Talk:United States/Archive 55

Sorry, one last one: United States medical experiments on children during Cold War
FYI new book published on 23 July 2013:

🇦🇹, Against Their Will: The Secret History of Medical Experimentation on Children in Cold War America (New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan, 2013). Thank you for your attention. LudicrousTripe (talk) 15:00, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
 * But why should this be included in an article about the united states? There are so, so many events like this that I don't think are included. Project MKUltra, Operation Paperclip, to name a few. Tripe, I'm going to direct you to the Unethical human experimentation in the United States page. Go and play there.Kude90 (talk) 15:15, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Concur with Kude90. Although the U.S. has had its share of such scandals, MKUltra is far more prominent. This article is far too long as is.--Coolcaesar (talk) 16:53, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Environment section
I recently added reliably sourced text stating that environmental issues had been "recently" (meaning, in this case, since 1970) " put on the back burner". It was reverted. I find it difficult to understand why. This does not compromise recentisism, as the word " recent" in fact refers to period compromising over forty years. It is a relatively short sentence, and takes up little space. If anyone has objections, please explain them.Rwenonah (talk) 07:57, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

−	The full text is thus: Recently, environmental policies have been " but on the back burner" with a focus on addressing other issues. Rwenonah (talk) 08:03, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * First of all, "recently" almost never belongs in an encyclopedia. Do you mean 4 years or 40? How is the reader supposed to know? Also, one source is not sufficient to say, unequivocally, that environmental policies have been "put on the back burner". Especially when it seems to me that such a statement is an opinion rather than an objective fact. (Also, 40 years, are you basically saying "it's all downhill since the EPA was created"?) --Golbez (talk) 15:54, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Ironically enough, the source does mean approximately forty years, which can, if it's that important, be added to the sentence. And according to the reliable source, it is objective fact. Your statement that it isn't sufficient, now, is that opinion or objective fact ( I think the latter). And I'm saying nothing. Whatever is in the sentence is what the source says, not me. While you may be accustomed to using sources to insert POV into the article, I try not to do so. Rwenonah (talk) 12:10, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * "While you may be accustomed to using sources to insert POV into the article, I try not to do so." Well that's not very polite. And no, one single person's opinion (I cannot see his research, of which I doubt there is much since you're linking an encyclopedia and not an in-depth study) that environmental issues have been "put on the back burner" for 40 years is not sufficient. That's the kind of blanket statement that needs corroboration. I'd love for someone else to comment on this so it doesn't just seem like I'm beating up on you (I know, despite all evidence showing that to be the case) --Golbez (talk) 13:24, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I fully support everything Golbez has said in this section so far. I'm not a big fan of even having an "Environmental issues" subsection that appears higher than more fundamental sections like Demographics, Government and politics, Economy, etc., but if it's to remain it must be as a brief, neutrally worded overarching summary addendum, and not become a platform for pushing a POV political agenda. The line about environmental issues supposedly being on the "back burner" is the opinion of an author who feels a lot more government action should be taken on the issue, and is such a vague, non-notable, POV, unencyclopedic statement that adding it lowers the paragraph's written quality.


 * And no, it does not cover "forty years". If you read the referenced page (39) in context, her "back burner" comment is specifically referring to the 2000s, particularly the Bush administration (post 9/11). She does claim the 1970s was the peak of environmental activity (while earlier condemning the Reagan administration as "anti-environmental", whatever the hell that's even supposed to mean), but says action has "ebbed and flowed" over the past few decades, and that overall the time since the 1960s has seen "more done to address environmental issues than any other." VictorD7 (talk) 19:11, 1 July 2013 (UTC)


 * You are correct as to the time frame mentioned, but does this lessen its importance? This is not an unreliable source, and your sweeping insult to its neutrality is a vague, non-notable, POV statement.  And am I now a political activist? For what? Is the author? How do you know what the author feels? Why even bother to post a statement that just creates so many unanswered questions?

On the plus side, I can answer one of them. I suspect the author means that the Reagan government was hostile to environmental groups and more welcoming to business interests. I also wonder that it is notable the time since the 1960s has seen more done to address environmental issues than any other, since environmental issues were not a major concern prior to that time.

Well, thanks for stopping by. As a side note, can either you or Golbez speak from an unbiased standpoint? I suspect from your edits that you are both American, and you seem to be trying to reduce criticism of that nation.Rwenonah (talk) 14:47, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I am American, and no, that's not my purpose here at all. My purpose is to improve the article and prevent bad edits, and in my opinion, this was one. --Golbez (talk) 15:09, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Source > opinionRwenonah (talk) 15:12, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * It's not just the source, though I question the usage of one person's statement from another encyclopedia as unimpeachable fact about a country's policies. Such a statement should involve multiple sources, or a straight quote with attribution. It was the way it was presented, and the way you've fought to implement edits you already know to be controversial without first obtaining consensus. Also, I'm not sure what it adds - okay, so environmental policies are on the backburner. So? So are lots of things that shouldn't be, why does this deserve to be mentioned? --Golbez (talk) 15:14, 2 July 2013 (UTC)


 * "You are correct as to the time frame mentioned, but does this lessen its importance?" It underscores Golbez's point on recentism and shows that you failed to comprehend your own source. I also love how you immediately undermine your own positions, like trying to cast doubt on the author's feelings, which are clear from her essay and underscored by your simplistic Reagan characterization (as though ever expansive environmental government regulation is synonymous with the environment). Of course agenda driven sources aren't off limits, but my description of the POV sentence regarded taking that standalone line and forcing it into the article text, and wasn't an "insult" against the book. Even if something's a great source it doesn't mean every line would necessarily make an appropriate addition to Wikipedia.  At least your latest post unwittingly demonstrates that your focus is on adding "criticism" (your word) to the US page. Given your poor reading comprehension, it would be in the interest of both you and Wikipedia quality if you took a long break from aggressively preaching your soapbox agenda here and spent a great deal of time reading (but not just polemics), learning, and sharpening your mind. I strongly suspect you're Canadian given your past and general outlook. Canada is a lovely country in some ways and there are plenty of better things to do there than obsess over America on Wikipedia.  I'm not optimistic you'll take my advice, and since you resorted to launching ad hominems against the posters who patiently responded to you I could take the gloves off, but for now I'll refrain and simply thank you for stopping by. VictorD7 (talk) 18:14, 2 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Wow, the above comment demonstrates a series of straw man arguments, confusing assumptions, and general weirdness. How did I undermine my own position? By questioning how you knew the author's feelings? That makes no sense. My Reagan characterization was simplistic- in the interest of time. If you would prefer I spend fifteen minutes and eight paragraphs own that subject, please say so. I am perfectly willing. As for my mention of criticism,, here is the straw man argument.. This sentence was not in reference to me, but to you. Just by looking at the talk page and revision history of this page, one can see that you have removed mentions of genocide, slavery, and even a criticism section- all by other editors. I notice you never denied ever your nationality or your bias.


 * As for the rest of your post, it appears to be an immature and pointless rant about me. If you would like, please feel free to do this on my talk page, where everyone can just ignore it. I am not Canadian, and I am not obsessing. You, given the fact that most if not all of your edits seem to be focused on the U.S, are. As for the rest, what is my political agenda? You've mentioned it so much, so can you please elaborate. I have no idea. And as for the " sharpening your mind" bit, I'm not even going to rely except in requesting that we keep things germane, yet again.


 * And please buy a pair of gloves.Rwenonah (talk) 07:20, 3 July 2013 (UTC)


 * To Golbez: This is the environmental policy of a world leader, global and sole superpower, and highly important nation, which has a considerable number of environmental issues,. I'd call that important. Apologies for the accusation of bias, it was clearly unfounded, at least towards you.Rwenonah (talk) 07:20, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, and you're summing it up in a single sentence from a single source, simply presenting that encyclopedia's statement as a fact when it reads more like an unquoted opinion, and using poor language that relies on "recently" which should never be used outside of geologic terms. --Golbez (talk) 20:44, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
 * In all that garbage you just posted you failed to make a single substantive point. The bottom line is that you were so careless with this edit you're arguing for that your key claim here falsely described what your own source said. I discerned in a few seconds what you somehow failed to in all the time you put into finding this source, making the one sentence edit, and writing paragraphs defending it. As for your diversionary ad hominem crap, why should I deny my nationality or claim to not have a point of view? I don't make false statements. There are those who don't deny "bias" and those who lie about it. I'm open minded and fair though. I carefully explain my actions and most people generally seem to find them reasonable. Of those removals you mention, two represented consensus after a great deal of discussion here and the third was an obvious call that saw no complaint or push back by anyone else.


