Talk:United States/Archive 42

Important military section addition
The military(probably or other) section should get the following(or something similar to achieve): "Second Amendment to the United States Constitution gives the right for every USA citizen to keep and bear weapons to defend themselves and country. Also United States is one of the countries with highest gun possesion rate."

Reason for include:
 * Last years Court decisions.
 * Not changing this article from beginning of the state.
 * Similar info about gun law in other article - for e.g. Andora article have that there is not only the right, but a "must have" of one rifle at every home.
 * Importance for USA culture, and seeing of this country abroad.
 * Other countries(like Pakistan, or Czech Republic) introduced similar laws, basing on USA experience.


 * . This article is not the place for that. That should go in something concerning laws of the US or constitution, etc. Not here. gwickwire &#124; Leave a message 00:48, 19 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Should have be done. Why? Reasons not only above - nearly every part of this article include link to some amendment. For e.g. religion section have link to First amendment. If You don't want to do this, all links to amendments should be also deleted - e.g. that first, religion amendment.
 * ✅ Next time reopen the above edit request. I am not opposed to adding only a link to the second ammendment. Therefore, I will go look if one's there, and if not I will add it. Thanks. gwickwire &#124; Leave a message 03:06, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Edit suggested
In the second paragraph in the intro, "Indian allies" should be changed to "Native American allies," both for clarity and because it is read by people who are not familiar with the term Indian being used for NAs. France should be linked to France in the American Revolutionary War.

Unlike industrial or commercial development, military development of the US was not significant, especially to something that can be called globally powerful, before the mobilization of entire societies for the war effort which was a new phenomenon in WWI. The US also had not significantly engaged in any global conflicts, participation limited to suppression of the Boxar Uprising along with many European nations, the Barbary Wars, and the War of 1812. The Barbary Wars gave the US legitimacy as a military power but not a global military power. It wasn't a global military power comparable to the United Kingdom or France. So "The Spanish–American War and World War I confirmed the country's status as a global military power." should be changed to "established the country's..."

Qmuhgit47583 (talk) 14:53, 13 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I actually prefer "Amerindian" for clarity over "Native American", since a native American can be anyone born in America, but both "Native American" and "Indian" already appear in the article. The latter makes sense in the context of the recently finished French and Indian War, but the former is used more often on the current page, so there probably wouldn't be a problem if you changed it.  On your second point I lean toward "confirmed" since it's not clear cut precisely when the US achieved this "status". The power to flex geopolitical muscle predates actually doing it.  There was a sense around the world that America was a rising major power long before the Spanish-American War, and indeed the US GDP had grown into the world's largest decades earlier. Your points are well taken though, and frankly I think either is fine.VictorD7 (talk) 19:22, 13 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I think the point of question is in the interpretation of the term "global military power." One interpretation is that in order to be a global military power, a country must have a global military presence or engagements, regardless of how powerful its military is. So with these criteria, Britain and France will be global military powers in the 19th century, and to a lesser extent, Spain, Portugal, Germany, the Netherlands, and the Russian and Ottoman empires for their sizes, navies, and control of waterways, but not Austria and the subsequent Austria-Hungary. By all consensus, Austria and subsequent Austria-Hungary was a major European industrial and military powers. But the Austrian Empire and subsequent Austria-Hungary had no global military or colonial presence at all. I think that the reason why it is not considered to have been a global military power is because it had no global military presence or engagements.


 * Another interpretation of global military power of a nation will be the power of its standing army and navy, regardless of whether they had engaged in any global engagements or any engagements at all. The capability to engage globally will depend heavily on the strength of the navy and global military presence which is made possible by extensive colonies. In this interpretation, although Prussia and the subsequent German Empire were more powerful militarily in Europe after Prussia's victory in the Franco-Prussian War, France was a more powerful global military power because it had greater capability to act globally because of a larger navy and a greater global military presence because of its more extensive colonies. I actually don't know whether the United States can be called a global military power in the 19th century under this interpretation because I don't know how large or powerful the American navy was in the century.


 * It will be great to have the thoughts of others on whether the Spanish-American War "confirmed" or "established" the US's position as a "global military power." After the war, the US engaged on its own overseas, in Philippine–American War, which it had not done since the Barbary Wars. Because of this, and because I interpret "global military power" of a country as having global military presence or engagements, not capability of it, or military power with limited global capability, I support the Spanish-American War and WWI "established" the US's position as a global military power.


 * On the point of whether "Amerindian," "Native American," or "Indian" allies of Great Britain in the American Revolution should be used in the intro, I support "Native American" for reason of clarity because its expected that this article intro has a largely international readership. The English article on the United States was the 10th most visited Wikipedia page in 2010, and mostly an international audience has interest in reading the article on the United States. So many readers will not be familiar with the term "Indian" being used for Native Americans and will be confused, even if the French and Indian War is mentioned, making clarity very important in the intro to this article, so region-specific or possibly confusing terms should be avoided. As for "Amerindian," its a good but mostly an academic term, and it's very awkward to say "Amerindian allies of Great Britain."


 * By the way, I'm not an autoconfirmed user, so I can't make any edits to this article myself. So if any consensus in support of an edit is reached, please just make the edit for me. Thanks :)

Qmuhgit47583 (talk) 07:52, 14 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Again, I don't oppose your changes, and "established" might even sound better, but because I find this discussion interesting I'll cite one counterpoint to the "global power" argument being the gradual nature of America's rise. It's not like it happened overnight. Commodore Perry sailed a fleet to Japan in the 1850s with armaments that impressed and intimidated the previously almost entirely closed off country into signing treaties and opening up trade with the west, particularly the US. Decades earlier the Monroe Doctrine forbidding European intervention in the Americas implied at least hemispheric power, even if the doctrine's success owed more to quiet British endorsement in the early years. US forces did intimidate the French into abandoning their attempt to rule Mexico once the distracting American Civil War ended.VictorD7 (talk) 22:41, 14 October 2012 (UTC)


 * - The U.S. is ESTABLISHED as a world power in the last half of the 19th Century with the military “presence and engagements” aforesaid, plus negotiations and humanitarian relief associated with the European, Pacific, and Asiatic Squadrons, powered by numbers of steam powered iron-clad, sea-going warships comparable to British and French referred to above in their reach, numbers, capacity and engagements.
 * - a) European Squadron (1865-1905), 1882 Second Anglo-Egyptian War and others,
 * - b) Pacific Squadron (1865-1907), 1870 anti-piracy in Mexican waters, 1874 Oahu, 1887 First Samoan Civil War,
 * - c) Asiatic Squadron (1868-1902), 1871 Korean Expedition at Inchon.
 * - The U.S. is CONFIRMED as a world power in the Spanish American War and the subsequent related international treaties including accession of territories in the Caribbean Sea and Pacific Ocean.
 * - Reference above to the 1900 Boxer Rebellion is an incomplete characterization of the U.S. in the 19th Century, when it was an established "world power" by the 1870s. Unlike, say, the Austria-Hungarian Empire alluded to, although I think I should see Christopher Plummer in the Sound of Music again soon. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:04, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

At the very bottom of the article, the caption under Phelps should say "most decorated Olympian of all time".. Not "most decorated Olympic of all time" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.4.195.72 (talk) 11:08, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Addition to the Law enforcement
Should be changed to something similar: "There were 5.0 murders per 100,000 persons in 2009, 10.4% fewer than in 2000. (In 2000 Federal Assault Weapons Ban was in force, after expiring crime ratio gone down).
 * Secondly if somebody known other statistics than official FBI it should be also included to achieve NPOV(For e.g. in UK the sites like: http://www.citizensreportuk.org/reports/murders-fatal-violence-uk.html include both ways of counting deaths).
 * I don't known if and how to include there or in other article, but to achieve full neutrality examples of UK maybe good or not(generally UK is the island, and small country today, and laws vary esp. from "most open" Northern Ireland to "arrest for bread knife" in England).
 * Depending on above - the good example after writing like in article "high levels of gun violence and homicide." should be added that for e.g. in UK "sharp blades" are one of the biggest reason of murder. Why this example is important? Just because current weapon law in this example (UK mainland) prohibits from 1990s possession of ANY sharp blade on street(also peppers spray, electric paralyzers etc.). People are arrested for just using butter knife on the street, before/after/during work, in order to make a bread with butter and ham.
 * This is just not talking - it's to show the differences between gun definition-> statistics(which should be strictly written on encyclopedia articles) and related with this gun debate. And also it's strange but in this article lacks other examples of violence. For e.g. imagine something like central London robberies last year in central Houston/Dallas.

. What should be changed to what? Please format edit requests as "please change 'x' to 'y' because (reason)", that way I can make the corect change the first time. You will also need to provide reliable, valid sources to substantiate any edit request you make. gwickwire &#124; Leave a message 17:42, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 25 October 2012
Drives on the	right should be "Drives on the left"

122.183.234.146 (talk) 17:41, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * - As per common knowledge and as per sources say right hand side. - ... - 17:45, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Into: territories -- political v. geographic

 * - The intro is paragraphed to separate the political description from the geographic, links to territories brought up to their first mention.
 * - The note observes the distinction between citizen inhabitants and nations from a .gov source.
 * - The note shows the political inclusion of the populations in the U.S., "All territories are generally excluded for census and geographic area calculations regardless of their populations, although they and the District of Columbia are represented in the U.S. Congress with one delegate each, and both major parties represent them in their quadrennial national conventions apportioned as though they were states." TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:48, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
 * It seems odd to go into (even minimal) detail on what is probably a minor aspect of US nationality law in the second sentence of such a major article. I would suggest a slight change to "...consisting of fifty states and a federal district, as well as several territories in the Pacific Ocean and Caribbean.[6]" The specifics could then be incorporated into the footnote.  IgnorantArmies  – 11:27, Sunday October 28, 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Done. Elements reunited in the same paragraph in 4-para Intro. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:59, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

There is an error in this edit, as the nation does not consist of fifty states, a federal district, and the scattered territories. They are possessions of it, not part of it. The nation consists of fifty states, a federal district, and one incorporated territory. Due to the factual error introduced, the above is just an attempt to correct it, I have provisionally reverted back to before VirginiaHistorian added it. The citizenship does not need to be dealt with in the info, any more than the existence of Palmyra Atoll needs to be dealt with in the intro (apparently). If people think it's important to reference in the very second sentence then we can obtain consensus on it before continuing. --Golbez (talk) 15:21, 28 October 2012 (UTC)


 * - There is no consensus to equate citizens and nationals in a republic, to seagulls on an uninhabited atoll. The U.S. Congress represents people from places in states, a federal district and territories.
 * - The sentences says, the U.S. “is a federal republic consisting of”, and that republic represents people living in states, a district, and territories -- where people are represented in the republic, they are of what it consists. The republic is people.
 * - There are now two editors who argue from the grounds that the republic is people, versus one who would equate Puerto Rico with the Palmyra Atoll, when the people in Puerto Rico would outnumber the five smallest states, were it a state. On what grounds might U.S. citizens of Puerto Rico be excluded and not the U.S. citizens of the five smallest states?
 * - If it is to be "states" only, on what grounds can the U.S. citizens of the federal district be included? Is Puerto Rico really equivalent to Palmyra Atoll? The U.S. "possesses" states, a federal district and territory all in the same way. The U.S. is made up of equal "citizens" in three kinds of places. The article can describe the republic as people in places using a parallel sentence construction for "states", "federal district" and "territories". TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 21:34, 28 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Simply put, unincorporated territories are not part of the country. The republic does not consist of them. They are possessions of it, but in no way are they *part* of the country, any more than Man or Gibraltar are part of the United Kingdom. The United States of America consists of fifty states, a federal district, and an incorporated territory which, due to its geopolitical, societal, and demographic insignificance, can be safely omitted from most mentions. I never equated Puerto Rico with Palmyra, because Puerto Rico is a possession of the United States whereas Palmyra Atoll is part of it. That the government of the United States has granted citizenship to people from a land that is not part of the United States does not change the definition of the United States, though it is obviously worthy of mention. It's been generally uncontroversial around here for years that the territories are not part of the U.S., so it will warrant substantial discussion and consensus before statements saying so are placed into the article. --Golbez (talk) 22:28, 28 October 2012 (UTC)


 * - If we adopt “incorporated” versus “unincorporated” into the U.S., well, you have a mastery of geography, which I have acknowledged on another page. I made allowance for the "incorporated-unincorporated" framework by noting the exclusion of territory in calculations of U.S. area and census counts. Nevertheless, - possessions are part of a country except in a highly technical sense of jurisprudence not referenced in this article, following the link defines "incorporated" as a business, so the "incorporated" paradigm cannot have been the basis of editor consensus here. Commonwealths are not "insignificant". - Gibraltar is not represented in Parliament as Puerto Rico is in Congress. Omissions and oversights present in Wikipedia articles can be readily amended in its collegial processes.


 * - Another way of looking at U.S. territory has (a) the commonwealths of Puerto Rico and the Northern Mariana Islands, (b) the organized territories of American Samoa, Guam and U.S. Virgin Islands. These are the regions I would like to include in the political description at the top, not buried behind a geographic description of the Hawaiian archipelago in a way which confounds U.S. commonwealths and U.S. organized territories with U.S. Congressional representation and four lesser relationships to the U.S. Congress.
 * - The three lesser “territories” of the article as it is now written are (a) unorganized territories of Baker, Howland, Kingman Reef, Jarvis, Johnston, Midway, Palmyra and Wake Islands, (b) a form of “custodial” territory such as Okinawa before reversion to Japan, (c) Guantanamo Bay until the lease is up, and(d) the U.S. embassies around the world, were never a part of my analysis.
 * - So, Intro sentence #1: The U,S. “is a federal constitutional republic consisting of fifty states and a federal district. It has two commonwealths, two organized territories and other possessions. The country is situated mostly in … “. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 01:50, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * That's one way of organizing the unincorporated territories, but it doesn't change the fact that they are unincorporated territories. And I see no reason to give time to a simple matter of terminology (commonwealth vs territory) in the intro, any more than we would indicate that four states term themselves commonwealths. FYI, while this has no bearing on the intro since no one here is arguing Palmyra be included, but Palmyra is definitely not equal in status in any way to Baker, Howland, etc. Unlike those, it is permanently an integral part of the United States (and has been since Hawaii Territory became incorporated), under the jurisdiction of its constitution. The constitution applies to the territories only to the extent that Congress decides it does. That is the fundamental practical difference. --Golbez (talk) 02:55, 29 October 2012 (UTC)


 * - The problem with me arguing with you given our history, is that you know as soon as you argue from the priority of Congress as “the First branch” of the Constitution, you have me half-way to your side. -- You leave me with three points -- if you will allow me, as they say:
 * - 1) MOVE A SENTENCE. paragraph organization, the Intro fifth sentence, describing the composition of the U.S., “The country also possesses several territories in the Pacific and Caribbean.” is descriptive of the United States and its possessions, including inhabitants who are citizens and nationals.
 * ---As such – as written -- it belongs adjacent to the first sentence describing the composition of the U.S. as fifty states and a federal district.
 * - 2) ADD A SENTENCE. paragraph organization, the Intro third sentence, “the state of Alaska…” and fourth, “The state of Hawaii …” describe its expanse on the globe. That seems way too [westerly] an emphasis, omitting the northeastern-most, easternmost and southernmost should also be included.
 * --- The northeast is at St. John’s River, Maine, Bay of Fundy, the eastern-most is Nantucket, Massachusetts, and the southeastern-most is Key West, Florida.
 * --- [also southernmost -- BTW - it is Key West which is 90 miles from Havana, Cuba, then another 120 miles north to “the coast of Florida” along the Overseas Highway, so often mentioned in accounts of the Cuban missile crisis, that is the USG "90" miles is 210 miles for sailors searching for a coastline versus landfall.]
 * - 3) REPLACE A SENTENCE. If you can come so far along with me as to say, “The constitution applies to the territories only to the extent that Congress decides it does. That is the fundamental practical difference.” – could you not take one step further -- and allow that,
 * -- since the Congress makes a distinction among territories as commonwealths, organized territories -- allowing self-government by its territorial citizens and nationals seldom found in any political subdivision found anywhere else in the world – whether those governed live in geographically unincorporated OR incorporated places,
 * --- we should enumerate those distinctive descriptive classes of territories as created by Congress for the international reader, as – “It has two commonwealths, two organized territories and other possessions.” TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:28, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The way you put that, though, it's making it appear as though the commonwealths aren't organized. I don't think we need to go into that much detail on the composition of the territories in the intro, that can go further down. --Golbez (talk) 13:30, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * - Okay, table the commonwealths in our discussion. How about move-a-sentence and add-a-sentence, #1 and #2 above? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:57, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Well I don't know what the #2 bit is really for, that seems more for another discussion on how to describe the country, and this is mainly about how to describe the territories. As for #1, I agree, and it used to be adjacent I believe. "The country has 50 states. It also possesses several territories." seems like a quality way of doing it. --Golbez (talk) 15:31, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * - As we concurred to move-a-sentence, it's done. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 20:50, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Gosh, now that I look at it, it just seems wrong now. I hadn't realized it would split a subject - we say it consists of 50 states, then say where those 50 states are, then add the bit about territories. I guess I thought there was more room between the concepts. It seems odd to say "The country has 50 states. It also has territories in the caribbean." without saying where those states are to begin with. I'll revert it for now because my previous support was based on an improper notion of what was there. I guess I should read it first every time. --Golbez (talk) 04:15, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * - Okay, territorial placement in the article lead sentence is now dropped from the first polity description per your editorial direction. In the next talk section I tried to weave both our viewpoints, geographic and political, into one paragraph which is both more concise for the introductory first paragraph, and more descriptive since detail is consigned to notes. -- it's terrible that "incorporated" can mean one thing geographically, another politically and another commercially. -- The draft below is written off the top of my head, so fact-checking is an absolute must. Please don't leave me now. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:01, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Intro first paragraph
Here is the next draft of the intro first paragraph. The Alaska-Hawaii corners can be filled out as four-corners and reduced to a note as the detail is too much for an introductory paragraph. ["possessions" substituting for "territories" disagreed to in draft #2] [[four-corners disagreed to, removed in draft #3 for conciseness]. [tighten up paragraph organization: introduce the people first, the places second in draft #4.]

