well.Astrofreak92 (talk) 16:10, 20 August 2022 (UTC)


 * I understand the question, and gosh it used to be worse (in the early version I had to include changes to surrounding countries because my maps included them, which is why the current version has the US in a featureless void), but it makes sense if you look at just the entries that involve them:
 * Feb 8 1860: The US makes a guano island claim on Pukapuka, Manihiki, Penrhyn, and Rakahanga
 * Oct 26 1888: The United Kingdom annexes them as part of the Cook Islands, thus causing a dispute between the US and UK.
 * Aug 4 1965: The Cook Islands are transferred from the UK to New Zealand, thus meaning the dispute is now between the US and New Zealand.
 * Sept 8 1983: The US abandons its claim
 * So the thing is, if I left out the bit of 1965, when they were transferred from the UK to New Zealand, it would be confusing to the reader if I said "the UK claimed them, and then we recognized New Zealand's ownership". That changed the nature of the international disputes involving the United States, so it was relevant.
 * My goal with this list was when I randomly had the question, "what did the US look like on [some random day]", and I found out that didn't really exist. But that also includes the international disputes. I can't say "a dispute started with the UK" and not note that, in 1965, the dispute ended with the UK and began with New Zealand, thus necessitating an entry in the list. --Golbez (talk) 22:48, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Too Much Copy Of Images
There are lots of images that some of them are a copy of them and the title is disputes what is this I've never seen this before can someone change this so I can better understand what it is explained 2A01:E0A:AAF:AB40:31D0:440:25D:B753 (talk) 21:31, 11 November 2022 (UTC)