 * Speaking of strawmen, I knew you were trying to attack us with your "criticism" mention; my point in highlighting it was that you bringing up the term unwittingly showed that's how you mentally characterize these things, perhaps betraying your agenda. Wikipedia shouldn't be a vehicle for launching "criticism"; that's pushing POV.  Of course your claim was ignorant as I've contributed or supported notable material some would find "critical" of the US on the page (like the extremely progressive tax rates, or national debt figures), depending on their point of view.  You raised the nationality issue, and I still suspect you're Canadian since your "accusation" about us being Americans indicates you aren't, and when I've noticed you in the past you've typically cited Canadian sources, but whatever.  It doesn't matter. A quick glance at your history shows most of your edits are about the United States too, Rwenonah (another example of you undermining yourself). I am American and it's one of the topics I know a great deal about.  What's your excuse?


 * Your Reagan characterization was simplistic but accurately captured the author's sentiment (perhaps the only thing you got right in this exchange), which you would have noticed was my point if you possessed sharper reading comprehension. It had nothing to do with your available space here. In recent weeks you've been reverted by several different editors (not even me this time) for pushing poorly thought out and written POV on your crusade of the moment (environmentalist "criticism" of the US), and admonished for your behavior. Your response has been to lash out in juvenile and baseless ways. I reiterate my earlier advice. PS - You're lucky I left them on. VictorD7 (talk) 08:19, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I failed to make a single substantive point? If this is true, why did you then write three paragraphs in reply to a one- paragraph post? That sounds like substantive pints to me. I reiterate my earlier point: we are discussing the environment of the United States, not you, me, or my bias. However, I feel pressured by the seer volume of the above post ( quantity not quality, I guess) to reply at greater length. Firstly, I suggest that we simply change the edit to reflect what you feel the source says ( with discussion, of course). Would this be a reduced time frame? More detail on " recently"?  And actually,  the " criticism" mention does not demonstrate how I mentally characterize these things. Approximately twenty minutes prior to the edit that first mentioned this, you had reverted an attempt to add a section by that very name, giving me a convenient name to group those three topics under. While I do feel those are critical, I do not feel this is an attempt to add criticism, just to detail American environmental policy further. Your assumption that it was an attempt to add criticism, that I had an a POV, and that I was " aggressively preaching a soapbox agenda " perhaps betraying your agenda.  Of course your claim about my edits was ignorant, as a very quick glance at my contributions would have shown that I have contributed extensively on many topics, citing non- Canadian, if I must emphasize it, sources. I have not contributed much on U.S topics at all. As for your last paragraph, it refers mostly to my reading comprehension, again. Can we please, for the last time, keep things germane? And who's lashing out? All I did was question your neutrality and knowledge of the author's sentiments, provoking a rant. I reiterate my question about how you know the source is biased, unencyclopedic, or inappropriate. And feel free to attack my reading comprehension on my talk page, or better yet my sandbox, where  I won't have to pick through it for germane things.Rwenonah (talk) 06:17, 4 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Sure, Rwenonah. You had to admit your key assumption underlying your entire edit and its defense here was wrong, but you still feel the problem is that Americans are exhibiting unfair bias in preventing you from adding "criticism" to the article. Your post is mostly filled with already debunked items as any honest observer can scan back up and see (or click on your US centered post history), and is so poorly written that it merits no response, but I will reiterate that my remarks about being "inappropriate" described the isolated sentence, not the source per se. I'll add as an aside that the "critical" items I've contributed are different from what you've tried to shove into the article in recent weeks, in that they aren't simply a list of complaints about legislation not passed, or cherry-picked incidents that fail to provide a comprehensive description. VictorD7 (talk) 20:01, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm going to put your above pos, and ignoring of minet down to lack of time, rather than deliberate blindness. I will restate my post in a more simplistic, easily readable fashion.

1. This edit is not " criticism" as you seem to have assumed. It is an attempt to make what I thought was a non- controversial edit to detail American environmental policy further. I certainly didn't know it would provoke a response like this. I am not, as you seem again to have assumed, on some kind of political crusade.

2. My post history is not " U.s centric, as a very quick glance at either it or my post above would have explained. Did you really not even bother to read it?

3. How do you know all these things about my source? Clairvoyance? Telepathy?

4.Please explain what modifications you would think would make this edit appropriate for addition, so we can come to a compromise, instead of repeatedly attacking my writing skills and reading comprehension on one hand, while accusing me of writing " diversionary ad hominem" things with the other.

5. Don't drag in separate discussions. And remember to assume good faith, which I forgot to do earlier. Also, no more vague threats about taking the gloves off- it grows tiresome.

Rwenonah (talk) 19:32, 5 July 2013 (UTC)


 * What edit? You started by trying to insert a claim about this stuff supposedly being on the "back burner" for "forty years", and now have been educated on the fact that the comment refers to the post 9/11 period. A better candidate for the chapter's thesis would be the opening line (p. 21): "During the time period from the 1960s through the beginning of the twenty-first century, the role of the U.S. Government on the issue of the environment has been stronger than at any time in history." Which more or less echoes what the existing article text already says (though the current version is superior for this article's purposes), and is almost the opposite of what you claimed you believed its opinion was.   You faceplanted, so instead of trying to draw even more attention to your US (the country, not the article) heavy posting history (a topic you, not I, raised, like the "criticism" angle), or saying more wildly off the mark crap about me, you should just thank me for correcting you and humbly move on from the personal stuff. As for editing, I suppose you should start by trying to figure out what precisely you want to include and why, and articulate a rational argument as to why you think it's both notable enough for inclusion and would improve the article. If you still have the same sentence in mind, both I and Golbez have already presented reasons for opposition, and those objections apply even more strongly to a piece written a couple of years ago by a woman who's essentially just talking about the Bush administration. I seen no reason to expand the existing subsection summary further, especially given its prominent page placement. This is a niche topic, so details about specific acts or where the smaller scale alleged historical "ebbs and flows" lie in the opinion of a particular activist or lobbyist can be added to (and indeed are likely already in) other, more topically dedicated articles, though even there they should be written neutrally and not serve as a soapbox for agenda crusading. VictorD7 (talk) 21:32, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
 * My edit was an apparently misguided attempt to detail American environmental policy. Please remember to assume good faith, not bias/ POV/political agenda crusading/ whatever else you said above. On a side note, this may betray how you mentally characterize these things, perhaps betraying your agenda with regard to the article. As for the rest of your pathetically repetitive posts, while I may have started the " personal stuff", it at least had some relation to the discussion. You took it to the next level with your paragraphs about my writing skills and "advice". Also, my post history is not U.S centric, yet Nother example of uninvolved falsehoods you have packed this discussion with. In addition, there was no significant awareness of environmental problems prior to 1960, so that sentence would be an example of the exact same thing you have accused me of: misrepresentation out of context.


 * While your unwillingness to compromise, at least if I use that source, has been made clear, I have new sources. The Environment, International Relations, and U.S Foreign Policy states on pg. 4 that " many believe the U.S has an ethical obligation to act at home and abroad to protect the earth's natural environment". It later, on pg. 5 and 6, summarizes U.S environmental policy. I feel this could be used as a summary sentence. Innovation in Environmental Policy states that the U.S has been criticized over many aspects of its policy, and might also be uselful( pg. 268).


 * Please actually address the proposed content of the section instead of my writing skills. I haven't rejected having a real content discussion with any editor. Rwenonah (talk) 14:42, 9 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I see you failed to heed my advice about moving on from the personal stuff. Your poor reading and writing skills are relevant to this discussion. You first tried to introduce and defend an edit based on an assumption that turned out to be the opposite of your own source's point. In your latest pathetic post you repeat the straw man about me supposedly opposing the source (even falsely accusing me of an unwillingness to compromise if you use that source, lol!), indicating that you're mentally unable to grasp the distinction repeatedly made between opposing the source itself and opposing a line of text as inappropriate for this article. While the source is clearly pushing an agenda, I explicitly said that POV sources can be used, particularly if they're just referencing objective, undisputed facts (which you aren't doing).  This is about what you want to add to the article. If you can't even be counted on to understand your own sources or carry on a rational conversation with other posters, I'm not sure why you insist on editing Wikipedia. At least after being spoonfed you conceded that your initial position--the reason this section even exists--was "misguided" (to put it mildly). And yet you're still here. It's as if you first decided you wanted to make an edit and are now flailing about trying to figure out what you want to add.