DRAFT INSERT - # 4
 * The United States of America (commonly called the United States, the U.S., the USA, America, and the States) is a federal constitutional republic consisting of over 314 million people principally residing in fifty states. U.S. citizens in the federal district and five other territories in the geographic United States have delegates in the U.S. Congress representing 4.5 million. It maintains special political relationships through Compacts of Free Association with two United Nations members and one foreign dependency together numbering 170,000. It is one of the world's most ethnically diverse and multicultural nations, the product of large-scale immigration from many countries. The U.S. is situated mostly in central North America, where its forty-eight contiguous states and Washington, D.C., the capital district, lie between the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans, bordered by Canada to the north and Mexico to the south. Alaska lies west of Canada, Hawaii lies in the mid-Pacific Ocean. Other territory is found in the western Pacific and the Caribbean Sea. The country possesses nine uninhabited islands. At 3.79 million square miles (9.83 million km2), the United States is the third- or fourth-largest country by total area, and the third-largest by both land area and population.

DRAFT INSERT - # 4


 * The U.S. Constitution now extends uniformly to all territory in its sovereign control since 1952 -- unlike the colonial people of the Philippines in 1904 -- and people in those places with Compacts of Free Association are awarded standing in U.S. courts as U.S. citizens in the 21st century - TVH. All notes removed in an intro paragraph per editorial collaboration.

This draft concisely describes the people of the United States (a) in the three kinds of polities that compose the U.S. territory -- states, places represented by delegates,and uninhabited, (b) locates all territory, both states and other territories, and (c) conveys the unique self-governance of U.S. dependent states under "Compacts of Free Association". Then it describes the places of the United States. -- The word count is less code, readable text is shorter. The draft requires fact check. Golbez, please. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:33, 30 October 2012 (UTC), and TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 31 October 2012 for draft #3. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:47, 1 November 2012 (UTC) 1 November 2012 for draft #4.


 * It does not consist of possessions. I don't understand why this has become an issue; the United States consists of fifty states, a federal district, and one incorporated territory. Period. Everything else is additional possessions that are not part of the country but controlled by it. Also, "geographically incorporated and unincorporated, inhabited and uninhabited" You are throwing a lot of words at the reader that are unlinked and make no sense. We don't even need to get into Palmyra in the intro, so the distinction between incorporated and unincorporated is completely extraneous, as, really, is the distinction between inhabited and uninhabited. As for the notes, again, in the intro there is no need whatsoever, in text or in references, to go into such specifics about the geography. We have a geography section to explain the exact dimensions of the country, there's no need to bring up Maine, Florida, etc. The party conventions are 100% irrelevant to how integrated a territory is, and 150% irrelevant to the intro. Again, we have an entire article below the intro to deal with the specifics of these issues. --Golbez (talk) 16:21, 30 October 2012 (UTC)


 * - well, I'm trying to draft an introduction which reflects the United States, which uses summary language, and trying to get your concurrence. A draft using "territories" did not pass muster your approval, so I tried "possessions", which is also unsatisfactory, though no references are forthcoming on your part. The first paragraph is too long, so the draft is shorter to the reader's eye. I will take as your collegial contribution at this point, that there should be no footnotes in the introduction? Since then, I've done a little research for sources.
 * - The U.S. State Department says several "dependencies" are part of the geographical definition of the "United States" and they acquire U.S. citizenship at birth on the same terms as persons born in other parts of the United States. The incorporated and unincorporated distinction was a Supreme Court holding in 1904, which does not apply to current law since 1952, the Section 101 (a)(38) of the Immigration and Naturalization Act as explained in the State Department Foreign Affairs Manual 7.
 * The first paragraph of the introduction needs to address three classes of U.S. territory and a special political relationship. The U.S. territory is composed of three classes
 * - (a) 50 states.
 * - (b) U.S. citizens represented in the United States Congress by non-voting delegates within the geographic definition of the U.S., administered under the U.S. Constitution, in the District of Columbia 618,000, Guam 159,400, Northern Mariana Islands 53,900, Puerto Rico 3,706,700, Virgin Islands 106,400. American Samoa 55,500 of U.S. nationals also has a delegate.
 * - (c) U.S. administered uninhabited possessions from Washington, DC which are uninhabited but for employees of the U.S. government: Baker Island 0, Howland Island 0, Jarvis island 0, Johnston Atoll 0-315, Kingman Reef 0, Midway Islands 0-40, Navassa Island 0, Palmyra Atoll 0-42, Wake Island 0.
 * - Also deserving of note are (d) Three political relationships with independent states by “Compacts of Free Association”. Two are represented in the United Nations Republic of the Marshall Islands 54,300 and Federated States of Micronesia 102,800. The foreign nationals of the Republic of Palau 21,000.
 * - I started off remembering the "Imperialism-at-the-turn-of-the century" critique of an undergraduate history professor, with its dated "unincorporated" paradigm for the "little brown brothers" overseas -- which I always found morally repugnant, and now I discover -- it no longer has the force of law. For my part, I'm not sure I have arrived at a "period" to my study on this topic yet. The draft above now reflects your critique to delete detail and references in notes, and my sourced research based on the 1952 legislation as re-enacted and administered by the U.S. State Department in 2012. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 23:28, 30 October 2012 (UTC)


 * - @Golbez, who says, "I don't understand why this has become an issue." -- I find the introductory paragraph for the article about 'we the people' of the United States UNsatisfactory as I find it, that's why.
 * - I cannot write a good paragraph to replace it without trying out first-ideas and having you temper them -- not 'moderate', you know, temper like hammering red-hot iron against an anvil to give it purposeful shape. You bring a depth of background and a bold critical sharpness evaluating anything I do anywhere at Wikipedia. Yeah, Golbez-the-blacksmith, the hammer at his forge.
 * - I trust you can see improvement on my part over time. I certainly do -- and I will probably be off-line before your are. It's not to say you don't sting sometimes. But I believe I am a better editor for the experience. Not sure how this one will turn out, but I am personally glad to be set free of the "Amerika" imperialism framework of the anti-Vietnam scholarship from the 1960s that I COULD NOT HAVE GAINED without your prodding me into research into current state department documents, now available and searchable online in a way they were not, even two years ago.
 * - I do not want to leave out 4.5 millions of us -- as an afterthought for further down in the article narrative, as somehow not really United States. They live outside states, but within U.S. sovereign territory and represented in the U.S. Congress. They cannot be excluded just because General Jacob H. Smith -- since he was acting outside the U.S. Constitution in "unincorporated" territory on non-U.S. citizens -- he could order the massacre of all boys and men over the age of 10 in an entire Philippine province. Thankfully, the U.S. Congress relieved him from the field, recalling him to Washington to face an investigation. He was the only general officer of the U.S. military in all of American history ever to be so humiliated, and rightfully so. Governor-General William Howard Taft, the first civilian to that post in the Philippines, did much to heal relationships between the peoples. Taft secured a second 'commissioner' for Congressional representation due to their large population, and phrasing from his reforms are found in the Compacts of Free Association with the United States governing dependent peoples in the western Pacific region today.
 * - The 4.5 millions living in U.S. territory should not be excluded from an article introduction on the United States. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:03, 31 October 2012 (UTC)


 * There's the thing: 4.5 million people, thousands of square miles, are excluded. They are not included in the population; they are not included in the area; this is because they are not part of the country. You can appeal to emotion all you like, but it doesn't change that fundamental fact. The CIA does not include PR, etc. in its numbers, most sources don't. PR is a separate entity that falls under the American sphere of influence and control, with limited and revokable representation in the government. Any mention of it has to be in addition to a mention of the country itself, rather than integrated in to said mention. And I don't think literally two sentences later counts as "an afterthought ... in the article narrative". --Golbez (talk) 15:38, 31 October 2012 (UTC)


 * - The people in the entire “United States” sovereign territory, states, and delegate-represented districts, are the United States. They are “native” U.S. citizens, they are “under the protection” of the entire U.S. Constitution, they are represented in the U.S. Congress, and they are acknowledged as part of the “geographical extent” of the U.S. by (a) the U.S. State Department, (b) the U.S. Census, and (c) the CIA. They include Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands (U.S.), Northern Marianas, Guam ,and American Samoa are non-citizen nationals with the rights of U.S. citizens.


 * - See | U.S. Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual Volume 7- Consular Affairs, 7 FAM 1121,2,3,4,5 - Sec.1- Current Law for each. viewed October 31, 2012. “As of 1952, according to the U.S. State Department, the U.S. five dependencies listed as part of the geographical definition of the ‘United States’ in Section 101 (a)(38) of the Immigration and Naturalization Act."
 * - See | U.S. Statistical Abstract. viewed October 31, 2012. “Anyone born in the United States, Puerto Rico, or a U.S. Island Area (such as Guam), or born abroad to a U.S. citizen parent is a U.S. citizen at the time of birth and consequently included in the native population. “ (p.6) Section 29, “Puerto Rico and the Island Areas”, p.815. “This section presents summary economic and social statistics for Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and the Northern Mariana Islands.”
 * - See | Dependent Listings CIA World Factbook viewed October 31, 2012. The CIA assigns to the United States (and to no other sovereignty) “American Samoa … Guam … Northern Mariana Islands … Puerto Rico … Virgin Islands … [and nine uninhabited islands]”. [The US] entered into [“political union”] with the Northern Mariana Islands … [and Compacts of Free Association with] the Republic of the Marshall Islands; the Federated States of Micronesia); [and] Palau."
 * - Now, for your contention that “most sources” and the CIA support your claim, CAN you now counter with like authority, the three sources I have laid out, including a CIA source superior to the “Factbook” for the CIA cite linked which supports my position. Is “most” one more than a majority for Wikipedia purposes? Then cite five reliable sources for inspection below. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 20:41, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * "they are “under the protection” of the entire U.S. Constitution" No they aren't. This is in fact the fundamental difference. In an unincorporated territory, the U.S. constitution applies solely to the extent that Congress decides it does. In an incorporated portion of the country (that is to say, presently, the fifty states, federal district, and Palmyra Atoll) the entirety of the constitution applies in perpetuity.
 * The U.S. has sovereignty over the territories; this is not in dispute. Having undisputed sovereignty over a region does not make it part of your country, formal annexation is required. So for the CIA to say that is simple fact. Does the CIA include Puerto Rico in the area of the United States? Why not? Furthermore, they make it clear to include the information on French Guiana, etc. in the data on France but exclude New Caledonia. That's listed under 'dependent areas' instead. Like how Puerto Rico is listed as a dependency of the U.S.
 * My points are backed up repeatedly, by consensus and logic and fact (as seen above about the constitution applying to the unincorporated territories) as well as information and sourcing on articles like insular laws and unincorporated territory. This is not just between you and me, after all - it is between you and consensus, which is presently on my side by simple virtue of silence. So I welcome anyone else who wants to chime in. --Golbez (talk) 21:21, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * - That is to say, there are no sources to support your view -- only vigorous logical reassertion of a dated 1904 category of exclusion for Emilio Aguinaldo which has been superseded by U.S. law since mid-20th century for 4.5 million people in the United States.
 * - The reliable sources for inclusion are the U.S. Congress, U.S. State Department, U.S. Census and CIA -- including use of the word "union" as it is used in the United States by the CIA for the Commonwealth of Northern Mariana Islands. I believe you reference above, that this 'commonwealth' has the equivalent meaning as 'commonwealth' in the United States as that used for Virginia, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Kentucky and Puerto Rico -- the CIA's "union"?
 * - Where are your five reliable sources which can explicitly EXCLUDE them in the "geographical extent" of the United States as the State Department INCLUDES them, and which deny the people status as "native" citizens comprehending all the United States in the same equivalent compass as the Census department INCLUDES them all? What sources exclude them in the same clear, direct, affirmative way as these three include them in the 21st century?
 * - You are going for "most" sources, one more than a majority, I believe. I don't recall questioning your logic. I question only premises based on circumstances in colonial 1904 versus those found in the union of 2004, and now, the search for countervailing sources to the U.S. Congress, U.S. State Department, U.S. Census, and CIA as directly quoted above. Wikipedia does not accept Wikipedia as source material. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:54, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Wait, are you saying that Puerto Rico is equal in status to Virginia etc., or are you saying that I said that? Because both would be incorrect.
 * As for this source numbers game, I'm not playing it. This isn't about who can gather the most sources to their side, and you should know that. I know Wikipedia doesn't accept Wikipedia, which is why I suggested you look at the sources in the links I gave (I got one wrong, though: It's insular cases, not laws.)
 * As for include, exclude, etc., all I will offer at the moment is the simple fact that the CIA World Factbook does not include the territories in its area or population of the United States. Perhaps there's a reason for that, rather than mere oversight, since they did not have that oversight when dealing with France or the UK? --Golbez (talk) 14:02, 1 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I am actually paying attention to what you are saying. Here is my latest effort -- trying not to contradict anything which you have raised whether we agree or not -- organizing the first paragraph by first (a) introducing the people, then (b) the places -- referencing the use of "native" to the U.S Census, "geographic United States" to the U.S. State Department and "political relationships" to the CIA. Changes in italics.
 * The United States of America (commonly called the United States, the U.S., the USA, America, and the States) is a federal constitutional republic consisting of over 300 million native people principally residing in fifty states.[1] An additional 4.5 million U.S. citizens in the federal district and five other territories in the geographic United States have delegates in the U.S. Congress.[2] It maintains special political relationships through Compacts of Free Association with two United Nations members and one foreign dependency. [3] The U.S. is one of the world's most ethnically diverse and multicultural nations, the product of large-scale immigration from many countries. Geographically, the United States is situated mostly in central North America, where its forty-eight contiguous states and Washington, D.C., the capital district, lie between the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans, bordered by Canada to the north and Mexico to the south. Alaska lies west of Canada, Hawaii lies in the mid-Pacific Ocean. Other territory is found in the western Pacific and the Caribbean Sea, and the country possesses nine uninhabited islands. At 3.79 million square miles (9.83 million km2), the United States is the third- or fourth-largest country by total area, and the third-largest by both land area and population.


 * [1] | U.S. Statistical Abstract. viewed October 31, 2012. “Anyone born in the United States, Puerto Rico, or a U.S. Island Area (such as Guam), or born abroad to a U.S. citizen parent is a U.S. citizen at the time of birth and consequently included in the native population. “ (p.6) Section 29, “Puerto Rico and the Island Areas”, p.815. “This section presents summary economic and social statistics for Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and the Northern Mariana Islands.”
 * [2] | U.S. Department of State Foreign Affairs Manual Volume 7- Consular Affairs, 7 FAM 1121,2,3,4,5 - Sec.1- Current Law for each. viewed October 31, 2012. “As of 1952, according to the U.S. State Department, the U.S. five dependencies listed as part of the geographical definition of the ‘United States’ in Section 101 (a)(38) of the Immigration and Naturalization Act."
 * [3] | Dependent Listings CIA World Factbook viewed October 31, 2012. The CIA assigns to the United States “American Samoa … Guam … Northern Mariana Islands … Puerto Rico … Virgin Islands … [and nine uninhabited islands]”. [The US] entered into [“political union”] with the Northern Mariana Islands … [and Compacts of Free Association with] the Republic of the Marshall Islands; the Federated States of Micronesia); [and] Palau."
 * I cannot split hairs over unreferenced CIA Factbook treatment of French or British dependent territories, whether their non-citizen nationals are represented in a Queen's international council with Ireland, etc. or governed by a subcommittee in the French Chamber of Deputies -- The people under discussion are native U.S. citizens and directly represented by their votes in the U.S. Congress for the article 'United States'. It may be that you and I are not the only readers who read from a background study of "unincorporated" U.S. colonial territories by conquest as of 1904, so I think that the notes are required for an article on the 2012 United States. Considering our discussion, I hope that you can now agree to the draft immediately above, with notes sourcing -- by directed quotations available for inspection online -- terms "native" from the U.S. Census, "geographic United States" from the U.S. State Department, and "political relationship" from the CIA. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:55, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * This is turning into a "is the country its people or its land?" argument, which I have no interest in getting in to alone. --Golbez (talk) 15:14, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Argument? There is validity in both views here, which should not be found to be contradictory or opposing, but different perspectives of the same thing. i.e.Evolution is the process of creation. Are they in theoretical opposition or part of the same thing? A country, state, territory, involves both 'land mass' and 'people' and citizens thereof. 'Both' of these entities are what constitute any county, state, country, or territory thereof. In terms of the lede I would suggest simple acknowledgement of territories as part of the country, which I see has been done, with further clarification in the body of the text where appropriate. TVH is obviously quite knowledgeable in this area so it would be nice to see some new content added in that area. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:46, 2 November 2012 (UTC)


 * - I really do think the disconnect is between an editor coming from a geographical study versus one coming from a political study. Without meaning to be contentious, a couple notes from the political side of things.
 * 1) The people or the land, which came first, the chicken or the egg? At the outbreak of the Mexican-American War, maps were not in agreement not Spanish, French, English, Mexican, American. The answer for Congressman Lincoln -- whether territory between two rivers belonged to Mexico or the U.S. -- was the answer to the question, To which national government did the PEOPLE pay their taxes? -- Maps were of no use in Lincoln's view, “Anybody can make a map.” -- the people make a country.
 * 2) The U.S. Congress representing the people makes the U.S. map. It draws former colonies smaller (Virginia), it makes former colonies bigger (Texas). It responds to state petitions or gets agreement after-the-fact to make states out of states –- Kentucky from Virginia, West Virginia from Virginia. Congress makes states out of land grants by states –- Ohio from Virginia, international purchase -- Louisiana from France, international partition – Oregon from Britain, conquest -- California from Mexico, and consignment -- the Northern Mariana Islands from the United Nations.
 * 3) In the matter of ‘incorporated-unincorporated’ territory, it is a distinction without a difference -- all people and places under Congressional jurisdiction are equally the same unless Congress chooses otherwise. Congress, as a matter of law and practice, can make or unmake anything within its sovereignty. It can give the citizens living within the contiguous 48 states all senate representation, or it may not in the case of DC . By the same consensual procedure making a smaller new state, “West Virginia”, any combination of western Pacific Islands may be made a larger new state, “West Pacific”. The Supreme Court upholds the action of Congress determining territories and states under its Constitutional jurisdiction. There are 'unincorporated' territories when Congress so determines -- there is no such thing when it does not. It does not in the 21st century.
 * - For the purposes of the introductory paragraph in the ‘United States’ article, the entire people should be described first, then the land, because the representatives of the people make land into a country. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:55, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Lincoln was right, the territories do indeed belong to the US. However, that doesn't make them a part of the US. The US has extended the rights of citizenship to the people of those areas, but it has not annexed the areas in question into the country. Golbez is right in saying there is a difference between incorporated and unincorporated territories, in that one is, well, incorporated, and the other is not. CMD (talk) 12:29, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Part of the problem is the similar terminology. Arizona Territory, etc. were undisputably part of the country (Except by those who would have wanted to deny Barry Goldwater the right to run for president, I suppose). "Unincorporated territories" are a relatively recent thing. The vast majority of our territories have been incorporated; the last one was created in 1900 with Hawaii Territory. Apart from the guano islands, which were generally uninhabited, the first unincorporated territories were only created in 1899, and there have been far fewer of those than incorporated ones. And, unlike incorporated territory (both territories and states) which have no right to either secede or be unilaterally kicked out of the country, several unincorporated territories HAVE left the fold: The Philippines, most of the Trust Territory, and, if you count it, the Panama Canal Zone; it is an interesting intellectual exercise to figure out that region's status.
 * Palmyra Atoll's status is unique because it was incorporated as part of Hawaii Territory but excluded from statehood. That means it's still incorporated, in perpetuity, until the time that the constitution ceases to be in force in general I imagine. The same does not apply to the unincorporated territories, as evidenced by the fact that three have already ceased being territories. --Golbez (talk) 13:39, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Some territories ceased while others became states. In any event, they all involved 'land' and 'people' who were subject to US rule in whatever form it may have existed per time-period/territory. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:13, 2 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Some incorporated territories ceased to be, but they were always added to another state or incorporated territory. No incorporated territory has ever left the country (excepting minor border adjustments and the Civil War, if you like). But multiple unincorporated territories have become independent. Being subject to US rule does not make one part of the country. --Golbez (talk) 16:17, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

US territories, section/pages
All very interesting. Again, territories should be mentioned in the lede and the various discrepancies regarding the different territories can be covered in the Political divisions section and on the dedicated pages for this topic (Territorial evolution of the United States) and (United States territorial acquisitions). There is obviously enough knowledgeable editors here to do that. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:07, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * In other words, the status quo? Because territories are already mentioned in the lede. --Golbez (talk) 16:17, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 'No' to your first reason, 'yes' to your second reason. Anything mentioned in the lede should be covered in the body of the text. Again, any distinctions about territories or a given territory can and should be briefly covered. No one is trying to pass off territories as states but only that the US is in possession of them and as such are regulated by the US. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:59, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Everything except the tiny uninhabited possessions is mentioned in the body of the text, in the political divisions section, which also provides a brief overview of differences. CMD (talk) 17:19, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Right, I'm not sure what Gwhillhickers is asking for, everything he wants (territories mentioned in the lede, details later in the article) is already here. --Golbez (talk) 18:41, 2 November 2012 (UTC)


 * - The U.S. geographical extent is 50 states, a federal district and five territories. 1910s “unincorporated” was exclusion of Constitutional protections which are now extended by Congress (1952) - cold war context, leader of the free world, etc. 1980s “unincorporated” was a doctrine used by the Supreme Court to justify the Congressional cost-saving measure giving less monthly child support to Puerto Ricans in Puerto Rico than to those Puerto Rican-born residents in New York. See the references found at Insular cases. Justice Thurgood Marshall dissented. U.S. law also makes determination by geography for military housing and government employee cost-of-living allowances, also challenged in federal court, also upheld on various unrelated grounds.
 * - But the 2010 U.S. census defines both sorts of Puerto Ricans as “native” born U.S. citizens. Further, the Census uses “Puerto Rican” as a classification of race instead of using the multi-racial term “latino” in use there – the island community in some ways is defined by the bond of language, not divided by race. Some of Puerto Rican heritage living in New York choose the racial self-classification ‘white’ or ‘African-American’ on census forms, their choice, as it is for all respondents.
 * - It is also of interest that Congress justifies cost saving measures by racial and economic tests related to college aid. Those native born U.S. citizens of 86% pure Amerindian heritage -- from certain designated tribes -- receive 100% grants. Those U.S. citizens in need can receive tuition grants from the federal government. U.S. native and naturalized citizens who do not qualify for aid by selected race purity or need, can receive low interest loans with no-penalty suspension provisions during times of unemployment.
 * - Neither of these distinctions -- related to child care and college for the purposes of internal governance -- have anything to do with an article introduction on the ‘United States’ whose geographic extent is now defined by Congress as including 50 states, a federal district, five territories and nine uninhabited islands. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:54, 3 November 2012 (UTC)


 * "The U.S. geographical extent is 50 states, a federal district and five territories." No it's not. (Also, five? What happened to Palmyra?) Does the entirety of the constitution apply in the unincorporated territories? That some laws include the territories for convenience of application doesn't change the fact that Congress could choose NOT to apply laws to the territories. Like, say, federal minimum wage - that doesn't apply in the CNMI. Why would that be? You can pick random things about child support, I can come back with random things about minimum wage. The point is, we can't point to individual legislation to define the extent of the country. --Golbez (talk) 15:25, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, a tip: You include way, way to much extraneous stuff in your paragraphs that it eventually makes them impossible to keep track of. In this case we have a minor one, but: What does it matter that Justice Marshall dissented? At all? That is not remotely germaine to this, yet, when you pile up enough facts and statements that are irrelevant to the matter, it crowds out the matter. --Golbez (talk) 15:27, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * - Guilty. one element at a time. yes, Palmyra -- first, whether the geographic expanse of the United States as it is currently codified in law of the U.S. Congress and represented to the world by its State Department can be admitted into WP 'United States'.
 * - The democratic republic U.S. is governed by its Congress, applying the protections of the Constitution to all inhabitants it governs since 1952, EXPLICITLY, standing in U.S. courts of law. That does NOT mean that those individuals are guaranteed success in the case of Puerto Ricans suing the USG for getting less child support when they move from NYC to San Juan. It does mean that the governance of the democratic republic is extended by the U.S. Congress to the entire geographical extent of its authority, incorporated and unincorporated, thus:
 * - The U.S. is a democratic republic geographically extending to 50 states, a federal district, five territories and nine uninhabited islands." source: U.S. Dept. of State -- Foreign Affairs Manual Vol. 7- Consular Affairs. -- Regardless of our disagreement about the legacy of a 1904 court decision on Congressional governance inside the compass of its authority, we should allow the USG to define its "geographic extent" as it chooses to do so today, for the purposes of today's WP article.
 * - Then, when the U.S. Congress choses to withdraw the protections of its Constitution, and limit U.S. citizenship in overseas territories as it did a century ago, editors can modify either the "democratic republic" term, or the "geographic extent" term. But no such restrictive bill has been introduced in this session, and some would expand their rights and privileges. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:25, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Geographical extent
So why have the distinction between incorporated and unincorporated territories? --Golbez (talk) 14:20, 6 November 2012 (UTC)


 * This is how it is used in the 21st century: “Incorporated and unincorporated” as referenced in the 1980s court case at Insular cases applies to regulation of U.S. monies by Congress in regions with an average of 50% of U.S. incomes. In those places, the Court has used various prior doctrines to support Congress under its power-of-the-purse -- including enacted lower military housing allowance, less child support, lower unemployment. It also allows lower federal tax rates. Source: | Federal tax law related to U.S. territories.
 * At WP Unincorporated territory we see, “the act of incorporation is on the people of the territory, NOT on the [incorporated or unincorporated] territory per se, by extending the privileges and immunities clause of the Constitution to them [the people].” That was Justice White’s second point of the Court’s opinion as referenced in the Rassmussen case. He continued, Congress MAY extend it. As Justice Brown wrote concurring, Congress MAY NOT extend the Constitution even for incorporated territories when it institutes a temporary government there as in 19th Century Hawaii for Queen Lili’s municipal government to continue until Congress replaced it -- the Court upheld the Congress NOT extending the Constitution to 'incorporated' territory in Hawaii v. Mankichi.
 * In Rassmussen, the court ruled an Alaskan whorehouse was improperly shut down by a jury of six, but it refers to "incorporated" and "unincorporated" territory. Justice White wrote the opinion. - 1st. Alaska was “not incorporated” into the U.S., but unlike the Philippine Islands treaty in 1898,  the treaty concerning Alaska showed the intention of eventual application of the Constitution by Congress by granting the rights of U.S. citizenship. – But that is now likewise the case in the five populous territories status quo in the 21st century.
 * Congress clearly contemplated the incorporation of Alaska into the U.S. because of the act providing for internal revenue taxation, and establishing a collection district therein. That is now likewise the in the 21st century five populous territories. From | Federal tax law related to U.S. territories, U.S. statutory laws apply to the U.S. possessions, and natives of U.S. possessions both U.S. citizens or nationals. For purposes of assessment and collection of Federal taxes, the possessions are generally treated the same as the States. Taxes imposed by the Code in any possession are collected under the direction of the Secretary of the Treasury. All U.S. citizens and residents in the territories whose gross income is not exempted are required to file an annual U.S. individual income tax return.
 * Rev. Rul. 2011-26, 2011-1 C.B. 803 rules that U.S. law applies -- without distinction among “incorporated” and unincorporated -- “possessions” including,in addition to the five populous territories, possessions that the CIA describes as being governed by the Interior Department in Washington, DC. The IRS reference continues, Baker Island, … “Palmyra Atoll, Wake Island, and any other United States islands, cays, and reefs that are not part of the fifty states or [DC]”.
 * - So now we have the U.S. State Dept., U.S. Census, CIA, IRS and the Supreme Court's reasoning found in Rasmussen to geographically define the U.S. in the 21st century as 50 states, a federal district, five territories and nine uninhabited islands. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 15:57, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I said I won't play numbers games with you and I still won't, but you probably should remove the CIA from that list since it's been demonstrated to at best play both sides on the issue. As for taxation, I know not what you mean, since the people of the territories don't generally pay federal income tax, with exceptions. "Whose gross income is not exempted" - Living in a territory is an exemption. --Golbez (talk) 16:08, 8 November 2012 (UTC)


 * - The link above says, "All U.S. citizens and residents whose gross income for a taxable year is not less than the sum of the personal exemption amount and the basic standard deduction are required to file an annual U.S. individual income tax return." I paraphrased that as "All U.S. citizens and residents in the territories whose gross income is not exempted are required to file an annual U.S. individual income tax return.
 * - And you say, SINCE "personal" and "standard" exemptions apply for "all U.S. citizens and residents in the territories" -- precisely in the same way they apply in the states --, THEREFORE living in a territory is exempted for U.S. personal income tax -?-
 * - The source says, an income MORE THAN personal exemption (itemizing), or MORE THAN basic standard deduction (standard form) APPLIES in a territory, which I faithfully represented. But you deny that off-hand within 10 minutes? What is your source to the contrary? No numbers are required. Link one.
 * - There may be other exemptions Congress may allow in states, territories, military deployment and abroad, but NONE are on grounds of 'incorporated' or 'unincorporated' territory once used to exclude Constitutional protections to Emilio Aguinaldo in the 1904 Philippines or to someone in a quasi-piracy-terrorist status in 2004 Guantanemo Bay. Those terms no longer apply in discussions of 21st century U.S. territorial extent -- now inhabited in a democratic republic by U.S. citizens who are under the protection of the U.S. Constitution, represented in the U.S. Congress, and paying U.S. taxes. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 18:52, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * My source is Taxation in Puerto Rico, which quotes the IRS saying, "In general, United States citizens and resident aliens who are bona fide residents of Puerto Rico ... are only required to file a U.S. federal income tax return if they have income sources outside of Puerto Rico or if they are employees of the U.S. government."
 * As for Guantanamo, no one considers it a territory, so there's no reason to bring it up. It's leased land. (Canal Zone, on the other hand, is a very interesting topic) --Golbez (talk) 19:34, 8 November 2012 (UTC)


 * - The link quote does NOT support your “incorporated-unincorporated” dichotomy for excluding territories in the U.S. geographic extent. It says, “Puerto Ricans are also required to pay most U.S. federal taxes, with the major exception being that some residents do not have to pay the federal personal income tax.” The outside Wiki citation is | An Overview of the special tax rules related to Puerto Rico.
 * - The citation DOES say, “the legislative options included in this pamphlet represent specific proposals with respect to stimulating economic growth in Puerto Rico” (p.1). U.S. statutory laws apply to the U.S. possessions, and residents of U.S. possessions are full U.S. citizens, for tax purposes the Code generally treats the U.S. possessions with a lower “foreign countries” rate.
 * - The intent is NOT to forever deny U.S. citizenship to PR residents, “the U.S. uses tax incentives to help PR get employment producing investments by U.S. companies.” (p.3). Tax policy is chosen for “its role in the economic development of PR (p.5).
 * - The intent is NOT to allow Congress to deny protections of the Constitution, it is to “create a local economy that has self sustaining growth (p.6). Significant work incentives for low-income workers … since PR residents are generally not subject to U.S. Federal income tax on their Puerto Rico-source income … the earned income credit may not be enacted in future legislation (p.7).
 * - You cannot use the link above to deny the U.S. has geographical extent of 50 states, a federal district, five territories and nine uninhabited islands. The link does not say so, the reliable source supporting the link does not say so. It does NOT support the 1904 distinction “incorporated” and unincorporated territories for the purposes of DENYING Puerto Rico residents protection of the U.S. Constitution, U.S. citizenship, U.S. tax obligations, or U.S. Congressional representation -- or inclusion in the territorial extent of the U.S. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 22:25, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay. I disagree. --Golbez (talk) 14:46, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

unique foods made in oregon
unique foods made in oregon — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.105.239.198 (talk) 23:32, 31 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Do you have a specific suggestion for improvements to the article, with appropriate sources? HiLo48 (talk) 00:41, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Mentioning the "forgotten" War of 1812
I agree that the passage was poorly written and it was poorly written because I was trying to include in only one sentence way too many things (i.e. firstly, that it was fought against British Empire; secondly, that it was also fought against Canadians; thirdly, that states nearest to Canada opposed the war; fourthly, that it was seen by the Canadians as an attempt to expand U.S. territory). However, don't blame me for calling it "forgotten" - it was called so by a historian (Hickey) in his 1989 book The War of 1812: A Forgotten Conflict, University of Illinois Press. Urbana; Chicago. ISBN 0-252-01613-0. And I also think it is in the context of (I quote from the lede paragraph) "program of expansion across North America". DancingPhilosopher my talk 22:52, 8 November 2012 (UTC)


 * - As written, the War of 1812 is -- forgotten -- in the article introduction narrative. We could include 1812 as a transitional sentence between (a) the second paragraph on independence and governance into (b) the third paragraph narrative of expansion across North America. Thus:
 * [second paragraph] “... The Constitution … was ratified in 1791.
 * The War of 1812, a "second war of independence", secured U.S. territorial claims against the British Empire and guaranteed Canadian integrity. The United States then embarked on a vigorous program of expansion across North America through the 19th century. During the territorial expansion …"
 * - That would meet the intent of DancingPhilosopher’s edit as outlined here. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:38, 9 November 2012 (UTC)


 * | The War of 1812: a forgotten conflict. acknowledges the common reference to the War of 1812 as the “second war of independence” (p.300) in the conclusion, then makes some interesting observations without some important qualifiers relating to the nature of a conflict-at-arms at the time [added here in brackets]:
 * "The U.S. annexed part of Spanish West Florida in 1813 -- the only permanent land acquisition made during the war – although at the expense of a neutral [which allowed the territory to be used as a haven and base for enemy allied military operations onto U.S. territory ceded by the British Empire by the 1783 Treaty of Paris]. The war also broke the power of the Indians in the Northwest and Southwest [who were British military allies during the War of 1812]." (p. 303). TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:12, 9 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree 1812 needs to be mentioned more; it's a tiny sentence. But it wasn't right to put it in the section explaining how the country has grown, especially since it didn't during that. --Golbez (talk) 14:53, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I saw no other place for the inclusion of the "forgotten" war into the lede, so I put it into the section albait you are right, Golbez, that Canadians prevented the "growing" (I prefer less apologetic "expansion" term) to take place which would otherwise occured. So I support TheVirginiaHistorian's proposal to make it a transitional sentence according to the editor's description here. DancingPhilosopher my talk 08:24, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Done. edit substance by Dancing Philosopher, placement amended by Golbez. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:56, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 12 November 2012
The section under the list of cities with the largest population has Washington DC listed as in the south. Needs to be altered to be listed as NorthEast. Thanks.

Intlcptnemo (talk) 23:51, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Washington D.C. is south of the Mason–Dixon Line, and the United States Census Bureau says it is in the South. - SudoGhost 00:07, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * per above. gwickwire &#124; Leave a message 00:46, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Intro WP:PUFFERY and WP:LEADLINK

 * U.S. Geographic four-corner WP:PUFFERY bragging rights of the states should be (a) reduced into a note in the introduction, (b) relocated into the article body or (c) removed.
 * - The topic in any case should be geographically balanced., not biased westerly, leaving out more westerly territories than the STATES of Alaska or Hawaii, not leaving out STATES most northwesterly Maine, most easterly at Nantucket, Massachusetts, most southeasterly and southern-most Key West, Florida in the STATES, and leaving out more easterly and southeasterly territories as the passage now does.
 * The passage now reads, in a sort of WP:LEADLINK “blued-out” cluttered copy-edit,
 * -- The country is situated mostly in central North America, where its forty-eight contiguous states and Washington, D.C., the capital district, lie between the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans, bordered by Canada to the north and Mexico to the south. The state of Alaska is in the northwest of the continent, with Canada to the east and Russia to the west across the Bering Strait. The state of Hawaii is an archipelago in the mid-Pacific. The country also possesses several territories in the Pacific and Caribbean.
 * The passage should be amended to read,


 * -- The U.S. is situated mostly in central North America where its forty-eight contiguous states and federal district lie between the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans. It is bordered by Canada to the north and Mexico to the south, Alaska lies west of Canada, Hawaii lies in the mid-Pacific Ocean. Five territories and nine uninhabited islands are found in the western Pacific and the Caribbean Sea.