 * Your new idea, to state that "...many believe the U.S has an ethical obligation to act at home and abroad to protect the earth's natural environment", in isolation, is another POV pushing effort. It reads like a campaign pamphlet. From an informational standpoint it's frivolous, as the existence of the environmental protection infrastructure already described in the article indicates that many believe the environment needs protection. The POV angle could be mitigated if we added stuff like..."though there's disagreement about the proper extent of government's role, and wariness over negative economic consequences of excessive regulation." But then we'd be making significantly longer a subsection that's already placed too prominently and is probably already too long. I disagree with your expressed motive to "detail American environmental policy". There are other appropriate articles for that. We already provide enough environmental policy detail for a quick summary, listing the various salient acts and agencies. That I correctly predicted you would eventually try this back when this subsection was first created and camel's nose was allowed under the tent proves right the various editors who observed that you're clearly pushing an agenda. After all, I'd love for you to list the policy areas where the US and every other nation in the world haven't been "criticized", or where the US isn't seen as having some type of responsibility.


 * As for the other crap in your post, there's nothing necessarily wrong with being US-focused in edits (at least if one is knowledgeable on the topic, which you don't seem to be), but you raised the issue while lamely trying to attack me, and you're still lying about it. In your last 500 posts, stretching back about a year, a super-majority are US related. Well over 350 deal explicitly with topics like the "United States", "Canada-United States relations", "History of the United States", "War of 1812", "American Revolutionary War", "Vietnam War", "Manifest Destiny", "Environmental impact of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill", "War Plan Red", "World Trade Center", or subtopics like the "Burning of Washington", "Treaty of Versailles",  or War of 1812 battles.  That's not even counting some of the random topics like "Petroleum industry" or "Hunting" where your edits specifically mention the United States, nor does it include possibly dozens of user talk page posts that don't explicitly mention the above topics in the summary but discuss debates on US related pages. It's likely that only a tiny percentage of your posts don't deal with the US, with a big chunk of the remainder focused on Canada.  Any honest observer can click on your profile and confirm that I'm telling the truth. The "good faith" assumption you're whining about now went out the window with your first reply to me in this section (in which you should have just thanked me for correcting your gross and frankly inexcusable error) and has stayed there due to your subsequent continued false attacks and other distortive claptrap.


 * Also, your claim about there being "no significant awareness of environmental problems prior to 1960...", while false (the conservation movement is well over a century old), even if true wouldn't logically support your following line "...so that sentence would be an example of the exact same thing you have accused me of: misrepresentation out of context." I wasn't advocating that such a line be put in, but only pointed out that it better represented your own source's thesis than your admittedly inaccurate proposal did. It's not clear what you feel it "misrepresents", but that legal US environmental protection architecture has largely developed over the past 40-50 years is notable, would be even if it happened because people were previously unaware of environmental "problems", and is already mentioned in the article. Your posts are filled with pointless, false comments like that which I suppose you add in bursts of irrational hostility but that fail to further your case in any way. My comments are sometimes long, but at least they're accurate and I make legitimate points. VictorD7 (talk) 22:12, 9 July 2013 (UTC)


 * If I may quote you," I see you failed to heed my advice about moving on from the personal stuff". In that vast post above, about half is about me, not my points. If I may quote you again, the United States "is a lovely country in some ways and there are plenty of better things to do there than obsess over" me "on Wikipedia". Just how long did you spend researching that?  As for the actually content, many of the edits you listed above we're reversions of vandalism, or POV based edits, which resulted in no discussion or dispute. Your assumption of American association with many others simply betrays your U.S- centric bias, with your assumption that topics such as the War of 1812 or the Treaty of Versailles focus on the United States. As a matter of fact, I have created four articles on various non- U.S or Canada topics, something while I have created no articles and made few significant edits ( in terms of length) to the U.S and Canada associated articles. Most of those were either reverts, or attempts to add innocuous sentences that ballooned into edit wars and/or massive, lengthy, discussions. Rather like this one, actually. Also, a large- sized percentage of my edits focuses on other topics, especially in terms of actual material added. Any honest observer, can, indeed, see this.


 * You are quite right about my first edit. It was an idiotic mistake that I still more idiotically argued for extensively, resulting largely from stubbornness and stupidity. Thank you for correcting it. Fortunately, I now have new sources. My attempt to post them for you and elaborate on a couple sentences, so that we could work out an addition which would be satisfying to both parties, seems to have failed. Above, you seem to have expressed that you will allow no addition to be made, for various reasons, one of which excludes the first of my new sources. However, the second one states that: " Observers have criticized American environmental policy for its failure to confront global climate change, address high rates of energy consumption and restrain a culture of high consumer- oriented consumption." I would propose a compromise edit including something along those lines,  which specify which aspects the United StTes has been criticized over, provides useful information (that the United States's environmental policy has been criticised, what those criticisms are, and perhaps some further information you might wish to provide to reduce the POV angle you seem to have perceived in all my edits).


 * To focus on that topic, I will declare here for everyone that I have no agenda, whatever many editors seem to have perceived. I request that you either specify this agenda and provide proof of it, or just shut up about it for ever. Rwenonah (talk) 15:30, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm gonna give it a go. Let's go look at your contributions. Scrolling down, I see a number of historical documents. More importantly, I see a large number of environment related articles. Looking at those edits, I see several cries to put greater emphasis on the negative impacts that the US/ United States companies have had on the environment. I also see several, what appear to be, anti hunting additions to the hunting page. Interesting. But, let's look at your talk page, where you seem to have deleted everything. Luckily, there's an edit history. Here, we see a person who is no stranger to warnings about edit warring, and the 3RR. More than one person has called you out on your soapboxing, and on your apparent bias. Interesting. So, is your pattern of editing proof enough of your agenda?Kude90 (talk) 15:47, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

( Insert)
 * Kude has already handled you effectively on the bias/agenda question. Regarding your (anticipated) claim that my "assumption that topics such as the War of 1812 or the Treaty of Versailles focus on the United States" indicates my "U.S- centric bias", I'll just point out that my claim was about your focus being on "US related" topics; you seem to focus on wars in which the US was a primary participant (e.g. Vietnam), despite Britain and the other parties involved having fought many wars not against the US that you seem far less interested in. Choosing to edit war or wage lengthy debates on US related topics doesn't help your case, so I'm not sure why you cited that as an excuse. Back to the agenda point, Wikipedia shouldn't be a forum for adding "criticism".  I know "criticism" sections were common in the site's early years and still exist on the occasional page, but I think this place is trying to move away from that kind of obvious POV pushing. The existence of controversy might be notable, but the section already states that "The controversies include debates on oil and nuclear energy, dealing with air and water pollution, the economic costs of protecting wildlife, and international responses to global warming." That's a neutrally worded, perfectly sufficient summary. Adding new sentences on "criticism" wouldn't convey new info (since "criticism" is implied in controversial debates) unless you made it more detailed than called for on this summary page. I won't bother trying to explain to you again the difference between me opposing a certain type of line for inclusion (which I did) and opposing a source (which I didn't).  VictorD7 (talk) 20:32, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * No, Kude90, my "pattern of editing is not sufficient proof. Insofar as I know, the only time I have been called out for bias is when ... contributing to this page. On my talk page, the word bias is never used(I think) with reference to me. While I am no stranger to 3RR, or edit warring warnings, ignoria jurantis may excuse, according to wikipedia rules. Also, that is hardly related to bias.


 * You misrepresent my contributions significantly. A number of historical documents(I'll assume you mean articles here) actually refers to something like nine- tenths of my contributions. Environmental- related articles, excluding hunting, which is more of an animal rights issue, make up a tiny amount, and all not made to this page were uncontested removals of rather strange edits. On my talk page, I have deleted nothing. I have actually done what is commonly known as archiving, a fairly common thing on wikipedia. As a matter of fact, any edit which could possibly be referred to as " biased" has been made to this page, and, as I said above, all have been attempts to add what I thought was non- controversial information.