 * -- Footnote for territory and possession count likely to be challenged. | Dependent Listings CIA World Factbook viewed October 31, 2012. < /ref >


 * The revision as proposed has the advantage of - conciseness, - comprehensiveness and - sidesteps regional puffery. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:43, 12 November 2012 (UTC)


 * It's not talking about what is westernmost or what not. It's simply indicating that two states are not connected to the rest of the country. I don't know if anyone complains about French Guiana or Reunion while noting the article on France doesn't specify l'Hexagon's northernmost point. It's not about leaving out the other superlatives, it's about drawing an image of the country. I don't understand how this is at all "regional puffery", can you explain what you mean? --Golbez (talk) 14:32, 12 November 2012 (UTC)


 * The revision says "that two states are not connected" more concisely. The revision is more comprehensive enumerating the territories and possessions. The revision avoids 'blue-out' linkages. The revision avoids pacific puffery.
 * Outlying Alaska and Hawaii in the introduction, they have together three representatives in Congress for 2 million U.S. citizens.
 * The five unnamed territories have five delegates in Congress with a total U.S. citizen population of 4 million.
 * Other STATES with geographical distinction in states which are equal (Maine) to the two states combined, three times greater (Massachusetts) and nine times greater (Florida) are not comparably written up in the introduction as it read before. Best to mention geographic expanse of states and territories, but drop the pacific state puffery as it was written. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:45, 12 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Well it makes sense to mention Hawaii and Alaska and not the territories since they're actually part of the country. :) The other states have no special geographic distinction since they're contiguous. It's not "Pacific puffery", if Alaska were off the edge of Newfoundland it would be mentioned just the same. --Golbez (talk) 15:14, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * [insert] @Golbez. Ah, the smiley-face to remind me you imagine two unequal classes of U.S. citizen -- but no such discrimination is acknowledged in 21st century U.S. theory, law or practice. We can return to the WP idea that an urban legend of two GHOSTS from a tragic Gilligan-style shipwrecked Palmyra Atoll foursome are “incorporated” into the U.S. -- but an online article must "exclude" -- says Golbez -- 4 millions ALIVE in 21st century territories -- under the Constitution, with full citizenship, paying U.S. taxes, represented in Congress, and held out to the world as within its “geographic extent” by its State Department. Every source we investigate together denies the existence of a superior and inferior class of citizenship in the U.S. -- a 21st century federal constitutional republic of 50 states, federal district, 5 territories and 9 possessions. But let’s return to that first sentence later -- in the good humor that any online urban legend deserves at Wikipedia. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:11, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * @VirginiaHistorian: Your proposed edit doesn't explain what Alaska and Hawaii are, it just says they're there. Perhaps the text should be shortened, but the two areas still need to be introduced. CMD (talk) 16:44, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * [insert] @CMD. The two areas are introduced as “Alaska lies west, of Canada, Hawaii lies in the mid-Pacific.” As written it meets your concern “the areas need to be introduced”. The intro here is only locating the country in the northern hemisphere. Expansive or exclusive description of favorites promoting individual states in the intro is PUFF. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:11, 13 November 2012 (UTC)


 * - Maine is south of Canada, Alaska is west. Nothing is mentioned about the Bay of Fundy separating Maine, but Pacific PUFF brings us, The state of Alaska is in the northwest of the continent, with Canada to the east and Russia to the west across the Bering Strait.
 * --- I do NOT want equally Conch PUFF -- Key West is further removed from the contiguous 48 than Alaska -- explaining that Florida is in the southwest of the continent with Bermuda to the east and Cuba to the south across the Straits of Florida. NO FOUR CORNERS, not two of four corners, just locate the entire country concisely in the introduction.


 * - Hawaii used to be the Hawaiian Islands Territory, now in the 21st century, it is styled Hawaii. No style manual proposes we channel the journal of Captain Cook to produce, The state of Hawaii is an archipelago in the mid-Pacific. We can side step the Pacific PUFF with, Hawaii lies in the mid-Pacific.
 * - Likewise, before, The country also possesses territories .... is now written Five territories and nine uninhabited islands are found in the western Pacific and the Caribbean. The revision avoids the repetitive use of the word country in the same paragraph as a matter of style, and with four more words is comprehensive while distinguishing between 4 millions versus the uninhabited named places in the CIA source - source - and eliminates the sea of 'blue out' links that Wikipedia manual of style policy at WP:LEADLINK would avoid in an introduction.


 * - I’d like to make the middle of the first paragraph less puff and more concise, and I’ve done that, most of it with the same phrasing used before, in a spirit of collaboration. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:11, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The sentence "Alaska lies west, of Canada, Hawaii lies in the mid-Pacific" does not introduce either Alaska or Hawaii. For all readers know, they're other countries. CMD (talk) 15:34, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The introductory paragraph of an article on a country defines the kind of government and the geographical extent of the populations governed, in this case, the subject, United States, is established in the topic sentence. The country's political subdivisions are enumerated in the first sentence as 50 states, a federal district, 5 territories and 9 uninhabited islands. The subdivisions cannot be mistaken as other countries.
 * That said, do you propose, The state of Alaska lies west of Canada, Hawaii in the mid-Pacific Ocean. -? I concur with that. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 18:13, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The subdivisions could easily be mistaken for other countries, or vice versa. Your edit still doesn't separate Hawaii from Canada. I'm not proposing specific changes myself, just noting that any text shouldn't simply assume knowledge from the reader. CMD (talk) 18:21, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Why would you seem to disagree, if I just wrote I agreed to "The state of Alaska". You brought up a point and I conceded that I had overlooked it. None of this works if you cannot read how I give in to your point. But I appreciate your gentle spirit.
 * I notice that Golbez has pulled my edit ability without warning. Much as when he asserted copyright over Wikicommons material when he disagreed about my legend on one of his animated maps, and removed the entirety from-my-Userpage without warning, declaring his pre-emptive proprietary authorship.
 * Another big-hat determined that my 30 hours of graduate study at three universities in education, business and special education over a 20 year career of employer-compensated study did not meet their unspecified 'college attended' criteria and blanked the school logos from my User Page.
 * So, the big-hat editors rule capriciously. Be that as it may, I still think Wikipedia is a fun hobby. Off to another project. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 18:42, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I did nothing of the sort. I reverted your edit because it was bad, and was unilateral rather than through consensus. I would like to discuss these edits. The cycle is WP:BRD: Bold, revert, discuss. You were bold, I reverted, we discuss. Except then saying that you had 'consensus' to do it before receiving any comment at all is simply wrong. Also, er, when did I assert copyright about legend what? What are you talking about? Wait, are you talking about the work-in-progress picture that I deleted from commons because it was just that, a first draft? I never "disagreed about your legend", and I didn't even know it was being used because it was a first draft, it was never intended to be used anywhere. Please stop acting like everyone is out to get you and maybe we'll be able to communicate better. --Golbez (talk) 19:07, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * - :Thanks. I'll take a short break. And thanks for clearing up my misunderstanding. It really is a cool map. Please let me know when you want to have a go at the map again. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:58, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Suggestion: reducing clutter through list-defined references
Regarding. Per Citing_sources: "Inline references can significantly bloat the wikitext in the edit window and can be extremely difficult and confusing. There are three methods that avoid clutter in the edit window: list-defined references, short citations or parenthetical references. (As with other citation formats, articles should not undergo large scale conversion between formats without consensus to do so.)" I'd like to introduce list-defined references to this article, to make it more friendly to edit (less code -> closer to WYSWIWYG). Per the request of editor who reverted me and WP:CITEVAR recommendation I'd like to ask editors interested in this article for input which style they prefer, and strongly suggest following the "avoid clutter" recommendation. While LDR add a little code to the total size of the article, it amounts to only 10% or so of the total article size, so load time should not be significantly affected (nobody should notice a 10% change; also, section edit load time will shorter anyway...), and editing experience should become much friendlier. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 06:05, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * It was a bit more than 10%, but with an article size of almost 200k, even 10% would be a lot. The edit added ~30k bytes, and there are entire featured articles that are that size; it seems a bit excessive for something that doesn't add any additional content to the article.  If we were to enact your recommended change, it would mean that we could not edit references by clicking on the section's edit button since the reference would be separate from the actual content, which for an article this size would probably make it harder for some people to edit, I think it makes more sense to keep the reference with the content. - SudoGhost 06:14, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with Sudo. this is a spam proposal sent to numerous pages by someone who does not actually edit this article and so is unlikely to be affected by supposed clutter. "Cluter" on the edit screen happens when there are three or more multiple complicated footnotes all together. That rarely happens here. I spot it just once at fn 90-91-92)  The suggestion does not work here. We have cites to scholarly books and major websites that readers will want to use and the proposal will be very confusing to them. They click on a note and there is no book there. Rjensen (talk) 06:40, 17 November 2012 (UTC)


 * But Sudo, the ref name="abc"/ is already common enough (I count many dozens in this article), it's not like you are can be assured that the section you are editing is going to have the full citation anyway Adding some more short cites and moving all full references to one place, where they are alphabetically organized, should make it more easy for editors to find the full ref. Currently they have to search for it or look for it, after LDR scheme is implemented, they can expect to find it in an alphabetical list in the bottom of the article. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  19:52, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not seeing too many instances where the ref name isn't in the same section as it's other uses, and moreover that's the exception, not how it seems to be in most of the article. That also doesn't justify adding ~30k bytes of data to an already large article.  LDR is a horrible way to do the sources, I don't recommend it on any article, especially not this one. - SudoGhost 19:59, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * This article has 32 or so short cites, the discrepancy about where they are used and where the full cites begins in the lead, with the "WF" ref used there but fully defined only several sections below. I don't have time to waste on counting how many other instances of such a problem occur here, but it is a fact this article suffers from this problem. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 20:28, 19 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Just have to say "List-defined reference" are the worst format we have here. Content editors have constantly voted to eliminate this format altogether. Best to make the article user friendly. None will follow the LDR when updating pages - thus were  you find LDR style you will always see the normal format mixed in. Just look at Michael Jackson. All it does is cause work for us as seen here at Avril Lavigne someone will have to come along and fix the new refs to match the LDR format - in the case of Avril Lavigne I have seen editors revert referenced material just because it was the wrong ref format. LDR's is nothing but a problem - noting user friendly about having to edit 2 sections to add one statement.   Moxy (talk) 22:23, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

War of 1812, intro reverted.

 * - Gaylencrufts says the following is Misleading and open to debate: A "second war of independence" in the War of 1812 secured U.S. territorial claims against the British Empire and guaranteed Canadian integrity.
 * - (a) It is not misleading to say Britain acknowledged the legitimacy of the U.S. government and set up bi-lateral commissions to adjust boundaries successfully, a precedent from the Treaty of Ghent to the present time. That is a condition of affairs between the two countries which has pertained for over 100 years without exception. It is NOT open for debate.
 * - (b) It is not misleading to say the United States acknowledged the legitimacy of the Canadian provinces, secure from further U.S. military invasions, and set up bi-lateral commissions to adjust boundaries successfully for over 100 years without threat of invasion. It is NOT open for debate.
 * - (c) The fringe advocates who propose restoring sovereign Amerindian nations excluding the U.S. and Canada over St. Lawrence River Basin, Ohio River Basin and the Great Lakes region -- choose 1800 versus 1700 as a base line for tribes recognized by those two countries, AND not the unrecognized tribes. Now THAT would be misleading in the U.S. article introduction and open to debate.
 * - We can leave all the fringe concerns aside by deferring to their 21st Century citizenship held in the U.S., as represented by the State Department to the world.
 * Restore A "second war of independence" in the War of 1812 secured U.S. territorial claims against the British Empire and guaranteed Canadian integrity. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:57, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I think it wouldn't hurt to clarify what "Canadian integrity" means in the article, the wording seems a little ambiguous. - SudoGhost 18:09, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * How about shifting 'territorial' down sentence: A "second war of independence" in the War of 1812 secured U.S. claims against the British Empire and guaranteed Canadian territorial integrity. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:32, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

'western indian' edit reverting Talk proposal here

 * @Teammm: I want to incorporate your historical perspective into the first sections of the United States article. Iroquois Mohawk Joseph Brant, Iroquois Seneca Red Jacket and Algonquin Shawnee Tecumseh are important Amerindian figures in United States history. But they do not belong in the Introduction section of the article 'United States'. I suggest adding an illustration and maybe extending the Amerindian narrative in the first historical section. First -- why the 'western indians' edit should not be in this intro.
 * - All were military allies of the English, (as Pontiac was an ally of the French) -- but this is an article about the 'United States'.
 * - U.S. history showing the Amerindians suffering from New York should be accounted for in history articles, and a like story should be told of the Cherokee suffering from Georgia -- APART FROM the U.S. government -- when states had much more power than the federal government. First Nations have some redress now, directly from the U.S. government which did not protect them then, which is as it should be.
 * - The War of 1812 is not all about Tecumseh’s vision of uniting a region -- that never rose to the level of NOTABILITY of his now-Ohio-state war PRECEDING the War of 1812.
 * - I think at least a visual could be instructive to the larger realities of early America, so I have posted two trial ‘double image’ illustrations for discussion. Aside: I have a small Algonquin Powhatan heritage but not sufficient for personhood by tribal law. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:32, 18 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree with your ideas. Teammm  $talk email$ 15:03, 18 November 2012 (UTC)


 * So, at the end of Native American and European settlement, the following could be added - [draft #3].
 * The history of expansion westward into what would become the United States includes both incorporation and Amerindian resistance to that settlement. Opposition took various forms across the continent, as allies with European nations, multi-tribe alliances, and alone, by warring and relocation, by treaties and in court.[n.]
 * [note:] These intersections of Amerindian and European settlement include 1630s Pequot Sassacus, 1760s Ottowa Pontiac, 1780s Muscogee McGillivray, 1790s Mohawk Brant, 1805 Seneca Red Jacket, 1810s Shawnee Tecumseh, 1820s Cherokee Ross, 1830s Seminole Osceola, 1840s Comanche Buffalo Hump, 1850s Apache Mangas Coloradas, 1860s Lakota Sioux Sitting Bull, and 1870s Nez Perce Chief Joseph.[/note]
 * [end of section]
 * It seems to me that Native American and European settlement would be the place for noting the intersection of Amerindian - United States history-of-settlement, without interrupting the narrative flow in the article 'United States'. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:24, 18 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Copyedit with Teammm on article 20 November [draft #4]:
 * The history of expansion westward into what would become the United States includes both incorporation of disparate cultures it met, but it also found Amerindian resistance to that settlement. Their opposition took various forms across the continent, as allies with European nations, multi-tribe nations, and alone -- by warring and relocation, by treaties and in court. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:30, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Copyedit with Sudoghost on article 20 November:
 * A "second war of independence" in the War of 1812 secured U.S. claims against the British Empire and guaranteed Canadian territorial integrity. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:53, 20 November 2012 (UTC)


 * -I'm leaning towards the A-B trial double image for the article. Instead of 'settlement' simply shown as celebrating the Mayflower ship arrival into the second permanent colony -- yes, Mass after Va -- The A-B trial notes the significant precedent of (a) American social history of 'new-beginnings' and 'clash-of-cultures' and (b) political history if ' written constitutions' voluntarily entered into by the people (well, sorta) and Indian Wars. -- Any comments? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:10, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Categories
I've just seen a note pointing out that this page wasn't in Category:Member states of the United Nations - I've readded it. Looking at the bottom of the article, though, it seems that this page is in surprisingly few content categories - four compared to eighteen for, say, France. Were these accidentally removed en masse at some point? Andrew Gray (talk) 16:44, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

First successful revolution against empire?
I'm not going to revert it or tag it or anything until I'm sure I'm not overlooking it somewhere else (which is entirely possible), but do you have a reference for this edit, specifically the "first successful colonial war of independence against a European power" part? - SudoGhost 20:17, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * it's originally from Robert Palmer and Seymour Lipset (his First New Nation). here is a recent scholar: "The Declaration of Independence promulgated by the thirteen colonies was the first time a people had formally and successfully claimed "independence" from the imperial power...." in . A recent world history of democracy says, "The American Revolution was unique in that it was the first colony of a European power to revolt from its mother country."  Rjensen (talk) 20:55, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

War-of-1812 - THREE reverts without discussion
Over 20 days, six editors have participated in a process to insert a concise mention of the War-of-1812 in the introduction of 'United States' with Canadian weight and Amerinidan 'settlement' expanded. ONE editor has not joined discussion or entered collaboration but reverted three times. Please note any corrections or omissions below this post.