 * as for VictorD7's concerns, the page leaves out two of the "controversies" ( your word, not mine) my source mentions. Also, this is not a criticism section. As I stated above, I am not biased, and I am not attempting to "criticize" (although that might betray the reason for your opposition. If you would prefer, the two additional "criticisms" my source mentions could be added with the controversial issues, if you feel that makes a big difference. I'm sorry if I misunderstood your repeated references to my sources as "clearly pushing an agenda", " polemics" or "crap" as non- opposition of them, but my repeatedly emphasized ( by you) "poor reading comprehension" probably comes into play here. ( If I may quote you again, " diversionary ad homonym crap").

Rwenonah (talk) 19:24, 16 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Yeah...trying to throw quotes back at me hasn't been an effective tactic for you (your poor reading comprehension does come into play here, plus it just looks awkward). No, as Kude indicated you've been accused of agenda pushing elsewhere too. I don't recall whether the specific word "bias" was used, but then that doesn't really matter does it? Your posting history demonstrates a focus on US related topics and to a lesser degree environmental ones (including your anti-hunting bent). There's nothing necessarily wrong with that, but, again, you brought this up. You also mischaracterized my comments again.  For example, every use of the word "crap" in my posts has been to describe your comments (particularly all the off the mark attacks on other posters), not your source. My accurate description of your source's agenda was to underscore but by no means serve as a comprehensive reason why we shouldn't be shoving vague, opinionated lines like your proposal into the article. By contrast, if we wanted to include a hard fact, and your source contained this hard fact, then it would be perfectly fine to reference it with the source (of course in that case the issue would be the notability of the hard fact). I know this isn't a "criticism" section (though you seemed to take issue with me deleting one earlier; I wonder if you'd support a "Praise" section for the US page), but, like the US focused posting history tangent, you originally raised the "criticism" issue, so you just look silly now trying to pretend that I'm responsible for you seeing things in those terms.


 * It's not even clear precisely what you want to add at this point. You went from starting this section to argue for the "back burner" line, which you had misread and which you've since admitted was "an idiotic mistake...resulting largely from stubbornness and stupidity", to proposing we add "many believe the U.S has an ethical obligation to act at home and abroad to protect the earth's natural environment", which is the vague claptrap one would expect to see in a popularly distributed campaign pamphlet and adds nothing informative to the article since "many believe" all sorts of things (many of your political opponents would even agree with your wording while rejecting some or all of your premises), to now proposing we add  "Observers have criticized American environmental policy for its failure to confront global climate change, address high rates of energy consumption and restrain a culture of high consumer- oriented consumption."  Global climate change ("global warming") controversy (actually the article's wording more than mine) is already mentioned in the article, but the existence of "criticism" by mysterious "observers" is both non-notable and represents POV pushing.  To balance the POV we'd need to add "praise" by other "observers", and I don't just mean praise from leftist environmentalist groups touting the USA's expansive and globally influential EP infrastructure, but praise for the very actions or sensible restraint being "criticized" by the other observers. By the time we get through listing all that the subsection is way too long and reads like a pointless wash of opinions canceling each other out. Also, unless you already had all these varied proposals in mind when you started, and had planned to unleash them piecemeal, it seems like you're just throwing a bunch crap at the wall hoping something will stick, with the underlying agenda simply being to expand the Environmental issues subsection by any means necessary, getting whatever talking points in you can get away with. By contrast, I think the subsection is currently neutrally worded and of appropriate length for a quick summary, so expansion isn't necessary. Certainly not expansion just for the hell of it. VictorD7 (talk) 00:38, 17 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Actually, I would say that throwing quotes back at you has been quite effective for me so far. Its certainly enjoyable, anyway. As for these supposed accusations of bias, I am accused of "soapboxing" once on my talk page, on a totally unrelated topic. The accusation was then dropped. Yet again, I deny that I have any bias, especially on this issue.  My contributions are about 80% on historical topics, some of which are related to the United States, ten percent on unrelated topics, and about ten percent on topics which could be considered "environmental". I have no " anti-hunting bent", and that topic is uunrelated to my bias on this issue. however, requesting that you qualify your repeated accusations of bias was clearly stupid, as it has led to a move away from the point of the actual disuscussion, which you addressed in your second paragraph. Before I can focus on that, however, I'd like to point out that the majority of the "off-the-mark attacks" have come from you. I question how you know the sources are all biased? Are you telepathic? Did you write the books from a biased standpoint, under various pseudonyms? But it does't as you have pointed out, really matter. From this point on, I suggst we focus on the issue of what actually may be added to the page, as this discussion is getting off-mark.


 * I'm not sure exactly why you are discussing my "political opponents". I'm not sure how you know I have political opponents, what my political affiliation is, or even if I'm old enough to vote. Telepathy again? I'm not sure why we would have to add praise. Is this a policy, or just your opinion? If you want to add "praise" which from its very definition would likely be biased, finding it is your responsibility, not mine. Anyway, not having praise to use as a counterpoint is not a cogent objection. (I'm not sure what that bit about "leftist environmentalist groups" is. What does "EP" stand for?). I will, for your benefit ( apparently your telepathy isn't working here) explain my thought process. My first source was rejected, however, I found to more sources, and proposed the addition of a summary senetence involving text from them. you rejected one of them ( for questionable reasons) but rather than disputing that I elaborated on the sentence from my second. The two later sources seemed interrelated: I inferred that the that the U.S has been criticized by observers partly for failing to do what the first source states ( act abroad and at home to protect the earth's natural environment).One could even infer infer the this is because environmental policies have been put on the back burner:) .I apologize if I haven't made this clear, earlier, but I wasn't aware I had to laboriously explain myself.I also apologize if I have been vague with precisely what I wanted to add, but this was in the vain hope you would work to make an addition satisfying to both parties, rather than contiually pushing for " no addition". I would suggest that we add the two criticism mentioned to the end of the list of controversies. Still hoping for a compromise (talk) 11:27, 21 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Sure, keep knocking yourself out. People can read through the comments here and your posting history to judge for themselves. And no, my comments haven't been off the mark. I love how I supply clear, undeniable specific examples of you being off the mark (e.g. you falsely describing my target for the word "crap") while you immediately follow up your banal counter accusation with a sentence like this.."I question how you know the sources are all biased?".....which has nothing to do with anything I've said. Then there's this: "My first source was rejected, however, I found to more sources..." (sic). I don't know how I can say it any clearer than I already have multiple times.  Your source wasn't rejected.  The text you wanted to add was. Are you really intellectually incapable of grasping the difference? As for whether you have political views and/or political opponents....call it a lucky guess.


 * "If you want to add "praise" which from its very definition would likely be biased, finding it is your responsibility, not mine." I don't see why "praise" is inherently any more biased than "criticism". I could find all sorts of praise, though you missed the point. Clearly there are competing camps on these controversial issues, so wasting article space to simply reiterate that there are opposing opinions, something implied by the already existing identification of controversy, doesn't accomplish anything. VictorD7 (talk) 18:34, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I see you still haven't provided a cogent objection to the addition of the additional two controversies into the article. DId you just ignore that part of my post completely? You're quite correct that reiterating that there are opposing opinions in the article would be pointless. How does that apply to this discussion? I am suggsting that an additional two controversies be added to the list already there. This has, really, absolutely nothing to do with opinions, bias, leftist environmental groups touting the USA's extensive and globaly influential EP network ( I'm still unsure just what that is or what it has to do with, well, anything) or any of the other diversionary ad hominem crap ( such as about my nonexistent policial opponents) you've come up with and accused me of. I again apologize if you're direct statements that my sources were "polemics" or "clearly pushing an agenda" led me to believe that you thought my sources were biased, but that is an understanable mistake. Just out of curiosity, how do you know that my sources were polemics or clearly agenda-pushing? Also, I'm not sure why you keep bringing ' criticism" into the discussion. This is an attempt to add non-controversial (or so I thought) information, not "criticism". Your opposition to any additon to this section has been made clear above (in fact, you were opposed to its creation) and you seem to have continued that with a refusal to countenance any addition to it. I continue to hope we'll be able to come to a compromise, but you haven't shown an ability to do that yet. Still hoping for a compromise (talk) 11:21, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I didn't ignore it. Did you not see where I had asked you to clarify what you were proposing below? You apparently did later, since you responded to it. Why didn't you come back up afterwards and delete the crap you posted above?  By "EP infrastructure" I obviously meant environmental protection infrastructure.  If I recall correctly (it's not worth going back and checking to be sure) your own source discussed how said US infrastructure has been a model for other countries (I know at least some sources I've read recently have said that), but I only mentioned that as an example of the type of counter-opinion  I wasn't primarily talking about. My only use of the word "polemics" in this section was general and was a hypothetical in my advice to you.  I did say the one source of yours I read (which apparently put me a step up on you) was advocating an agenda, which it obviously was, but I also said that doesn't disqualify something as a source. POV rules relate to how our article is written, not necessarily sources used to support facts. Ignoring me repeatedly explain that isn't an understandable mistake.