 * 8 November. Article. DancingPhilosopher adds War-of-1812 text to United States introduction, with Canadian consideration.
 * 8 Nov. Article. Golbez reverts DancingPhilosopher without discussion, challenges Dancing Philosopher to use Talk Page.
 * 8 Nov. On Talk. DancingPhilosopher opens War-of-1812 Talk section, edit discussion with sources. -- On Talk. TheVirginiaHistorian (TVH) agrees, supports War-of-1812 edit with alternative text. Adds sourced citation to back up DancingPhilosopher. -- 9 Nov. On Talk. Golbez agrees to some War-of-1812 text, wants it in chronological order.--10 Nov. On Talk. DancingPhilosopher agrees to THV text and Golbez placement.
 * 10 Nov. Article. TVH adds War-of-1812, with Canadian context from DancingPhilosopher and placement by Golbez. Independently consults with phrasing with 1812 scholar Rjensen, who concurs on his Talk page.
 * 17 November. Article. Gaylencrufts reverts-without-discussion. “misleading and open to debate”
 * 17 Nov. Article. TVH reverted Galendcrufts with challenge to go to talk. -- 17 Nov. On Talk. TVH opens ‘War of 1812, intro reverted’ section. restates Gaylencrufts revert and rationale, with 3 points: Britain-U.S. bi-lateral commissions for borders carried forward. U.S. made no more invasions north. fringe for repatriating land choses a few tribes at 1800, not 1700 not 1600. -- On Talk. SudoGhost notes a Canadian reference is ambiguous. -- On Talk. TVH offers an alternative War-of-1812 text to incorporate SudoGhost’s. -- 17 Nov. Article. TVH restored War-of-1812 text, reply to “misleading and open to debate”, comment (paraphrase): the precise nature of U.S.-Canadian relations for 200 years -- without exception there is no debate.
 * 18 Nov. Article. Gaylencrufts reverts-without-discussion. “less biased”.
 * 18 Nov. Article. Teammm reverts Gaylencrufts to TVH War-of-1812 edit. -- then Teammm partially restores Gaylencrufts edit without discussion. -- then Teammm reverts TVH totally without discussion to Gaylencrufts edit. -- 18 Nov. On Talk. TVH opens Talk sub-section “western Indian edit reverting Talk proposal”. Makes 3-points: Joseph Brant, Red Jacket, Tecumseh all British military allies. War-of-1812 not about 1811 Tecumseh. Amerindians needs fairer weight in 'Settlement' history section – TVH posts two trial double-images (Euro & Amerindian in each, one showing arguing dispute, one showing swords and hatchets) for Settlement section to replace undebatably beautiful art showing Eurocentric arrival-only.
 * 18 Nov. On Talk. Teammm agrees to TVH “ideas”. TVH offers a trial draft – and notes – for four iterations Nov 18-20. -- 20 Nov. TVH adds Amerindian focused text in Settlement section per Talk page, leaving notes behind in a Talk page draft. TVH adds War-of-1812 edit per Talk page. 22 November. TVH adds Amerindian focused image in Settlement section per Talk page.
 * 22 November. Article. Galencrufts reverts-without-discussion and makes no comment.
 * 26 Nov. At Talk. DancingPhilosopher opens Talk section “The Canadians’ prevention of the U.S. expansion (during War of 1812). Noted archiving of prior discussion, loss of War-of-1812 with Canadian element as previously agreed to on Talk. Proposed re-introduction of Canadian consideration with Amerindian to conform to Gaylencrufts reverted-text-without-discussion. -- 26 Nov. At Talk. TVH makes a three point recount of War-of-1812 consensus edit, Amerindian inclusive text expansion at ‘Settlement’, and Amerindian inclusion in double-image at ‘Settlement’. Calls for restoration of agreed text.


 * Six editors participate to narrate War-of-1812 in a way inclusive of Canadian experience, British Amerindian allies inclusive, AND editors to extend Amerindian narrative apart-from-British from the Columbian era into the Revolution and Early Republic. SIX editors participating in collaboration are reverted by ONE without discussion three times. What is the next step to respect the Wikipedia process? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 21:28, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * This looks to be slightly stale, as the last revert (and the last edit this editor made) was a few weeks ago, and as blocks are intended to prevent harm rather than to punish, I don't think one would be in order here. The editor has already previously received a warning for edit warring and is aware it is unacceptable. If the reverts continue, especially if the editor continues to refuse to join the discussion, requesting administrative intervention would be appropriate. Hopefully, however, they've figured out that edit warring won't work here. Seraphimblade Talk to me 09:50, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

The Canadians' prevention of the U.S. expansion (during War of 1812)
Since the - successful - attempt to include it into the article's lead, initiated by me and discussed in Talk Page, from 8 November - 10 November 2012, now archived as Talk:Archive42:Mentioning the "forgotten" War of 1812, this segment became "forgotten" again, due to the - that I can only endorse as a rightful one - VictorD7's emphasis here being put on the Native American's historical loss of territory, instead. I propose the Canadians' prevention of the U.S. expansion (during War of 1812) to be re-introduced maybe with the second sentence changed as follows:
 * The War of 1812, declared against the British Empire for various grievances, put an end to attempts to create an independent Native American nation in the midwest, allowing the United States to embark on a vigorous expansion across North America throughout the 19th century. (PROPOSED CHANGE --->) Although the expansion into the present-day Canadian territory was stopped by Canadians, it continued elsewhere through (<--- END OF CHANGE) displacing of native tribes, acquiring the Louisiana territory from France and Florida from Spain; annexation of the Republic of Texas in 1845, leading to war in which it conquered a large area of Mexico; and Alaska Purchase from Russia in 1867.

--DancingPhilosopher my talk 12:53, 26 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Editorial consensus for a lead sentence concerning the War of 1812 was achieved among DancingPhilosopher, Golbez and TheVirginiaHistorian. I ran it by Rjensen on his Talk, Rjensen being a published scholar on the subject of the War 1812. He explicitly said he had no objection. The consensus text was posted on 10 November, and so noted on the Talk page ‘Mentioning the “forgotten” War of 1812. With no further discussion it was posted.
 * The War of 1812, a "second war of independence", secured U.S. territorial claims against the British Empire and guaranteed Canadian integrity. The United States then embarked on a vigorous program of expansion across North America through the 19th century. During the territorial expansion …


 * Native American loss of territory is indeed an important consequence to Amerindian English Allies during the War of 1812 -- and lest we forget -- AFTERWARDS Amerindian tribes which had been U.S. military alies lost their territory, most often to state-sponsored fraud or complicity. See the discussion above under Talk subsection Western Indian edit reverting the consensus above, conducted by Gaylencrufts and Teammm, and TheVirginiaHistorian in colaboraton with SudoGhost who was concerned that Canadian interests be carefully expressed.
 * English expansion westward saw incorporation of disparate pre-established cultures it met. But it also found Amerindian resistance to that settlement. Their opposition took various forms across the continent, as allies with Europeans, multi-tribe nations, and alone -- by relocation and warring, by treaties and in court.


 * Further, the EUROCENTRIC single image of the arriving Mayflower -- illustrating the 'Native American and European settlement' section is replaced showing Amerindians as ACTORS not victims, in verbal dispute among equals, NOT in warfare -- 'savage' or otherwise.
 * - A double image now shows BOTH the cultural and political significance of the Mayflower Compact AND the cultural and political significance of AMERINDIAN cultural interpretation of gift-giving to seal treaties as it clashed with the Europeans.
 * I cannot accede to an undiscussed reversion imposed unilaterally, disregarding a balanced TWO-SECTION accommodation achieved among a six-editor consensus. ONE undiscussed editor revert cannot overthrow SIX participating editors. And @ DancingPhilosopher, I am reluctant to use the INTRODUCTION to try to get at nuances of U.S.-Ameridian-Canadian crosscurrents in the War of 1812 and subsequently when some of that is addressed in U.S. historical sections and at other main pages. Without further objections discussed here, I will restore the consensus Introduction section language -- or get a little help from my friends, here, giving the process time. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 15:11, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Parsing the sentence, The War of 1812 ...
The War of 1812, a "second war of independence", secured U.S. territorial claims against the British Empire and guaranteed Canadian territorial integrity. is the Agreed-to-text. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 15:51, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * and guaranteed Canadian integrity sound like the USA was helping the Canadian's.Moxy (talk) 22:54, 6 December 2012 (UTC)


 * - The USA and the Canadians were BOTH helped by the war's outcome. That's why they BOTH claim victory.
 * - We should include the Canadians somehow, like DancingPhilosopher and Sudoghost wanted.
 * - Did you want to try out an alternative draft phrasing here like Sudoghost did? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:54, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Will see what I can come up with ..because the current wording implies the USA helped the Canadians during the conflict. Does not imply or say anything about the war's outcome.Moxy (talk) 18:13, 7 December 2012 (UTC)


 * One solution to that is to replace "Canada" with "British North America" (or "British North American"), since Canada didn't exist as a political entity at the time. Even the imperial possessions of Upper and Lower Canada weren't united until 1841, with the other provinces being attached decades later. Adding the "British" qualifier would address your concern by clarifying that the text is speaking of positive outcomes for both sides.  And, after all, it would be strange and misleading to say something like "The French and Indian War guaranteed the territorial integrity of the United States", a nation that didn't exist yet.VictorD7 (talk) 05:26, 12 December 2012 (UTC)


 * For the record, since my name was mentioned, I did NOT make any edits about the War of 1812. The page you linked to says "8 intermediate revisions by 7 users not shown". My only edit of the bunch was a sentence fragment on the Revolution that didn't mention territory.VictorD7 (talk) 20:37, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * [Reference made with link by DancingPhilosopher in primary section, first paragraph.] TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:37, 12 December 2012 (UTC)


 * "British North America" was not an official term in 1812 and was less common at the time and in historiography than "Canada." The constitutional status of "Canada" in 1812 is not relevant--it was and is the standard geographical term & it makes more sense to readers. [Rjenkens]
 * Since "Canada" wasn't an official term either, I'm not sure precisely what "guaranteed Canadian integrity" means. The region likely would have retained the informal designation whether governed by Washington or ruled by London. "BNA" is a more accurate description since it indicates political control. That said, I don't necessarily oppose the current language, and was just offering an alternative to address the concerns raised. VictorD7 (talk) 13:42, 12 December 2012 (UTC)


 * The intent of the language is to say:
 * The War of 1812 -- a "second war of independence", secured U.S. territorial claims against the British Empire AND
 * The War of 1812 -- guaranteed Canadian territorial integrity.
 * The subject of the sentence is -- War of 1812. The subject is the actor in the sentence. The “u.s.” is not an agent, it is a noun phrase object of the verb. The results are two-fold. But I don't see how "the U.S. helps Canada" can be gotten out of the sentence as written. Editors are welcome to offer alternative language.
 * Previously -- considerations for the language:
 * (1) Event significance per DancingPhilosopher. The war’s small scale may seem tragicomic today, but it settled borders, ended kidnapping, increased trade, friendship, and initiated joint U.S.-U.K. war on African slave trade in | Article the Tenth, Treaty of Ghent.
 * (2) Proper chronological placement per Golbez. American historians count the War of 1812 as the “coming of age” of U.S. nationalism.
 * (3) Canadian perspective per Sudoghost. Both U.S. and Canada claim the War of 1812 as a victory.


 * [Aside – I like ‘British North America’ as a geographical term to describe all of these inclusively -- Canada post 1763, thirteen North American mainland colonies, Bermuda, Bahamas, West Indies, Jamaica, Mosquito Coast.] TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:57, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Hessians, Amerindians and French
At the Introduction #2 paragraph, the sentence now concisely reads,

The new nation defeated Britain in the American Revolution, the first successful war of independence against a European empire.
 * - Previously, editors have correctly added contributions noting (a) Hessian and (b) Amerindian British allies, and (c) American allies the French. These have been copyedited and reverted over several revisions.
 * - Yet they have omitted the (d) Spanish-Amerindian blocking English and their Amerindian allies in the Floridas protecting the Patriot's southern flank -- The enemy (Spain) of my enemy (Britain) is my friend. -- and (e) the American Amerindian allies fighting and supplying maize to Washington at Valley Forge -- yes, the Oneida-Iroquois friends from his old Ohio-Virginia territory surveying days.
 * - - Patriots knew from the French and Indian War that no European wins on the frontier without Amerindian allies, see Braddock's last stand. In fact, the U.S. wins no Indian Wars without Amerindian military allies. Even Andrew Jackson pays Amerindian U,S. allies tribute. Without them, every account is a 'Custer's last stand', but that is surely for another article.
 * - These five revolutionary allies, British and American, need to be added as important and true detail in an article section. But they cannot be added into the introduction in a concise, balanced explication.
 * - AGREE with the VictorD7 13 Dec. copyedit as quoted above. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:26, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Request for Comment --  Introduction first paragraph

 * DISPUTE SUMMARY.
 * Editor-1 would copyedit 'United States' lead paragraph to reflect 21st century territory for the geographical extent of its ‘federal constitutional republic’ as sourced in five USG sources currently in force, and other style changes.
 * Editor-2 objects using an 1904 colonial doctrine of "unincorporated" territory to exclude five territories and nine uninhabited islands as outside the U.S. geographical extent and its federal constitutional government.
 * Talk, 28 October – 20 November. (current and archive 42) Editor-1 offers five USG sources, four federal court cases, three WP articles, along with extended quoted passages and explanation. Editor-2 offers constructs of two WP articles and two external links without drawing directly from them.


 * The two have collaborated on and off for over a year, Editor-1 has a background in history and politics. Editor-2 shows an interest in history and geography. so one RfC went to history-geography, one RfC went to government-politics. Any comments should begin through that framework of wider collaboration. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 17:58, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

- As editor 2, allow me to put the above succintly: Should this article refer to the United States as consisting of fifty states and a federal district, or also include the territories as well? It presently notes the country as possessing, rather than being partially comprised of, the territories. --Golbez (talk) 18:10, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Secondary source update 12/3/2012: Sparrow, Bartholomew H., in | The Louisiana Purchase And American Expansion, 1803-1898 2005. ISBN 0-7425-4984-4 p.232 “At present, the United States includes the Caribbean and Pacific territories, the District of Columbia and, of course, the fifty states.” Lacking another WP:RS, that should govern. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:23, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

The geographical extent of the U.S. federal republic is, according to sources in recap executive summary:
 * (a)“The United States is not a nation of states, and never has been. … At present, the United includes the Caribbean and Pacific territories, the District of Columbia and, of course, the fifty states.” -- Sparrow, Bartholomew H., in Levinson, S. and Sparrow, B. H., | The Louisiana Purchase And American Expansion, 1803-1898 2005. ISBN 0-7425-4984-4 p.232. viewed December 2, 2012.
 * (b) " 'United States' when used in a geographical sense, means the fifty states, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, the United States Virgin Islands, and the Northern Mariana Islands, and associated territorial waters and airspace." -- | Executive Order 13423: 24 Jan 2007. (l), viewed December 2, 2012.
 * (c) Puerto Rico is an 'incorporated'' territory in the 21st century. -- | Ponce case, also on Wikipedia at Organized incorporated territories.

TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:17, 4 December 2012 (UTC) The two alternate copyedits follow in the chart below, with a little help from my friends, Editor-2 and Editor-3, previously:


 * PROPOSED CHANGES. - Generally. (a) reduce the blue-screen clutter in an article introduction resulting from too many links per WP:LEAD (b) use a more concise, encyclopedic style, and (c) '''comprehensively describe the 21st century country, 'United States' in the country-article first-sentence.


 * ADD the description of the 21st century territorial extent of native U.S. citizens as governed by the “federal constitutional republic” of the U.S. This is described as INCLUDING five territories represented in Congress -- without distinction between "incorporated" and "unincorporated" territory -- at USG reliable sources: (a)| State Department, (b)| Census, (c) | Legal Code, (d) | IRS and (e) | CIA. [ Proposed copyedit found at new-blue-1.b→ in chart above.]


 * - - - TVH discussion: See the U.S. District Court ruling in 2008 in the |Ponce case at Organized incorporated territories, that Puerto Rico is an incorporated territory in the 21st century. Use Supreme Court rulings (a) the Rassmussen case found at unincorporated territories. Un-incorporated territory met the standard of Congressional INTENT TO INCORPORATE when the unincorporated territory of Alaska was administered with - U.S. taxes collected and - U.S. citizenship granted; (b) the ‘Manichi’ case, where in-corporated territory of Hawaii did NOT require extension of the Constitution until Congress authorized it. -- As (a) BOTH unincorporated and incorporated territory may have the Constitution (b) BOTH apply or not -- it is (c) a distinction without a difference.


 * DROP the article’s previous use of exclusionary assumption from 1904 U.S. colonial statutes -- “incorporated” and “unincorporated” territory -- as it applies to 21st century native U.S. citizens under the Constitution, paying U.S. taxes and represented in the U.S. Congress. [ This results in change new-blue-1.b→ above.]


 * - - - TVH discussion: Abandon an outlook in a 'country' Wikipedia article that takes a two-ghost urban legend haunting the “incorporated” uninhabited Palmyra Atoll -- halfway between Hawaii and Samoa -- to EXCLUDE the five territories found “unincorporated” in colonial 1904 FROM the U.S. geographical extent -- with four million citizens in the 21st century. -- The State Department says they are NO LONGER in “overseas territory” (but Samoa), and that they are all WITHIN the geographical extent of the U.S. according to the Immigration and Naturalization Act (INA).
 * - So, I would like to propose the Introduction first paragraph -- replacement of the old-in-gold-items -.a, -- with the new-in-blue-items -.b, as highlighted in the chart above.

TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 15:46, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Secondary Source

 * - Secondary source: WP:RS -- Sparrow, Bartholomew H., in Levinson, S. and Sparrow, B. H., | The Louisiana Purchase And American Expansion, 1803-1898 2005. ISBN 0-7425-4984-4 p.232. viewed December 2, 2012. “The United States is not a nation of states, and never has been.  … At present, the United includes the Caribbean and Pacific territories, the District of Columbia and, of course, the fifty states.” TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:23, 3 December 2012 (UTC)


 * - The Samoan U.S. Delegate In the U.S. Congress has two personal appointments for Samoans every year to the U.S. Military Academy, the Naval, the Air Force, and the Coast Guard Academy. This continuing fact does not seem to support CUBAN Ambassador's claim that SAMOA is colonially oppressed, while no Pacific Islander oppression by INDONESIA can be seen by him. Samoan Ken Niumatalolo is Navy football head coach. GO NAVY. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:40, 3 December 2012 (UTC)


 * - | Executive Order 13423: 24 Jan 2007. (l), viewed December 2, 2012. " 'United States' when used in a geographical sense, means the fifty states, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, the United States Virgin Islands, and the Northern Mariana Islands, and associated territorial waters and airspace." TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:44, 3 December 2012 (UTC)


 * - |Dependencies of the United States, U.S. State Dept. online, viewed December 2, 2012. Lists the five territorial dependencies and the nine uninhabited islands “Administered from Washington DC”.

TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:01, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Being administered from Washington doesn't mean much; the crown possessions are administered from London but no one suggests they're part of the UK. Your proposed edit has a large flaw that would need to be addressed before it could be done (and no, this is not an endorsement of it): Since it changes the definition of the country, all of the numbers in the infobox and, indeed, the article would either have to be modified to include the territories, or include disclaimers that they are just for "part" of the country. Certain portions of the article would have to be rewritten to include mentions of the territories that are not presently there. This goes far beyond the intro. --Golbez (talk) 13:35, 3 December 2012 (UTC)


 * - You are correct, from the sources, we should not include the "nine uninhabited territories". They are not found enumerated in Sparrow, Presidential Executive Order, or INA as applied by the U.S. State Department -- only the CIA chart listing them, and the State chart of dependent territories.