 * "Also, I'm not sure why you keep bringing ' criticism" into the discussion." Seriously? I mentioned the word "criticism" because you raised the issue, and now you're even proposing the word be added to the text, lol. Well "criticized". As for your claim that you have no political opponents, hunters, the oil industry, pro growth free market advocates, those skeptical of AGW hysteria, whomever's responsible for the policies you're trying to use this article to "criticize", and most Americans will be relieved to hear that I guess. VictorD7 (talk) 00:40, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Now you've added objections, you hadn't when I posted that. In fact, all you'd done at that time was question what I was talking about, when I'd in fact been repeatedly referring to said addition for the past week in those terms. I actually responded to both posts simultaneously, and I haven't been on the site since then. I'm still not sure why you started talking about EP infrastructure at all, unless that was some kind of blatant attempt to ( falsely) say the U.S has an extensive and globally influential EP infrastructure. As for my sources, when you stated that my sources were "clearly pushing an agenda' and "written like a campaign pamphlet" I made the reasonable assumption you thought they were biased and were criticizing them for that. If, as you say, it doesn't matter that the sources were biased, why did you even bring it up?


 * I am not proposing the word beadded to the text: if you'd read my proposal, you would see that I was proposing two additional controversies be added to the text. Not the word "criticism". Again, while you may be used to editing the article from a biased, political standpoint, I try not to do so. I thus have no "political opponents" in this context. (Why'd you bring that up, anyway? Stop the "diversionary ad hominem crap".) I strongly suspect that it is your own bias that leads you to assume I am biased. Do you have political opponents, VictorD7?User:Rwenonah (talk) 11:05, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * You had thrown out multiple lines and, though I could guess what the new changes you were pushing were, since you had apparently called for a formal vote below I figured I'd get you to clarify with precision there for the benefit of any readers before I commented further on them. You did preface your proposal below with yet another "criticized", and it wasn't clear exactly how you intended to integrate the proposal into the text. You're wrong about the US EP infrastructure not being internationally influential, but it doesn't really matter as it was just a hypothetical example to illustrate a point. My "campaign pamphlet" remark described one of your earlier proposals, not a source per se. In general my comments have been about the specific text you wanted to include rather than the sources themselves. I did identify the first source you used as agenda driven and explained why such bias is worth noting to help underscore why we shouldn't add lines like the one you were trying to add, but that the source itself wasn't disqualified completely, and could theoretically be used to reference different types of material, like specific, undisputed facts (though such material may not be right for this particular article).  Of course I have political views (and therefore political opponents), as I strongly suspect you do (to put it mildly). However, the difference between us is that I strive to edit Wikipedia in a fair, rational, neutrally worded manner that focuses on notability and aims to provide an educational, encyclopedic overview. VictorD7 (talk) 18:58, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I think you may have the difference the wrong way around there. Also, since the majority of the lines I was proposing to add were straight out of the sources, I made the assumption that your comments were about both the sentence and the source. I think this discussion has probably taken up enough of this page by now, especially since it turned out to be all for nothing. Still hoping for a compromise (talk) 10:38, 24 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Agree -- User:Rwenonah (talk) 11:34, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Your disagreement is noted. I expect we'll continue to disagree on the personal stuff. People can read our comments, evidence, and rationales and judge for themselves. I'll just add that what might be an appropriate line in a book might not be appropriate for a Wikipedia article. VictorD7 (talk) 17:51, 24 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Which issues? Be specific please. VictorD7 (talk) 18:34, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Observers have criticized American environmental policy for its failure to ...address high rates of energy consumption and restrain a culture of high consumer- oriented consumption." User:Rwenonah (talk) 11:21, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * First of all the wording is POV, since instead of just identifying criticism by "observers", the more appropriate form would be to adopt the section's current wording ("The controversies include debates on..."). Second, that line already goes on to read..."oil and nuclear energy, dealing with air and water pollution, the economic costs of protecting wildlife, and international responses to global warming." So the article already deals with controversy over energy usage. The compromise was having a subsection dedicated to a niche topic in the first place, and prominently placed above more fundamental sections like Demographics and Government to boot. In the spirit of further compromise, I guess we could replace  "oil and nuclear energy" with "energy usage", though that might represent a step down in article quality.   The part about restraining a culture of "high consumer-oriented consumption", apart from being worded like something from The Onion, carries too many loaded assumptions and too much ideological baggage to warrant serious consideration. It somehow manages to be both vaguely pointless and soapboxy, and isn't notable. If people want to read about problems socialists have with the US there are plenty of other articles for that, as well as viewpoints that other ideologies hold. One could find plenty of "observers" at outfits like Reason or the American Enterprise Institute with contrary opinions. Certainly many observers have criticized the federal government for obstructing economic growth/consumption, from normal fiscal policy to (revisiting the energy issue) Carter era regulations that intentionally killed the nuclear industry, preventing the type of clean nuclear development in America that France pursued and has had success with. The "observers have criticized" road is a slippery slope to say the least. VictorD7 (talk) 00:40, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * You make valid points - I definitely doubt we want to drag in ideological considerations. I would question whether killing the nuclear industry was a bad idea, but that's a different issue. I think you're probably also right about "energy usage" being worse wording than "oil and nuclear energy". Thanks for explaining your opposition so logically. User:Rwenonah (talk) 11:05, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. Thanks for thoughtfully considering what I had to say. VictorD7 (talk) 18:58, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Territories
Why is there no mention of U.S. Territorial holdings? The first paragraph states "...consisting of 50 states and a federal district." Shouldn't that read something more along the lines of "...consisting of 50 states a federal district, and various territorial holdings"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MDHunt (talk • contribs) 12:40, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
 * While the debate is still somewhat ongoing, there is a question as to whether the territories are part of the country, or only possessions of it. (like how the Isle of Man is possessed by the UK but is not part of the UK) At present, the article and its data reflect the notion that they are possessions of the country, rather than part of it. --Golbez (talk) 13:21, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeppers -- some folks think that being under the sovereignty of a nation, with its citizens holding passports of that nation and being subject to the laws of that nation and to the judicial system of that nation means the area is not part of that nation.  However, most sources and people understand otherwise.  Including the United Nations. Collect (talk) 13:46, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Not to toot my own horn, but I thought my response was very measured and neutral. It does not warrant this kind of sarcasm. Also, you may want to take this up with the Manx, who certainly live in that very situation. --Golbez (talk) 14:12, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
 * As I appear to have had Manx ancestors, I suggest that I actually do know about the "Lord of Mann."  And that it is totally not relevant to US territories at all.  But it is always nice to know that one does not toast "The Queen" there. Collect (talk) 15:41, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
 * They toast to the Queen in Belize. It's still not part of the UK. Irrelevant. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 15:51, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Were Belize a part of UK, they would have direct representation in Parliament. All five populated US territories have direct representation in Congress, US citizenship, and self-government. Once Governors were appointed by President, but not since 1948 in Puerto Rico for instance; British Virgin Islands has an appointive royal governor and no member of Parliament, it is not a part of UK. US Virgin Islands has an self government in a three-branch republican government and a territorial Member of Congress, it is a part of the US by some scholarly accounts.
 * In the US, the union is cemented in the eyes of those scholars with the legislative term "compact" between US Congress and elective territorial legislature along with popular referendum in the modern era. Other scholars hold that the judicial terms of 1905 Insular Case "incorporation doctrine" govern regardless of subsequent organic acts by Congress or island peoples wishes, pending further independent judicial action alone. Editors on this page expand that scholarly position without sources to require a Supreme Court ruling related to discriminatory federal taxes before acknowledging islanders as fellow US citizens.
 * After some further reading since my last post on this subject, I would now argue for accommodating both scholarly constitutional interpretations as sourced among the authors in the anthologies Louisiana Purchase and American Expansion 1803-1898, and Foreign in a Domestic Sense: Puerto Rico, American Expansion and the Constitution. and others. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:34, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * TVH, my Belize comment was about toasting the Queen, and nothing else. Do not try to pick a fight you already lost, or misrepresent reality. Territories do not have Representatives in Congress, since Representatives is a strictly defined term. They have non-voting observers. Representatives vote. Also, I myself presented sources on a number of occasions, directly asked you to respond to them, and directly told you to stop lying and claiming we presented no sources. I will report you if you decide to resort to lying that amounts to personal attacks yet again. Do not open this can of worms again. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 10:04, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Ah, yes, WP as a video game. You joked a talk page with a non-sequitur. I called you on it, now I am a liar? Nonsense. Now a threat? Consider yourself reported first. Territories are not states, they do not vote in the electoral college as states, either. Territorial and DC Members of Congress follow US constitutional practice for territories, not states, as your non-sequitur implies it should be in your made-up imaginary America. The non-sequitur amounts to original, unsourced "research".