At the newly created 'archive' at state for documents prior to the Obama administration -- hence some of the link breaks appearing above. My 2-cents: I like the archival meta-idea of organizing State documents online by presidency, sort of like the old library shelves of bound volumes of State Department correspondence to embassies. -- So okay, there is clearly no "preponderance of scholarly sources" that Wikipedia guidelines would have us follow, if its only TWO among our one secondary source and five other primary sources discussed above.
 * - Our one scholarly source from Bartolomew H. Sparrow, associate professor of government at University of Texas, Austin, -- the only WP:RS between us -- Sparrow says, "At present, the United includes the Caribbean and Pacific territories, the District of Columbia and, of course, the fifty states.”
 * - Our Primary sources -- which must be used carefully -- include (a) Presidential Executive Order says, " 'United States' when used in a geographical sense, means the fifty states, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, the United States Virgin Islands, and the Northern Mariana Islands". and (b)  Immigration and Naturalization Act as used by the State Department, " 'United States' when used in a geographical sense, means the fifty states, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, the United States Virgin Islands, and the Northern Mariana Islands."
 * - Otherwise, we are asking editors to read four federal court cases, etc. -- which -- it appears -- is not going to happen between Thanksgiving and New Year's Eve 2012. But as for the article text, most write-ups can be left alone, since they either say they are the fifty-states and DC as in Census figures, or we could annotate that explicit description from the table-titles in the reference note at each cite where 50 state-DC statistics appear.
 * - Thank you for returning to this page to talk to me. You do nothing but make my writing clearer, more precise and better sourced. Of course I will collaborate with you to correct all inaccuracies and omissions in this article, where ever we may find them. But on this item, most changes can go to notes, I think.

TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 15:09, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Interpreting IRS sources

 * Well, wait. I didn't say exclude the uninhabited territories. Why would we do that? Are they not part of the country, by your definition? They are unincorporated territories just like the inhabited ones, and unorganized territories just like American Samoa. If you're going to include the area of the inhabited territories you have to include the area of the uninhabited ones. Don't pick and choose.
 * As for a source, I'll play: Primary source but unambiguously for terming the territories as "possessions."
 * Finally, I think you're leaving out the economy numbers. There's nothing in the economy section that states the numbers are just for the fifty states plus DC, yet I'm confident they exclude Puerto Rico, which would add $.1 trillion to the nation's GDP and therefore be noticeable. Does the labor force of 154.1 million people include Puerto Ricans? Does the trade deficit of $635 billion include Puerto Rico's figures? Does the $49,445 value for median household income include the CNMI, where incomes are drastically lower? This is a lot of research that has to be done before you add a few million people to the country. --Golbez (talk) 15:31, 3 December 2012 (UTC)


 * - At your link, on page 413 it says. For this [IRS] purpose, “State” includes the District of Columbia AND the possessions of the United States. – HOW do you say that the source you provide means the article should NOT geographically define the U.S. to INCLUDE the five territories?


 * - In the economy section, after this copyedit, each citation down in the notes just needs a defining mention of its scope. It may be ‘’Data includes 50 states, and the District of Coumbia”. Not a problem. i can do it.
 * - I am happy to change back again to collaborate with you. This iteration, we can make the Introduction and Infobox say, per your last, fifty states, a federal district, five territories and nine uninhabited islands, with inline links.

TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:05, 3 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Because at page 1039 it makes the distinction between states and territories. Either the document is internally contradictory, or there's a difference between stating a fact and stating how you waffle that fact for bureaucratic purposes. (like, hm, "for X purposes, military and diplomatic posts are treated as U.S. territory" does not in fact make those U.S. territory, for any value of X. an example might be income taxation.)
 * Using the citations is not sufficient, especially if it's going to be repeated 100 times. If you're going to go in on this, you have to go all in - if you're going to alter the definition of the country, you need to use the proper values for that country. France appears to make the distinction explicit, relying on footnotes to say "applies only to l'Hexagone" only for the infobox, where in-line notation is not easily done. (Oh, and think about this: If all of the numbers, from major first and second party sources, need to be changed to match your new definition of the country, then maybe that's a sign your definition of the country is incorrect?) --Golbez (talk) 16:27, 3 December 2012 (UTC)


 * - On page 1039, in the appendices following “Resignations of Enrolled Agents” -- we get into issues of WP:RELEVANCE at this level -- it says in bold, Geographical areas included in North American area. – Tax law is NOT here internally inconsistent. For the purposes of taxation, the U.S. (states-DC-territories p.413) is NOT North America (p.1039), North America is not the U.S. (states-DC-territories).


 * - The definition of the U.S. geographical extent is NOT your proper values of the U.S. that supposedly must exclude island peoples. The extent is found in ONE scholarly source in a book published in the U.S., and TEN primary U.S. sources from United States Government--Executive Order, Legal Code, INA Statute, IRS Code, Census, State Department, and four U.S. federal court rulings. To counter you offer ONE article on France? You will not "play a numbers game", as you say, I see that.
 * - To collaborate with you, I will make the Infobox change without in-line notation, although it is widely practiced throughout WP. No numbers need to be changed in any data as written. There is no reason NOT to use a geographic definition of the U.S. used in U.S. primary and scholarly sources as cited.

TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 17:29, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Include island peoples

 * Please do not make any actual changes to this end until and unless consensus is gained; so far, the only other person participating in this discussion with you disagrees with the edit. I also don't see why you think the numbers don't need to be changed, since they will no longer match the definition of the country put forth in the intro. I think you also misunderstood why I linked France; it's an analogous entity, with oversees parts and also territories, so its data needs to specify if the numbers apply to the whole republic or just Metropolitan France, and it does. That had nothing to do with the quality of your idea, just the quality of the proposed edit. --Golbez (talk) 17:46, 3 December 2012 (UTC)


 * - The usual period is 30 days. I will wait for the process to work, without any copyedit changes during a Request for Comment.


 * Your "proper values" of the United States argument used the France article to support an article version to exclude island peoples in the geographic extent of the U.S. You have previously used (a) colonial statutes upheld in 1904 Court holdings which are superseded by Immigration and Naturalization Laws since 1952, and (b) a judicial doctrine of "incorporation" which was overturned by a federal court in 2005 in the case of Puerto Rico -- all to exclude island peoples. But that discriminatory exclusion of a chosen class of U.S. citizen is not appropriate in an article purporting to describe 21st century 'United States of America'.


 * - No data needs changing. The numbers of a census report of states-and-a-district to not presume to encompass the census-category "native-born U.S. citizens" of states-district-five territories. The chart needs only be properly titled as it appears in the Census Tables, and so forth. If current titles do not accurately reflect the data reported, we can amend that. Otherwise, no table changes are required.


 * The geographic extent of the U.S. is established in a reliable scholarly source, and ten primary sources from the U.S. Congress, Executive and Federal Courts -- ALL say the geographical extent of the U.S. includes island peoples, 4-millions in the 21st century awarded native-born U.S. citizen status, in districts collecting U.S. taxes, under the Constitution, with local self-government, and enjoying representation in the U.S. Congress who are authorized to make appointments to the four military academies. -- In the words of our reliable source, the U.S. geographical extent is "the Caribbean and Pacific territories, the District of Columbia and, of course, the fifty states.”

TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 21:04, 3 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I did not know there was a formal RFC; you need to modify it, because it's poorly formatted (it just says 'DISPUTE SUMMARY' and a link).
 * I don't understand what you're saying about the census stuff. What about the economic figures?
 * I also don't understand what you're inferring about my linking to France. It's as if you're saying that my saying the France article makes it clear whether the data pertains to Metropolitan France or the whole of the Republic is somehow saying that I want to ignore "island peoples"? I'm saying - again - that if you're going to change the definition of the country, every fact and figure has to either apply to that new definition or explicitly state that part of this new definition (the territories) is being omitted.
 * No one is trying to be discriminatory here, so please don't try to paint it that way. I could bring up a half dozen logical issues with the unincorporated territories being an integral part of the country but as of yet there's no need to. But, since it's there, I could do it for your last paragraph - they don't collect the same taxes as are collected in the states and federal district, and they are not subject to the provisions of the Constitution in perpetuity like the rest of the country (including Palmyra Atoll) is. That last part is particularly important - Puerto Rico could leave. No incorporated part of the country can. --Golbez (talk) 22:03, 3 December 2012 (UTC)


 * - Two RfCs are to balance our alternative perspectives in politics and geography with (a) dispute summary, (b) color-coded chart displaying two copyedits (c) two bulleted summary points of what to add and what to drop, and (d) my tvh discussion for each.


 * - Treat all charts similarly -- no change -- unless the titles need amending or the scope needs footnoting. This applies to census data, economic data, and so forth.
 * - An exclusion of island peoples from the U.S. geographical extent is based on Wiki references, but in EVERY case on inspection, they fail to support an argument to define the U.S. geographic extent WITHOUT the five territories in the 21st Century.
 * - The geographical description of the U.S. -- 50 states, a district, five territories and associated islands -- is established by a reliable source and what the U.S. says it is -- as referenced in links here for the U.S. Congress, Executive, and Judiciary.
 * - Court cases you referenced held (a) Congress intended unincorporated Alaska as a state because of U.S. citizenship and U.S. tax collection, NOT identical taxes, so that's the "incorporation" of the five territories. (b) the federal court case declaring Puerto Rico "incorporated" into the U.S. is posted.
 * -- What is this new line of argument about, (c) Congress did not extend the Constitution to Reconstructed states as though they were 'unincorporated', but states may NOT leave the U.S. in rebellion, so that makes them 'incorporated'. On March 1, 1954, Puerto Rican nationalists opened fire on the House of Representatives, injuring five congressmen, but Puerto Rico may NOT leave the U.S. in rebellion either. So, how does THAT support excluding island peoples from the geographical extent of the U.S. in the 21st century -- ALL the people governed by the geographical extent of the federal republic describing the U.S. in the article first-sentence -- 50 states, a district, 5 territories and associated islands. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 05:52, 4 December 2012 (UTC)


 * - Something here is not right. How can you say on 3 December, I did not know there was a formal RFC when I posted notice to you at your Talk page on 21 November?

TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 06:28, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I was out of town that week; I probably did not notice it. --Golbez (talk) 14:28, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Unincorporated Alaska and PR

 * What's this about unincorporated Alaska? This came out of nowhere. And this has nothing to do with Reconstruction. Or the assassination attempt on Truman. You do like to bring in wholly unrelated things to inflate your argument, which I've complained to you about in the past. Finally, you can't ignore the unique and elevated status of Palmyra Atoll, it is an incorporated territory under the Constitution and not merely an "associated island." --Golbez (talk) 14:25, 4 December 2012 (UTC)


 * - Unincorporated Alaska comes from the court case reference you -- gave -- me, where the Supreme Court said the Congress intended 'incorporation' EVEN THOUGH treaty said Alaska was 'unincorporated'. The court reasoned that U.S. citizenship and U.S. tax district (NOT same taxes), -- made the Constitution extended to the 'unincorporated' territory. Petite jury overturned, whorehouse reopened. Since all five territories have U.S. citizens and U.S. taxes, they are not to be excluded by the reference you gave me.


 * - Are you not reading the references you provide? -- That may be why they do not support you.
 * - if you initiate the point, "incorporated states may not leave by rebellion, I may fairly reply, unincorporated territories may not leave by rebellion.'' Further, the federal court in the 2009 | Ponce case ruled Puerto Rico IS "incorporated into the United States" -- in the 21st century.
 * - If you believed what you purport about Palmyra Atoll, the article would say the U.S. is 50 states, a district and the Palmyra Atoll. But there is nothing distinguishing about the uninhabited island half-way between Hawaii and Samoa -- transient sugar cane workers are no longer transported their by an owning family. But there IS a psychic online legend of two Californian yachting ghosts haunting the place. So you would BLOCK the copyedit stating U.S. citizens of 4 million island people are included in the U.S. federal republic -- for the sake of the "unique and elevated status" of Palmyra Atoll?

TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 15:44, 4 December 2012 (UTC)


 * What source is this that discusses unincorporated Alaska?
 * I never specified rebellion. The states cannot leave by any means, so long as the Constitution is in force. Nor can Palmyra Atoll. Puerto Rico can.
 * I'm browsing that court case and while interesting and possibly illuminating to this whole argument, I'm not seeing where it states plainly that Puerto Rico is an incorporated territory. Which page/line is that at? Or are you saying that it's demolishing the entire incorporated/unincorporated dichotomy?
 * The article can safely omit Palmyra Atoll from the intro because it is a curiosity, rather than something important. However, if you're going to bring in entities with a politically lower standing than it, then you have to mention it. If it were an uninhabited 51st state, we would mention it on equal standing with the other fifty. --Golbez (talk) 16:09, 4 December 2012 (UTC)


 * - sure. [|Rasmussen] as before referenced here. You addressed territories leaving -- omitting whether with a constitutional amendment, or without it -- which would be rebellion. -- so you are making a lawyerly assertion, incomplete for the sake of advocacy. Incorporated territory may depart by Constitutional Amendment -- to assert it can NEVER be so amended -- is to overthrow Article V of the Constitution on YOUR part. The people are sovereign, not the states, incorporated or otherwise.
 * Ponce-page 5: “The court, in its Opinion and Order of November 10, 2008, as amended … noted that Puerto Rico … had evolved into an incorporated territory due to a series of increasingly significant Congressional actions.” -- a source without contradiction after 2008.


 * Ponce-page 6: The court hereby makes some additional observations regarding the doctrine of incorporation which plainly demonstrate just how juridically illogical and impracticable the same is … incorporation/unincorporation, a concept introduced via judicial fiat.” – Yes, the incorporation/unincorporation dichotomy has NO practical application in a 21st century world without U.S. administration of colonies of populations denied U.S. citizenship.
 * Ponce-Page 10: “Palmyra Atoll is an unpopulated and unorganized, yet incorporated territory … under Balzac, this is not possible, given that Palmyra did not become a state, nor will ever likely become one.” -- That is, Palmyra fails the WP:IMPORTANCE test by sourced reference reference as a legal impossibility, EXCEPT as one of nine uninhabited islands in the U.S. geographical extent administered by the Interior Department from Washington DC.

TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 17:37, 4 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I took that bit to say that Balzac is being superceded by this ruling, therefore Palmyra is not a legal impossibility. Also, you run into a contradiction problem, as many sites in the .gov domain refer to Puerto Rico and the other territories as unincorporated. --Golbez (talk) 18:07, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * - Okay, look for a .gov domain that supports your position for this article. This article is not unincorporated territory, it is the United States, so you will have to cast your net over a wider area to find something germane. I have found DIRECT SOURCE QUOTES from .gov sources supporting my view from Congress, President, State, Commerce, IRS, four federal court cases ... you assert I will have great difficulty, but that cannot be the substance and extent of your argument if I now marshal ten, eleven, twelve .gov sources in addition to our one WP:RS -- all support my view.
 * - On the 21st century .gov sites inspected to date, we have found NO CONTRADICTION to the geographical extent of the U.S. federal republic as 50 states, a federal district, five territories and associated islands -- just as our WP:RS professor Sparrow has written. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 04:51, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Internet for research

 * - Once again, there is NO DIRECT SOURCE QUOTE [we find on the internet] that supports your position. I took it the judge at the | Ponce case thought 'incorporated' at Balzac meant a court saw a state coming soon, and this is not possible in an unorganized territory so -- it is "juridically illogical and impractical" for governance of U.S. citizens -- which is what the judge set out to explain to any lawyer reading his decision.
 * - At the time of the Palmyra Atoll split from Hawaii, I think there was a Gilded-Age Congressional side-deal to benefit the sugar plantation family with connections. -- "You can't ignore the unique and elevated status of Palmyra Atoll? -- Where does THAT come from, YOU don't write like that, I do. --  Hey, when is Pearl Harbor Day this year? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 04:51, 5 December 2012 (UTC)


 * As for finding sites, you can look yourself: Search google for "guam unincorporated site:gov". Or "puerto rico unincorporated site:gov". The latter returns four million results, though I'm sure many of those are duplicates or false positives (searching for merely "unincorporated territory site:gov" returns mostly links on area in counties that have not been incorporated into municipalities).
 * And fancy and flourishy words are not merely yours to use. :) But why Palmyra was split is irrelevant, it was split, and it has a separate (and legally higher) status from the other territories. One could say it's a completely different status from the territories, since it's actually part of the country (in my view, at least). --Golbez (talk) 15:20, 5 December 2012 (UTC)


 * - [I stand corrected - mostly living in the southeast, you are not a Yankee (sorry, sorry, sorry, sorry), so my DMV plate has to substitute the previous 'yankee' post with "y'all" (and greatful thanks to Paula Dean, too)]
 * - You are my digital native, y'all, with a stock in trade. -- DNYSIT -- ought to be your DMV vanity license plate because of all the times you contradict me. Okay, lead this | digital immigrant blindly exploring -- DIM-BE -- on an internet search.
 * - I want to learn what the geographic extent of the U.S. may be in the 21st century. I am to google search "puerto rico and unincorporated" on government sites. Can I limit the results to "after 2005"?

TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:46, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Three key sources

 * The geographical extent of the U.S. federal republic -- Let's return to SOURCES. According to my sources in executive summary:
 * (a)“The United States is not a nation of states, and never has been. … At present, the United includes the Caribbean and Pacific territories, the District of Columbia and, of course, the fifty states.” -- Sparrow, Bartholomew H., in Levinson, S. and Sparrow, B. H., | The Louisiana Purchase And American Expansion, 1803-1898 2005. ISBN 0-7425-4984-4 p.232. viewed December 2, 2012.
 * (b) " 'United States' when used in a geographical sense, means the fifty states, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, the United States Virgin Islands, and the Northern Mariana Islands, and associated territorial waters and airspace." -- | Executive Order 13423: 24 Jan 2007. (l), viewed December 2, 2012.
 * (c) Puerto Rico is an 'incorporated' territory in the 21st century. -- | Ponce case, 2009, viewed December 2, 2012.
 * What are the hundreds of sources that you assert would make the 1904 judicial doctrine of colonial 'unincorporated territory' change the article lead to say, "The U.S. is a federal republic extending to 50 states, a federal district and the Palmyra Atoll." So far every source in Wikipedia and online that you have given me does NOT EXCLUDE the four million island people living under the U.S. federal republic as 21st century citizens. There is only your unsupported reasoning at the 'CIA' and in 'France'. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:42, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * What are you referring to about 'France'? The Wikipedia article on it or the CIA factbook page on it? --Golbez (talk) 14:28, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * - The CIA factbook and the France article makes no reference to U.S. citizenship that denies that the U.S. federal republic extends to include -- the Caribbean and Pacific territories, the District of Columbia and ... the fifty states. -- that we have from our WP:RS direct quote. There is no counter quote, only reasoning unsupported by sources you referenced.