I provided the linked web pages of the territorial Members of Congress at their .gov pages, which you still insist do not exist. The US is entitled to its own constitutional practice for 200 years of allowing territories "non-voting" delegates directly elected by US citizens, which you deny exist as a part of the US --because they are islanders? With no sources, it is hard to guess why. Their territorial representatives vote in full committees and subcommittees, including the judiciary committee. They vote in their party caucuses. They are not "observers", they count as members of their party in committee seat allocations. They vote as equal members of House-Senate conference committees. Depending on the Congress, they can vote on the floor when the House resolves itself into the "Committee of the Whole". This is sourced to the .gov US House of Representatives page, which you do not acknowledge as an authority for the US Congress, again. But it is not WP policy to take the USG as an illegitimate source on the United States, as you imply we should do in this case on the US page. Consider yourself on report for talk page disruption, first. What link?

You will note above, I have sources, you have none. I make direct quotes to scholars that the US includes territories, you cannot. Opponents have named sources to counter me which use authors of my direct quotes as their authority in their footnotes. Inconsistent silliness. The federal circuit court upholding Puerto Rico "incorporated" for purposes of constitution and law as a state was misrepresented until I found a link to the original text refuting the obfuscation. Defining the US federal republic as citizens with representation in Congress including "50 states, DC and five territories" won in a dispute resolution, Golbez reverted eight times, two other editors and I restored the outcome, I was barred for reverting Golbez reversions three of the eight times. So the game is who reports first? Tell me to whom to report you, for personally attacking me as a liar. Consider yourself reported first. What is the link for me to use? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:38, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I was willing to accept the spirit of the argument. My disagreement was in the wording, which attempted to abuse the English language in ways a three year old would find shocking. If you are unable to express a position, then maybe it is the position that is faulty. Not that it matters, at this point. I would welcome a new, proper RFC, with constrained and limited arguing. --Golbez (talk) 12:54, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * TVH, I am ignoring most of your post since it is rehashing arguments you already lost, misrepresenting reality, lying about what I did and did not say in the past, etc. There are archives where you and others can see your lies flat out, and how I never said what you are attributing to me. I will not rehash this. All I will say is that you did not call me out on a non-sequitur since I did not make one. I responded to Collect's comment about toasting the Queen with relation to the Isle of Mann by pointing out that it was a non-sequitur, since that practice is done throughout the Commonwealth Realms without any of them being part of the UK. Then you went off with your old tactics. Not welcome. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 13:38, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Although many observe territories are not states with state-only privileges, we still have no scholar to say, "Islanders who are US citizens and directly represented in Congress are not Americans and cannot be included as a part of the US." In the dispute resolution initiated by opponents of including islanders as fellow Americans, those opposing inclusion lost: the outcome was, the US federal republic represented in Congress is 50 states, DC and five territories. Any other restatement excluding territories would fail to grasp the outcome, but I am sure we will all do the very best we can. I dare say it might have been better written, it was better written by Golbez, then unaccountably deleted.
 * Golbez, who writes better than I write, would like to see another iteration of dispute resolution. But there is no dispute, the USG is a source of information about the USG. Our administrator, Golbez requires all sources and websites of the USG agree before accepting Congressional, Presidential, State Department, District and Circuit Federal Courts, and Library of Congress representations. But my appeal is not to WP editor interpretation of primary documents. I am reluctant to appeal to secondary USG sources in the face of opposition from WP editors who find USG illegitimate as the British Empire.
 * Now I am looking to a close reading of scholars, -- understanding scholarly contributors to academic anthologies are a) not all of one voice, and b) academics set the objective stage at the beginning of an article, c) discuss views contrary to theirs in the middle, and d) they conclude with their perspective at the end of the article -- it must be read through to honestly discover the author's judgment.
 * Some of those excluding islanders from America believe only the federal courts can include people in territories as a part of the country. I continue to read through both referenced texts to find a reasonable expression of denying islanders as fellow Americans. This, so as to write a balanced proposal of both "inconclusive" sides, as Duke University scholar Christina Burnett puts it in her anthology Foreign in a Domestic Sense. One is not a liar for pointing out there are two scholarly schools of interpretation, then disclosing which one is favored by the WP editor writing. It is important to report name-calling. What is the link? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:09, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
 * You claim to use the USG as a source of information about the USG, yet when we point out all of the contradictory statements from that same government, you dismiss them. My requirement remains simple: An affirmative statement from the high executive, congress, or high judiciary, stating that a territory has been annexed and/or is concretely part of the country. I don't require "all sources to agree"; I simply want one source, which, despite my asking for it for months, has not been supplied. The best you've come up with is back door definitions, rather than a statement of action. You have been unable to supply this. Scholars cannot annex land to a country. This is my last comment on the matter in this thread. --Golbez (talk) 13:33, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
 * One continues to be a liar when they lie about what very specific points I said they were lying about. I did not say you lied for pointing out there are two scholarly points of interpretation. I said you lied when you claimed the other side had presented no sources, you lied when you claimed that I declared .gov websites not legitimate sources for information on congress when I never said anything of the sort of even related to it, etc. By the way, "consider yourself reported" is not notification of a report. You've not linked me to the reporting, I have no idea where it is, whether it exists, cannot defend myself against it, etc. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 13:09, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Still no link, still no sources. An observer may be “A delegate sent to observe and report on the proceedings of an assembly or a meeting but not vote or otherwise participate.” I have begun outlining how a territorial Member of Congress DOES have privileges of the floor to directly address Congress, and consulting with other Members there who are state Representatives, --- UNLIKE press “observers”.

Unlike press "observers", territorial Members of Congress have offices and staff paid for by Congress in the congressional office buildings on Capitol Hill. They have Member of Congress franking privileges, free mailings to constituents. There are four military academies, USMA, Naval, Air Force and Coast Guard Academies. Each of the five territorial Members appoints two a year for two years to all four academies, a total of eighty plebes and cadets each Congress from constituents of US territory Members. These are not press “observers” overlooking Parliament from a box seat. The clouds of misrepresentation on this point cannot be attributed just to a difference between American and English dialect. Something more is afoot in the systematic denial of an uninterrupted 200-year constitutional tradition for incorporated US territories of US citizens and their Members of the US Congress.

Requiring a judicial-only term from executive or legislative bodies is an artificial way of saying without sources, Only the Supreme Court can determine compacts between the American people and Island people. This denies island peoples political competency in the modern era. It is dismissive of one of the two inconclusive academic interpretations of territorial status. --- We turn to scholars for information in the online encyclopedia, RATHER THAN original research of WP editors. In a foreign sense, US territories are a part of the US, as the Supreme Court has ruled. The current debate is over the "domestic sense" of incorporation, as territories are not states. (Just as DC is not a state, but in its case, it is agreed to be a part of the US.) I disagree with WP editors artificially seceding places in sovereign nations for WP article use only, as a matter of original research without scholarly sources. My last post in this string.


 * As though to assist WP editors in their original research, we have quoted from a U.S. Government Printing Office publication, “The United States now consists of 50 states, [DC] …, the territories of Guam, American Samoa, and the U.S. Virgin Islands, and the commonwealths of the Northern Mariana Islands and Puerto Rico.” (A guide for new immigrants, 2007. p.77.) and a reliable scholarly source in the quote, "At present, the United includes the Caribbean and Pacific territories, the District of Columbia and, of course, the fifty states.” (Sparrow in Levinson and Sparrow, 2005, p.232). TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 15:08, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Economic trends affecting ordinary Americans
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/07/25/5-reasons-americans-have-the-economic-blahs/ was recently published, and I think the gist of its first three sections should probably be incorporated here. It's not pretty, so I'm hoping for some good counterpoint to balance it? EllenCT (talk) 23:38, 25 July 2013 (UTC)


 * "While racial and ethnic minorities are more likely to live in poverty, race disparities in the poverty rate have narrowed substantially since the 1970s, census data show. Economic insecurity among whites also is more pervasive than is shown in the government's poverty data, engulfing more than 76 percent of white adults by the time they turn 60, according to a new economic gauge being published next year by the Oxford University Press." -- http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57595861/80-percent-of-u.s-adults-face-near-poverty-unemployment-survey-finds/


 * Does anyone have more detail about those OUP statistics? EllenCT (talk) 03:52, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Acronyms
Is there any point in having USA and U.S.A.? Isn't the use of fullstops/periods just grammatical, and not an alternative term? Why not just choose which is most commonly used, and remove the other? Regards, Rob (talk) 20:39, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * USA appears to be more common. Regards, Rob (talk) 20:38, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * We generally use "U.S.A." on Wikipedia. Most other countries (USSR, UK, DRC, etc.) go better without the periods, but we generally use periods for the United States. For example: U.S. state instead of US state. --Golbez (talk) 20:53, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Regardless, shouldn't either USA or U.S.A. be removed as it is just grammatical? Regards, Rob (talk) 17:38, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Parties & Elections Section
The very first sentence says 'The United States has operated under a two-party system for most of its history.[226]' It uses as it's proof a NYT blog comment post by a user named Asger Deleith. Not the blog itself but a reader's comment. If we allow this then I should be able to post a reply to some obscure news article and use that as proof for Wikipedia. Since when did Wikipedia start using personal comments on a blog as proof of fact? The US has not 'operated' under a two-party system. Two parties have dominated for the majority of it's history but to say it 'operates' like that is wrong. The US is a multi party system and that concept is specifically protected by the Constitution. It should read

'The United States has many political parties and each is accorded protection under the Constituition. Since the end of the Civil War the Democratic and Republican parties have dominated Federal elections. Smaller parties often refered to as 'Third Parties' continue to run campaigns on all levels with varying degrees of success.'

To state that the US is a two party system is completely wrong and goes against the fundamental nature of the US itself. The Constitution does not even mention Political parties. To have the very first sentence on this page say it 'operates' under a two-party system gives that opinion added and un-needed validity.

Yeah it does say Dorf on Law *chuckle* --Ufosatemycow (talk) 03:55, 22 July 2013 (UTC)ufosatemycow


 * You are correct in the problem of sourcing. That needs fixing. The rest of your post is incorrect. First off, "two party system" does not mean that a nation has codified into law a limit to only two political parties existing. As our own article on Two-party system states, it is a system where two MAJOR political parties dominate election results. Third parties certainly can and do exist, but they are insignificant compared to the two major political parties. This has been true in the United States for virtually its entire existence. What the two parties are has changed, but that it has been two has been rather constant, from the time of the Federalists vs. Democratic-Republicans to the modern Democratic vs. Republican. That is the essence of a two-party system. This is virtually never codified by law, but rather seems to evolve in countries adopting certain types of election systems. In other systems, such as more proportional ones, greater numbers of major parties do seem more common. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 04:24, 22 July 2013 (UTC)


 * The statement seems fine to me. BTW, the first past the post system is only one of the possible explanations.  TFD (talk) 06:55, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The sourcing is not OK. The editor is correct that the source is a comment on a blog post from a random NYT blog reader. Not RS. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 10:07, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

On the blog, that depends if the author is an established historian. Who is Asger Deleith? If this person is not a historian then a better source is needed. I have a concern with the actual statement. The United States has had many parties. The modern era party system really began after Reconstruction. Yet, today, there are several parties in the United States, excluding the Tea Party, since that is a movement rather then an actual registered party. Maybe the sentence could be modified with the words "modern era". Cmguy777 (talk) 18:56, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Or "modern era national parties"... it gets harder to try to write for the general international reader used to parliamentary systems. National power in the US is captured by multi-state party alliances which actually exist as national entities only at the time of their week-long national conventions. A national coalition of these state parties can dominate House or Senate only with sustained majorities, but each majority is at risk every two years. Every four years, only 1/3 of the six-year term Senators come in with a president, meaning even if there is an election resulting in a "mandate" in the House corresponding to the presidential party, the president-elect has not an automatic governing majority in the Senate. Historically, presidential party numbers in the House erode at mid-presidential term.
 * Third parties in the Electoral College yield "minority" popular vote presidents because the third parties can split the losing party electoral college vote state by state -- resulting in a state plurality winner-take-all, -- but they have not captured majorities in a majority of the states. Dixiecrats may have had the best modern chance to throw a presidential election into the House by denying a major party candidate Electoral College majority, but in the event, they did not. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:28, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

While OuroborosCobra is correct about what the Two-party system article says, casual readers may not know that so the op has a point. We should strive to be as clear as possible. What if we just added the qualifier "unofficially" before "operated"? Or maybe "unofficial" before "two-party system"? Would either of those minimally intrusive proposals adequately address the concerns raised? VictorD7 (talk) 21:09, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

A photo suggestion
I think where it mentions the moon landing in 1969 there should be a photo of Neil Armstrong on the moon. Seem appropriate to add a photo; after all it was pretty important at the time.

Here are some suggested links:

http://blog.zap2it.com/frominsidethebox/neil-armstrong-moon-flag.jpg

http://sdgln.com/files/articles/more/1969-neil-armstrong-walked-moon.jpg

and finally

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-F88Qtn42hww/UD6_PzSOisI/AAAAAAAAB_Q/m2KsSHnP1rY/s320/moon-walk.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.165.174.174 (talk) 04:12, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Should there be a link or something to the sports teams?

I mean if you were looking for information on a U.S.A. Sports team wouldn't you want to find it somewhere on the United States page? Or is there some United States::Culture page I'm missing somewhere? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.185.225.116 (talk) 09:58, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Even better than "Culture", we have a dedicated page to Sports in the United States. --Golbez (talk) 13:14, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 9 August 2013
It is not, nor ever has been, called the 'United States AND America'. Only an idiot would call it that, or claim it ever was.

A Teacher of US history.

173.197.107.4 (talk) 05:47, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
 * You're parsing that sentence wrong. It means the country is commonly referred to as "United States", "US", and "America".   Please refrain from name calling.  RudolfRed (talk) 06:55, 9 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I disagree. And I'll quote the sentence, minus parenthetical remarks:  "The United States of America, commonly referred to as the United States and America, is a federal republic..."  As written, the sentence is easily misconstrued.  Compare:  "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, commonly known as the United Kingdom or Britain..."  Arcanicus (talk) 08:38, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Good idea but RudolfRed was also right, the IP was parsing the sentence incorrectly. You shouldn't disagree with them for that. --Golbez (talk) 13:24, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Golbez' good edit, "or" is a perfectly good conjunction to replace "and" -- it renders the intended sense unambiguously. No need to be snarky in the 'reason' section, name-calling some of us as "unable to read". It comes off too defensive, not to say juvenile. I concur with "or" on the merits. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:21, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * When a "teacher" calls us an idiot for their being unable to read it properly then I reserve the right to be defensive and snarky in my edit summary. --Golbez (talk) 13:12, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * okay. okay. brilliant work on the animated map at csa, again. kudos. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:46, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

A photo suggestion for Popular media section
this photo shows two big stars from tv and movies in one. Pleas add — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.106.244.151 (talk) 06:12, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Unreferenced and misleading claim
Re: this edit - The claim that "The United States has been a leader in scientific research and technological innovation" followed by "Nikola Tesla pioneered alternating current, the AC motor, and radio." is pretty misleading. Many (most?) of the pioneers of radio were non-US and even in the US there were many pioneers of radio. Europe was actually ahead of the US in alternating current at this time and pretty much stayed ahead re: Mikhail Dolivo-Dobrovolsky's developing the standard 3-phase motor/system. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 03:37, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Income inequality
I added information on income inequality in the United States. Chile, Mexico, and Turkey have a higher inequality rate. I believed this was signifigant to add to the article lede. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:33, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I tweaked the edit and explained why in the summary. That still may be too much detail for the lede. If people think so, we could just say something like, "The US has a more unequal income distribution than most other developed nations but also has among the highest median and average incomes in the developed world." VictorD7 (talk) 21:10, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
 * VictorD7. Why is there a need to explain things? Is your tweak attempting to justify the U.S. income inequality? That would be pov. Cmguy777 (talk) 10:02, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't understand your comment. What is it you feel I'm explaining that shouldn't be explained? VictorD7 (talk) 17:54, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