 * - For instance, in the IRS document you reference above, page 413 INCLUDES territories and federal district the same as states, versus your reference to page 1039 which defines North America without West Pacific Islands -- then you interpret that page without quotation as the IRS EXCLUDING island peoples from the territorial extent of the U.S. when it has done no such thing. There is no such quote.
 * - I have posted immediately above, THREE of the ten source links here at Talk that directly support INCLUDING the island peoples in the U.S. with source quotes. Where is your quote to support that in 2012, "the U.S. federal republic does not extent to the five territories"? For a month, there is none shared here at Talk.

TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 15:08, 4 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I was just checking that you were again misunderstanding my mention of the Wikipedia article on France, and at this point I am forced to believe you are doing it on purpose. --Golbez (talk) 15:23, 4 December 2012 (UTC)


 * - I read the 'France' article. The source does NOT support your position. It says, France "is a unitary semi-presidential republic located mostly in Western Europe, with several overseas regions and territories. You see, I can make a direct quote from the source to support my position -- that means I have read it. You make no direct quotes from the sources. The formulation you reference is precisely what you oppose -- the 'France' style of article first sentence -- including territories which I -- propose -- adopting -- here.


 * - The United States federal republic has a geographic extent over five self-governing territories of U.S. citizens, under the Constitution, paying U.S. taxes, with representation in the U.S. Congress. YOU sent ME to the Insular Cases, I read [|Rasmussen] -- and as with your other references -- they do NOT support your position. The five territories have U.S. citizens and differentiated U.S. taxes, just as in the 'unincorporated' Alaska you sent me to read about. The Court held with those two elements, Congress had made Alaska de facto 'incorporated' -- which -- is -- also the ruling in the | Ponce case, 2009, where Puerto Rico is declared in federal court as 'incorporated' in the U.S.
 * - Indeed, you indignantly wonder why I would refer to your referenced 'unincorporated' Alaska as though I somehow made it up. -- AND you have previously WARNED me about this INAPPROPRIATE behavior of mine, reading your referenced sources -- when I merely took you at your word and read the references you gave me as a part of what I took to be the wikipedia editorial process -- reading the words of others. How are we to proceed if you will neither read my words nor your own? Read your own references and you will arrive at my position.

TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:40, 4 December 2012 (UTC)


 * The reason I referred to France was the fact that the facts and figures in the document apply to the whole republic, and not just Metropolitan France, except where specifically noted. All - every single one - of the numbers in this document refer to the fifty states and federal district, so if you're going to change what constitutes the country you need to re-examine the facts and figures. (Note that I'm not using France as an example of a country having territories outside itself, as the relationship between France and its territories is more complex, they are possibly internal territories. I use the UK as an example for that, since their territories are explicitly outside the UK.)
 * For the rest, I have little more to add at this time, and await further input from others via the RFC (which I note is still malformatted, reading "DISPUTE SUMMARY" and containing no such summary. Please remedy this so we can get others in here. Also, uh, anyone else watching this talk page? I know you're out there.) --Golbez (talk) 17:07, 4 December 2012 (UTC)


 * - No change is required in the article facts and figures. The facts and figures readily available and selected are to remain as they are.
 * - A Table: 'United States Widgets' by Mnop Corp., stands as displayed in all respects. The source note can read Jones, B. "Data Tables of the U.S." 2001. Mnop Corp. p.1xx. The fifty states and the District of Columbia.
 * - This is no problem. You are claiming that the mechanics of stating the geographic extent of the U.S. cannot be technically implemented at Wikipedia due to the overwhelming inconvenience the innovation, causing uncountable hours of copyediting on existing charts and tables. But I have explained before, this is just not so.


 * - Why use debate format instead of collegial copyediting? The AFFIRMATIVE says, (a) There is a need. (b) Here is a plan. (c) Implementation brings good results. The NEGATIVE says, (a) There is no need. (b) The plan can't work. (c) The attempt brings bad results.
 * - (a) You have no SOURCE QUOTES to dispute my established need. So you next say (b) the plan is unworkable because all the tables and charts will have to be modified. This is not so. Then step (c) of the exchange, earlier --now buried way down in archive 42-- i said there was an emotional good to including ALL citizens unlike the bad old days of early 20th century governance, and you-cold-hearted-Yankee-you said you would not address emotional arguments. -- which by the way, in most contexts over the last year, I have appreciated you reining me in -- -- -
 * - A chart 'United States Widgets' can have a source note, [citation]. The fifty states and the District of Columbia. That is all that is needed anywhere, everywhere in the article it may be needed.

TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 05:26, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Verifying the labor force

 * I'm not saying that it makes it technically impossible; I'm saying, you have to be prepared to verify everything before moving on with this. It's not just charts and stuff - it's even little things like the labor force consisting of 154.1 million people, the median household income being $49,445, etc. If these do not apply to the whole of the country as you are defining it then every single fact that does not will have to be tagged with a note saying so. That's how I see it, at least. I'm not necessarily saying it to discourage you; what I am saying is that if you want to complete this change then it is a far, far larger change than merely one sentence in the introduction. What I am discouraging is commencing work on such a project until we get more input from others.
 * As for "cold hearted Yankee", sir I was born in Texas and lived most of my life in Virginia, North Carolina, Georgia, and (okay this might be a stretch) Washington DC. ;) --Golbez (talk) 15:11, 5 December 2012 (UTC)


 * - the problem with labor force in the article is bigger than geographical extent of the U.S. federal republic as described in the Introduction. The geographical extent of U.S. government is NO PROBLEM for data with its statistical universe properly reported, -- in the title or -- in the notes. Your FIRST example for us to inspect is -- the labor force consisting of 154.1 million people.


 * (1) Search on the Article for labor force. The reference is the | International Herald Tribune, "In the East, many EU work rules don’t apply" is | the article cited. Search on "United States" and we get the percentage of unionized workers is generally closer to the 12 percent level in the United States than the 30 percent average in Western Europe.
 * (2) The geographic extent of the U.S. including its federal republican government in five territories IS found exemplified in your source -- France, but it does NOT require me to verify everything in the article such as the labor force "consisting of 154.1 million people". Yes, ALL UNSOURCED ASSERTIONS should to be verified, tagged or taken out of the article. But properly describing the geographical extent of the U.S. is not what drives that -- Wikipedia policy requires WP:VERIFY.


 * - - To date, my interest in the 'United States' article has been limited to the history section. But my MBA background sparks an interest in your challenge. After we fix the geographical extent, maybe we can work on the article's labor force together, but not for the reason you first suggest.
 * - - - Yikes. if you've lived most of your life in the Southeast, that kills my neat DNYSIT license plate idea for you. -- "digital native yankee with stock in trade". I'll just change it to "digital native, y'all, with stock in trade" to express your frequent contradicting of me. As I am the DIM-BE - digital immigrant blindly exploring, I've asked for your help in a section above in google searching puerto rico and unincorporated on .gov sites.

TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:47, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Median household income

 * - Inspect the article’s median household income is your SECOND statistical challenge.
 * - The article note reference is | Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2010. The article citation omits that the information is taken from the Section “Income in the United States: Highlights” on page 5. Again I agree with you that a complete review of statistical references is called for – but for different reasons. Either section titles or page references should be given for each reference.
 * - Source of Estimates and Statistical Accuracy section, in the median household income citation PROPERLY REPORTS, The data in this report … were collected in the 50 states and the District of Columbia. The data do not represent residents of Puerto Rico and U.S. island areas.* U.S. island areas include American Samoa, Guam, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and the Virgin Islands of the United States. (p.1) The SCOPE of the report is properly included by reference. All is properly noted for the article, it is what it is, DONT CHANGE A STAT.


 * - United States statistics compared to other nations are still useful -- as written. -- While the 4 million population of the five territories is larger than 25 states, editors will want WP:RELEVANCE on whether to recalculate all internal reporting of the Census bureau. The five-territory population is about 1.3% of the total population governed by the U.S. federal republic as represented in Congress. There are NO NATIONS on earth within 2% larger or smaller population -- where international comparisons would be substantially different -- by including the five territories in this article -- as geographic extent governed by the U.S. federal republic.
 * - For editorial WP:IMPORTANCE on deciding whether the populations of the 5 territories should be reflected in the geographical extent of the U.S. federal republic, note that the 25 states with populations less than that of the population of the 5 territories are OR, OK, CT, IA, MS, AR, KS, UT, NV, NM, WV, NB, ID, HI, ME, NH, RI, MT, DE, SD, AK, ND, VT, DC, WY. The five Territories should be included in the U.S. federal republic geographical extent. But DONT CHANGE A STAT.


 * - Median incomes of the 5 territories are on average one-half of the poorest state Mississippi. For study of the people living in them, and for comparisons among each other and the entire nation, it is useful to aggregate them separately in statistical data bases. In many conventional database treatments their removed geographic location makes them out-of-sight-out-of-mind. But DONT CHANGE A STAT.
 * - Don't use Statistical convenience as the basis for the editorial decision to exclude the five territories of 4 million native-born U.S. citizens, self-governing under the Constitution, represented in the U.S. Congress and described as within the geographical extent of its federal republic by Congressional law, Executive Order and Judicial ruling.

TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:44, 6 December 2012 (UTC)


 * You again are misrepresenting, with your repeated appeals to emotion (yes yes we know there's 4 million U.S. citizens etc etc), why I brought up the facts-and-figures issue. I don't have the energy to again explain why I brought it up. Before I leave for the moment, I must point out a contradiction: What about American Samoa? They aren't automatically U.S. citizens upon birth, so ... ? If we include them then it's about more than citizenship, if we don't include them then it's about more than representation. --Golbez (talk) 15:10, 6 December 2012 (UTC)


 * (1) Median household income properly reports the scope of the Census report cited as 50 states and DC. No change will be required, you need not reassert it may be.


 * (2) The addition of the five territories population by 21st century Congressional statute, Presidential executive order, State Department publications, and Judicial practice will not materially change comparisons by any international metric. Any facts-and-figures concern is unrelated to the geographical extent of the U.S. federal republic.
 * (3) “The 5 territories” together are larger than each of 25 states and DC. They are WP:RELEVANT to the U.S. federal republic's extent.
 * (4) “Data-base conventions” report the five territories apart. Their median household income is one-half of the poorest state; they are statistically comparable among themselves. Statistical conventions should not govern country-articles in matters of law and practice.


 * (5) U.S. extent includes Samoa by presidential executive order and congressional INA law. Samoans are under the Constitution of the U.S. federal republic, whereas under colonial statutes, 'unincorporated' territory was not. U.S. taxes are collected there. Samoans are born U.S. nationals and freely travel to all U.S. territory. Permanent residency there does not result in loss of U.S. citizenship.
 * - Samoans enjoy self-government, representation in Congress and their delegate appoints to U.S. Army, Navy, Air Force and Coast Guard academies. We are to include them, instead of a 1904 judicial footnote, the one unorganized ‘INCORPORATED’ territory of uninhabited Palmyra Atoll.

TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 18:28, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Who defines U.S. extent

 * "According to the United States Census Bureau, the pretax median household income in 2010 was $49,445." I see nothing here that specifies it's for only part of the country as you define it. Also, no one has suggested we include Palmyra instead of American Samoa, but, whatever works for you. --Golbez (talk) 19:16, 6 December 2012 (UTC)


 * (1) The extent of the U.S. is defined by a reliable scholarly source from Levinson and Sparrow, the U.S. President, State Department, and Congressional INA statutes. Your reasoning to deny use of those sources is unjustified -- your refer to an unprecedented 1904 judicial doctrine of 'unincorporated' territory. In Ponce 2007, a federal court ruled that the 'unincorporated' doctrine does not constitutionally apply to Puerto Rico in the 21st century.


 * (2) You must abandon your construction to apply an unprecedented judicial fiat upholding 1904 colonial law without Constitutional protections over the non-U.S. citizen Philippine population. In the face of Rasmussen, Mankichi and Ponce as discussed above, as well as USG sources, the doctrine does not apply to the five 21st century territories as they are Constitutionally self-governing.
 * (3) You are improperly extrapolating from a table title -- with its limit properly noted on its reference, page 1 -- to proclaim your unsupported declining the sources included in a U.S. executive order, INA statutes, a federal court ruling, and over ten other sources. -- The table nowhere asserts that it defines the geographical extent of the U.S. by either enumeration or omission.
 * (4) Support your argument with a source quote demonstrating a connection with your reasoning from a reliable source to EXCLUDE U.S. territories -- in the geographic extent of its federal republic.

TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 20:15, 6 December 2012 (UTC)


 * When something in the above has anything to do with my comment about the median household income figure, please let me know. I tire of these irrelevant, repetitious screeds. Wait, there might be something here - a table title! However, I'm not talking about a table, I'm talking about what is written on Wikipedia. Am I to understand you expect our readers to click through to every reference to discover if it's about the 50 states and federal district, or about the 50 states, federal district, and various territories? If not, then please, for the love of god, make sense; if so, then that's simply not going to happen, that's a huge disservice to our audience. --Golbez (talk) 21:00, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

This is how it is done at Wikipedia. Text is written for a general reader in a concise, encyclopedic style.
 * Let's examine the example at France that YOU--have--given--ME. At Wikipedia, there IS no expectation that readers will click through to "every statistical reference" to determine complete source detail of interest only to arcane statistical specialists.
 * At France, the intro says France is ... mostly in Europe with several overseas regions and territories. But in statistics throughout the article, OECD figures are for Metropolitan France, without including overseas regions and territories.
 * At United States, I propose a different style due to the federal system of self-governance among (a) states, (b) federal district and (c) territories -- alike -- under the Constitution. The U.S. ... is fifty states, a federal district, five territories and islands.
 * Your concern may yet be groundless. As before, you only have to read your own references and you will arrive at my position. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 22:06, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

At 'France', where is "Metropolitan" France

 * At this point I honestly have no clue what you're trying to say. What's this about "OECD figures are for Metropolitan France?" Where does it say that? (also, "five territories and islands"? The uninhabited territories are, I believe, distinct territories, at least Palmyra is, and therefore it should be possible to number them. The way you have it written it sounds like the number of territories and "islands" totals five.) --Golbez (talk) 23:12, 6 December 2012 (UTC)


 * (1) When you read the article at France you will find economic and population "facts and figures" such as median income sourced to the OECD, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, the data for France is for Metropolitan France.


 * (2) WP does NOT expect the reader to click through data references in a country article -- just as you have not –- however,
 * - (a) In "France", OECD data refers to -- mainland France and Corsica, -- WITHOUT Overseas France.
 * - (b) In "U.S.", Census data refers to -- mainland U.S. and Hawaii -– WITHOUT five U.S. Territories.
 * (3) There is no confusion about "facts and figures" in a WP country article reporting a database encompassing 98% of their populations, when that 2% does not significantly alter any metric of comparison among countries.

TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:38, 7 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Where does it say in France that OECD figures are for Metropolitan France? For that matter, where does it say the Census data (outside of the infobox) is for the fifty states and federal district? Answer: It doesn't, because at present it doesn't need to. If we start saying the article is for a country that includes the territories then we need to specify which data doesn't include the territories. --Golbez (talk) 14:28, 7 December 2012 (UTC)


 * (1) At "facts and figures" of interest in 'France', as you read, click on a footnote to see OECD reference. At a OECD link, YOU scroll for your technical interest beyond a "general reader", to find that the France reported at OECD is Metropolitan France with Corsica,
 * - Database detail is not the official description of the Republic of France -- which includes mainland France, Corsica and overseas territories. The official description of the extent of the unitary republic is to be found in the article first-sentence.


 * (2) At "facts and figures" of interest in 'United States', as you read, click on a footnote to see U.S. Census reference. At a U.S. Census link, YOU scroll for your technical interest to find that the United States reported at the U.S. Census is "50 states and DC",
 * - Database detail is not the official' description of the United States of America -- which includes states, district, territories and islands. The official description of the extent of the federal republic is to be found in the article first-sentence.

TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:05, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia country articles should describe the extent of official government in the same way for both Republic of France and the United States of America. You are mistaken, they BOTH need to make an statement of the official extent as a matter of Wikipedia policy.

significance in statistical comparisons

 * So let's get this straight: The intro of France correctly defines it as consisting of Metropolitan France and the overseas regions and territories. We then share facts and figures that only apply to part of that definition; and we don't warn the reader about this? They have to click through to find out that the information only applies to part of the country? That seems like very bad form on the part of the editors of that article and it should be remedied.
 * You cannot expect the editors to have to click every single reference to find out what definition of the country they conform to. If the U.S. census figure was only for 14 random states, you would tell the reader, right? You wouldn't expect them to have to click through? --Golbez (talk) 17:57, 7 December 2012 (UTC)


 * -It is not "bad form" for a general reader to see readily available reports by official sources. Stay with me.


 * [aside][You would be correct about, say 15 random state statistics as being useless, because you could not -- statistically -- encompass even 50% of the population from such a sample. The trick is to take a "stratified random" sample. Rank the 50 states, divide them into quintiles of 10 states each, pick three from each group of ten. Then you have to run tests to see what your variance is. -- But random 15 of 50, or 14 of 56, is NOT what we are doing here -- that useless scenario -- Keep reading.]
 * - There is no confusion about "facts and figures" in a WP country article for general readership
 * -- reporting a database with 98 percent of their populations -- when the STATISTICAL remaining 2% in each,
 * -- does not alter any METRIC ranking -- among COUNTRIES -- each to the world-aggregate -- or to one another.
 * - OECD and U.S. Census use the two-sigma (90%) test for significance as do the social studies. Nothing in the hard sciences gets published without three-sigmas (99%+). But you do see -- there is no absolute in social sciences, so the standard is whether the relative standing among the countries -- and their relative changes over time -- are measurable and comparable. Yeah, I know, not fair, welcome to the messy world of encyclopedia articles about countries.
 * - No expectation to click through -- unless the reader has a specialty interest in statistics and the internal reporting systems of individual country databases. -- And then -- Wikipedia editors have an obligation to provide reliable, verifiable sources for the reader clicking through -- so that we can launch them on their own independent inquiries apart from us.

TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 01:24, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

What about China-U.S. ranking?

 * So wait, your argument for continuing to leave out the territories in the numbers is that they're not large enough to matter? First of all, absolutely wrong - the numbers I have mentioned are all specific enough that they would be visibly changed, even if by one significant digit, by the inclusion of the territories. Second of all, that doesn't matter - do we want to be accurate or don't we? Third of all, doesn't that fundamentally undermine your argument for the definition of the country? If 99% of the official U.S. federal facts and figures in the article do not apply to the several territories then how can you say these federal agencies truly consider the territories part of the country? It's curious how you accuse me of wanting to disenfranchise 4 million U.S. citizens (and Samoans) in the intro, yet are perfectly fine with the rest of the article doing the same. I'm sorry, if we say in one part of the article that the country includes the territories, but in another part that the median household income without qualifier (i.e. assuming this is for the definition given earlier in the article) is $49,445, if that was changed even five dollars by the inclusion of the territories, then we are giving an incorrect value to the reader, and that is doing them a disservice. I cannot comprehend why you fight so much to include the territories in the definition of the country, but refuse to include them in every other piece of info about it. And finally, the argument about "altering ranking" is irrelevant, both on its face and because it *does* alter ranking - if we include the territories in the area of the country that changes the numbers used in the China-U.S. area dispute. --Golbez (talk) 04:15, 8 December 2012 (UTC)


 * - DO use importance, common usage and balance for statistics, use the official country description for geographical extent. But doesn't that fundamentally undermine your argument for the definition of the country? -- No, read my earlier post: footnotes from country database statistics are NOT the same WP:IMPORTANCE as the official description of the United States of America.


 * - Show your calculations or cite a source. The median household of the United States will NOT plunge by $5 if you recalculate it with the five territories. And in any case, changing U.S. Census reporting one day will NOT change the world-wide ranking #11-U.S. ranking GDP per capita @ $48,300 versus #122-China ranking @ $8,400 on this metic. Even an imagined $5 change will NOT cause U.S. ranking to drop below #12-United Arab Emirates @ $47,700 PPP. -- it cannot cause U.S. ranking to rise above #10-Hong Kong @ 49,400 PPP. -- For data, see CIA World Factbook Country Comparison | GDP – per capital (PPP). -- Using U.S. standard government reports does NOT mislead the general reader. Feel free to choose another metric to investigate together, but please read it first to see whether it supports me again.

TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 15:38, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The territories are to be included in the definition of the country, because the five territories are in the official definition of the federal republic of the United States of America. I refuse to allow a quirky interest in statistics to make policy for WP country article. No one need disrupt an country-article copyedit based on official country-sources by his DEMANDING to find 99%+ certainty in statistical measures of 90% certainty. -- It does not meet the WP:NEUTRALITY test. This is a country, not chemistry.
 * Use generally accepted nationally-published reports used by scholars for reporting country facts-and-figures. WP editors should NOT conduct their own original research re-calculating Census tables. The article first-sentence of official geographic extent should NOT await Congressional reform of the U.S. Census reporting conventions. -- There is no reasonable prohibitive connection between (a) statistical footnotes and (b) official geographic extent.
 * Use the U.S. official description in the article first sentence. Follow (1) reliable source professor Sparrow, (2) Presidential executive order,(3) Congressional INS law, (4) State Department insular affairs manual and (5) WP conventions followed at the ‘France’ article. -- Include the five territories -- under the Constitution, represented in the U.S. Congress -- within the official geographical extent of the federal republic of the 'United States of America' article at WP. They can be removed at WP when the U.S. officially removes them.

Where can we read the facts?

 * OK, that's it. I said, quite plainly, "China-U.S. area dispute." Somehow that means you bring up the GDP per capita ranking? And also, it doesn't matter. It's not about comparison, it's about fact. If the territories changed that value $1000 then you'd still be against including them because that wouldn't change our ranking? I have said, maybe a half dozen times now, that I don't want you to recalculate the numbers, or avoid doing this because it's hard, but I just want, if the definition of the country in the article is changed to include the territories, that the facts and figures that only pertain to part of that defined country are specified as such. You, somehow, turn this to mean I want you to perform original research, or that it's all useless statistical wonkery. So, fine. Read whatever the hell you want, because you clearly aren't reading me. Your argument is all over the place (it makes no logical sense to change the intro and nothing else yet that appears to be what you've been urging for this entire time), and I can only explain myself in plain language so many times before I have to give up. I'm done here. --Golbez (talk) 16:49, 8 December 2012 (UTC)


 * - You drive a hard bargain in collaboration. You have no references or examples, so my references and example are invalid?
 * - You have NOT made plain -- the Chinese dispute over three U.S. Territories. You have NOT made plain why to choose China's Second Island Chain for WP editorial policy, which does include the Northern Marianas, Samoa and Guam for China. See Robert D. Kaplan, [ http://www.amazon.com/dp/1400069831 | The Revenge of Geography: What the Map Tells Us ...] Chapter XI. The Geography of Chinese Power. pp.188.
 * - I would have a WP country article to report that country's official geographic extent -- supported by worldwide public press, published facts and reliable sources. -- I read this -- | Executive Order 13423 Sec. 9. (l) for an official article-country statement of its geographical extent: "'United States' when used in a geographical sense, means the fifty states, the District of Columbia, ...

TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 18:16, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
 * "the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and the Northern Mariana Islands, and associated territorial waters and airspace."
 * The Infobox can have a note at U.S. "territory" explaining -- China's "Second Island Chain" includes the Northern Marianas, American Samoa and Guam. --sourced to Kaplan. -- Is THAT what you hinted at in the last post? Hints in collaboration are a hard bargain for those on the receiving end. -- But the country-article first-sentence should describe the geographical extent that the named country officially says it is.


 * I never mentioned nor was I intending to mention the "Second Island Chain". I was talking about the fact that numbers for Chinese and American areas overlap (due mainly to whether or not the Chinese claims in India are counted, but also I believe whether or not water area is counted), so whether or not we include the territories in the U.S.'s area has possible implications for that. It was a response to YOUR insistence that the only numbers we care about are the ones where it changes the metrics compared with other countries. That's why the intro states the U.S. is the "third or fourth" largest country by land area. You apparently didn't know what I was talking about; that's fine, I have now elucidated. I have responded to clear up this "Second Island Chain" confusion, and will be responding no longer. --Golbez (talk) 18:24, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
 * - Really, the official extent of the U.S. cannot be represented -- is held hostage in a WP country article -- because there is a hot dispute in the Geography community over how to calculate territorial -- area -- over -- water -- between -- islands?


 * - Inexactitude on the part of geographers over calculated areas over water is not in ANY WAY equivalent to named places. I hope there is an international convention soon, but that should not stop printing a country's geographical extent by place names.
 * - Your erudite interest in geographical maritime areal calculations is NOT something of WP:IMPORTANCE for the general reader. If you want to know China-U.S. areas for an encyclopedia, look to CIA World Factbook. There may be need of a WP fork article on water-area-calculation, but do not shy from naming the PLACE NAMES of a nation's geographical extent in a country article.

TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 19:25, 8 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Is there a reference to support "numbers for Chinese and American areas overlap"?. It may be that we can look at them together. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 19:38, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Official country or database definition

 * - My main concern is political which wants to include the territories, and skim over geography with a general reference. Your main concern is geographic which wants to carefully calculate areal measures that will be incorporated in wikipedia's inter-country comparisons, and skim over legal definitions by place with a general reference.
 * - Both of us are bringing a fine sense of personal honor and scholarly integrity, those same values are then applied in different fields of government and geography, which now in a general interest country article brings about different editorial positions. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:26 am, 10 December 2012, last Monday (7 days ago) (UTC−5)


 * Right now, the article intro states that the country consists of fifty states and a federal district. All of the numbers and facts in the article flow from that definition. If that definition were changed substantially (which it would be if you include the territories), then it stands to reason that at least some of the rest of the article would change.
 * If they do not, we are basically saying "This is what the country is defined in the intro, but the rest of the article will ignore the territories completely," without even signalling that. That will mislead people and give them incorrect information; why would we want that, ever, even if it doesn't alter metrics?
 * This isn't about being a wonk about facts and figures, this is the simple fact that, you are changing the definition of the country in the intro, yet appear to think the rest of the article can go without reflecting that new definition. --Golbez (talk) 11:00 am, 10 December 2012, last Monday (7 days ago) (UTC−5)

excerpted from my talk page, TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 06:09, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

End Plantonic Dialogue on geographic extent

 * The two have collaborated on and off for over a year, Editor-1 has a background in history and politics. Editor-2 shows an interest in history and geography. so one RfC went to history-geography, one RfC went to government-politics. Any comments should begin through that framework of wider collaboration. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 17:58, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * - The 20 November posting for a Request for Comment to the two communities has been taken down without comment. The initiating editor has reposted two more requests for comment on the same subject, elaborating his position with alternative language at the posing and here, with the result shown above. Thanks to all for giving me time to figure out how to do this. I'll try again shortly. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 06:09, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Introduction terms - WP:SPECIFILINK

 * - I added three # section links at Introduction terms per WP: SPECIFICLINK. Always link to the article on the most specific topic appropriate to the context from which you link: it will generally contain more focused information, as well as links to more general topics.
 * - (a) Federation = Federation, which there gives U.S. as an example of federal government, the term linked.
 * - (b) Republic = Republic, which there defines "constitutional republic", the term linked.
 * - (--) not chosen -- Republic, while the section specifically describes the republican form of government in the U.S., it was not chosen because the reader is not readily made aware of the other types as a framework to think about the U.S. republic.
 * - (c) Federal district = Federal district, which there describes Washington, D.C. as a link, and other federal districts.
 * - (--) not chosen -- Federal district =  [[Washington, D.C. |federal district]] was not chosen because the direct Washington link did not place the idea of a Federal District in the context of others internationally, such as that found in Mexico.
 * - I'm interested in other thoughts on the two links not chosen. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:02, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

My edits to the introduction
Some of the additions which are being made by editiors are unbelievable, for people who are editing the article on the country, some knowledge of history would be a good thing. A lot of my edits were done for concision, Please see my reasoning here:

"Native American population was greatly reduced, primarily by disease brought by encroaching European colonization." - NOT explorers and traders as some are trying to add, that implies a ragtag bunch simply made their way to North America and some how millions of Native Americans died. It was colonization by British force, competing with the already established Spanish for example.

"The new nation, in alliance with France, defeated Britain in the American Revolution," the first successful war of independence against a European empire." propose changing this to allied with France and Spain for example. The addition of Hessians is absolutely astonishing, I can't recall who was adding it, but how old are you? HESSIANS WERE MERCENARIES, they served under the British, not a seperate allied nation as in the case of France. That is like saying the US invaded Iraq allied with Private contractors.

The War of 1812 secured U.S. claims against the British Empire and guaranteed Canadian territorial integrity. The United States then embarked on a vigorous expansion throughout the 19th century.- This is controversial so I left it for now, but I do believe it should be incorporated under the expansion paragraph as the US wanted to annex Canada. People who say "that is one view" are foolish, most of this "theory" and having a view debate in history serves ideological functions. You cannot have a view on truth, I cannot have a view that the Holocaust didn't happen for example, or I can but you all should know what to think of that.--JTBX (talk) 02:20, 16 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I'll confidently put my knowledge of history and probably a great many other topics up against yours any day, so lose the attitude. There are other knowledgeable historians here as well. Regarding Hessians, they composed a huge percentage of British forces, and were notable for their foreign status (which fueled Revolutionary sentiment).  What does their motivation matter? Though they could be described as "allies" since their services were arranged through treaty with their rulers, the old sentence didn't use that qualifier for them. Cherry-picking one ally for one side leaves a bizarre skewing, and, as TheVirginiaHistorian says in the above section, citing the array of significant forces for each side can't justly be done with a single sentence.  It's too much info for the intro. In an article already infamous for being too long, streamlining presents a good opportunity to save some space. For details on the war people can click on the link provided in the sentence.VictorD7 (talk) 06:54, 16 December 2012 (UTC)


 * 1) We should focus primarily on narrative in an encyclopedia for the general international reader. We should add value by including principle views from scholarly historiography.
 * - - Even among ourselves, editors should refrain from explications on the nature of man, such as JTBX, “People … are foolish”, it might be misinterpreted as personal attack, the “attitude” to which VictorD7 alludes.
 * 2) We should distinguish between (a) the historical narrative relating people, relations and events in a time, versus (b) the historiography of interpreting and giving meaning in a larger intellectual framework.
 * - - The two should not be conflated, such as JTBX, “most of this ‘theory’ … serves ideological functions. You cannot have a view on truth [relative to a documented event] … the Holocaust … “  -- We should have (a) narrative of documented facts which a preponderance of scholarship supplies, and (b) two-three major interpretations when we can. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:06, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Native American population was greatly reduced

 * JTBX argues for his earlier post, "Native American population was greatly reduced, primarily by disease brought by encroaching European colonization." –
 * - - “NOT explorers and traders as some are trying to add, that implies a ragtag bunch simply made their way to North America and some how millions of Native Americans died. It was colonization by British force, competing with the already established Spanish for example. [s. JTBX]
 * - The “rag-tag bunch which simply made their way … and some how millions of Native Americans died.” – as he puts it -- is NOT fantastically implausible. Historians have incorporated the germ theory of disease to explain the death of as many as 80% of Amerindian North American populations – prior to English, French or Spanish sighting them. This development left large areas of abandoned fields left fallow for advancing frontier Euro squatters.
 * - Archeological evidence has been folded into the historical narrative to establish the extent of indigenous populations at the time of European discovery – apart from European documents as much as two-hundred years later. It turns out that DISEASE -- especially small pox that caused the Black Death in Europe --spread as it did there, with the same effects -- Amerindians being people, too.
 * - You may recall from study of the Annales historian Fernand Braudel, [ http://www.amazon.com/Civilization-Capitalism-15th-18th-Century-Vol/dp/0520081145/ref=la_B000AQ3IK8_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1355680825&sr=1-1 |Civilization and Capitalism, 15th-18th Century], Vol. I, II, III. (1955-79), the original “ghettos” in European port cities were walled areas around the docks to keep the communicable diseases of the sailors away from the vulnerable local populace. The “rag-tag Euros” were the same disease-carrying sailors European townsmen walled away from themselves. But the Amerindians had no such physical barriers to quarantine sailor diseases. Later Euro explorers and frontiersmen came upon villages 50%, or 20% of their populations –-in—survivor--memory.
 * - Psychological and sociological scholarship has recently investigated the “crisis of culture” that kind of loss creates on a community. Anyone interested in the Holocaust’s relationship to Israel might be interested in these “theories” as they might apply to unification movements by Tecumseh and others in American history. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:06, 16 December 2012 (UTC)


 * CITATION for impact of European-African disease on Native American communities by 1775 -- duly added to article narrative today since it was challenged by 'The Four Deuces' article revert without discussion at on-going Talk here.
 * Galloway, Golin G., [ http://www.amazon.com/American-Revolution-Indian-Country-Communities/dp/0521475694 |The American Revolution in Indian Country: Crisis and Diversity in Native American Communities]. 1995. ISBN: 978-0-52147-569-3. p.4-5. Prologue. ‘Indian America by 1775’. “European and African people brought with them lethal diseases … smallpox, plague, measles, influenza, pneumonia, tuberculosis, diphtheria, yellow fever … produced one of human history’s greatest biological catastrophes. Whole communities perished. Others lost 50 percent, 75 percent or 90 percent of their population. Recurrent epidemics of the same or different diseases prevented population recovery.” TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 17:19, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * the great majority of Indians died before the colonists arrived. They caught smallpox not from settlers who had little contact with Indians) but from earlier explorers and traders who had a great deal of contact. The traders gave goods that were (unknowingly) contaminated and Indians took those goods scores or hundreds of miles to their villages. Rjensen (talk) 18:19, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, disease was spread (a) first and foremost by European explorers and traders, (b) secondarily by indigenous populations themselves along the established inter-regional Amerindian trading networks, (c) tertiarily "recurrent epidemics of the same or different diseases" by follow-on Euro-African settlement "prevented population recovery" (Galloway, p.5). -- But how to put all that in an introduction sentence? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:34, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

The War of 1812 secured U.S. claims

 * JTBX proposes, the War of 1812 “should be incorporated under the expansion paragraph as the US wanted to annex Canada.” – “it should be incorporated under the expansion paragraph as the US wanted to annex Canada..” [s. JTBX]
 * - There were certainly some in the U.S. who desired annexation in Canada, Henry Clay’s War Hawks faction, for instance. But your summary view does not account for a majority of Congress. Things are muddy during the Madison administration with both French and English stopping U.S. merchantmen. The “tipping point” for war is impressment of U.S. seamen, including free black sailors and those enslaved rented to the ship’s owner.
 * - Impressment into the British Navy means you are not trusted. You may not leave the ship until the ship is decommissioned, which meant enlistment for life, old men falling from the rigging in a storm and so on. You are paid in scrip, so if you jump ship you have no money. Navy contractors row needle and thread and pipe tobacco to sell the sailor on board ship. The Brits flogged more than the Yanks did. It is a point of national pride, as described in W. Jeffrey Bolster’s  1997 | Black Jacks: African American seamen in the age of sail, during the War of 1812, not a single American black sailor -- free or slave –- accepted the British offer to leave the prisoner of war camp to become a free British citizen and sailor.
 * - As a matter of “theory” in historiography, serious scholars in the field on both sides of the border look at the diplomatic and economic history of the U.S. in 1812 through the eyes of “manifest destiny” coined in 1845 by John O’Sullivan. They should be represented in another article, but not in the U.S. introduction. U.S. territory does NOT increase here -- at the War of 1812 -- in a "vigorous expansion across North America". Treaty of Ghent provides for territorial boundaries to be status quo ante until resolved via a bi-national commission and subsequently ratified by Parliament and Congress respectively.
 * - It's not just me, Golbez insists on chronological placement here, so his November contribution is defended. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:06, 16 December 2012 (UTC)