VictorD7. I believed you were justifying income inequality in the U.S. by stating that "but also has among the highest median and average incomes in the developed world." You are arguing that income inequality is acceptable or less severe in the United States. That is POV. I was watching some show on TV where an extremely wealthy American tycoon was buying wealthy expensive cars for a hobby. I daily see homeless people on the streets begging for handouts and asking for money. Income inequality and median and average incomes are not directly related. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:06, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I wasn't trying to "justify" anything. You're clearly the one pushing POV here. Please explain why you feel America's extraordinarily high median income is less notable than its relatively high "inequality". Both are notable. The latter is an internal, relative comparison while the former is a straight up international comparison. When the internal equality metric is turned into an international comparison, adding the median income comparison is even more important for providing context, lest readers be misled into thinking most Americans are poor by European standards, which is what a cynic might suggest would be the point of stressing "inequality" in the first place. Of course the truth is that the vast majority of the US population is more prosperous than its equivalent income percentile in Sweden, Germany, and other first world nations, which is frankly more notable than "inequality" in international comparisons. VictorD7 (talk) 21:23, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * VictorD7. Most Americans can't afford to buy homes. We are becoming a nation of renters. A Nation of Renters: Should We Be Worried that Fewer Americans Own Homes There are millions of homeless people in the United States each year. National Student Campaign Agaisnt Hunger and Homelessness. Families and children are homeless. I was washing a truck today and a homeless person was digging in the garbage for aluminum cans. Do you see that everyday in Europe? Skyrocketing health care costs and student tuition also leads to homelessness. I would say millions of American homeless are poorer by European standards. People are living in sewers underneath Las Vegas. The People Living in Drains Below Las Vegas. Are there people living in sewers in European countries? I don't think so. Being poor is a reality in everyday America. Income disparity is important and needs to be in the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:54, 12 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Income disparity is in the article. Plenty of times in a variety of ways. But I'm talking about the vast majority of the population and you're talking about homeless people? Yes, there are homeless people in Europe but it's a very small percentage, just as it is in America. Student tuition doesn't lead to homelessness, lol. It cuts into your income some and may lead to bad credit for a while. It, along with skyrocketing healthcare costs, are also a symptom of third party government interference in the market. Your home ownership links didn't have any international comparisons, and plenty of perfectly well off people rent anyway. In case you haven't been paying attention things haven't exactly been rosy in Europe either. While there's obviously a degree of subjectivity involved in who's "better" off, most Americans have significantly more income than their European counterparts, and (at least prior to the Obama administration) are traditionally more likely to have a full time job.VictorD7 (talk) 03:22, 13 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Golbez and VictorD7. I was not attempting to make this talk into a diatribe on the plight of the millions of homeless people in the United States each year. However, I cited article sources to emphasis that income disparity and homelessness are relevant for this article, especially since the United States ranks higher then European nations in income disparity, with the exception of Turkey, if that country is considered European. Turkey may not be considered part of Europe, although part of the country is on the Eurasian continent. I am not sure if the United States has more homeless people per capita versus Europe. Income disparity and median and averages can be included in the article. I felt that VictorD7 view was attempting to tone down income disparity in the United States by citing median and average income levels in the United States. Honestly, do those statistics mean anything to the people living in sewers under Las Vegas. What European country has people living in sewers? There may be no comparison of people living in sewers versus United States and Europe. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:45, 13 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Here is a link on homelessness United States versus Europe: Homelessness in Europe and the United States: A Comparison of Prevalence and Public Opinion (2007) PDF. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:20, 14 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Well I'm glad that you agree that "Income disparity and median and averages can be included in the article." Guess that settles that. BTW, one could flip around that "tone down" accusation and say that focusing on "inequality" and the tiny percentage of people living in sewers is an attempt to distract from the fact that Americans are wealthier than Europeans, but the truth is that all these points are notable to varying degrees (especially metrics that describe the entire population rather than a small piece) and more information is better than less in painting a full, honest picture of reality. VictorD7 (talk) 00:40, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * VictorD7, can you answer if Europe has people living in sewers? This is evidence of the income disparity within the United States. Americans are wealthier then Europeans because there is a greater income disparity within the United States. Cmguy777 (talk) 06:35, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't know whether there are people living in sewers or if their leader is a guy named "Father" and they're protected by a beast-like mutant named "Vincent", and apparently you don't know what percentage of the population we're talking about here, nor is it pertinent to this discussion since no one disputed there's a wider income distribution in the US than in Europe. There's also huge economic inequality between Mark Cuban and Bill Gates, vastly more than between most people.  It's possible this is a source of friction between the two at parties and other functions, especially given Cuban's personality.  VictorD7 (talk) 17:27, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The point, of course, being that the relevance of inequality depends on context. VictorD7 (talk) 21:32, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

VictorD7. I agree the relevance of inequality depends on context. The source (2007) gives a good comparison between the U.S. and Europe in terms of homelessness. Germany, according to the study seems to be the best country at minmizing homlessness while the U.S. and Britain have a relatively higher homeless disparity in their respected countries. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:01, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Or maybe Germany has been better at minimizing the type of people more likely to become homeless (ethnic minorities, immigrants, the mentally ill, etc.), or better at keeping the mentally ill institutionalized, or the results are skewed by a survey using overly vague questions that differ from nation to nation, or a combination of the above. The US, however, has been better at facilitating wealth creation by a majority of its citizens. Back to the big picture, according to European economist and World Bank researcher Branko Milanovic, it only takes $34k a year (cost of living adjusted) for a person to be among the world's richest 1%. Half of such people live in the US. He calculated the global median income (per person, counting children) at $1,225 a year. Even the poorest 5% of Americans are wealthier than two-thirds of the world. VictorD7 (talk) 19:09, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * VictorD7. Maybe Germany just knows how to do things better economically and possibly in terms of industry. That stated Germany is a smaller country and probably has better control over their own economy. The United States has 50 state economies to contend with. I admire your enthusiasm for the American economy. However, the article I submitted states that people can't afford to buy homes anymore. Can a 34 K salary buy a home in San Francisco, Los Angeles, and New York. More people are renting in the United States then owning houses. That might be living, but they are living by either renting apartments or houses. I would state the a 50K salary possibly is the minimum to buy a home in the United States. With the decline in Unions, salary is down, while health care and housing costs have sky rocketed. Don't forget the homeless either where people can't afford the basics: shelter, food, and water. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:53, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * erm, it's really different depending on the locale. take New York- the cost of living in general is significantly higher than most suburban and smaller urban centers, simply due to the population density, not so much the economy. -- Aunva6talk - contribs 02:57, 17 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Aunva6. Correct. The cost of living does depend on where one lives, however, most people dwell in the urban areas, not the countryside. That would include New York City. Here is an article on where most people live: U.S. Urban Population Is Up ... But What Does 'Urban' Really Mean?. The standard of living is high in urban areas. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:02, 17 August 2013 (UTC)


 * You keep flitting back and forth between international comparisons and stand alone observations about the health of the US economy by its own standards. How many Germans can afford to own their own homes? I've displayed no enthusiasm. I simply linked to a CNN article on research by a chief World Bank economist and quoted some of the salient facts it contained. In my opinion the US economy sucks right now, at least by its own standards. As for which country does "things better economically", the most salient facts disagree:


 * Per Capita GDP (PPP) IMF 2012
 * America - $49,922
 * Germany - $39,028


 * Americans are about 28% wealthier than Germans. That's an extremely significant difference that's built up over many years. If we continue on our current course of "fundamental transformation" the US advantage could shrink and maybe vanish someday, but it does reflect the superiority of the traditional American model from an economic growth standpoint. VictorD7 (talk) 19:55, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Except the American economy is more unequal than the German economy, meaning while there are some Americans richer than Germans, there are also many Americans poorer than Germans. --Golbez (talk) 05:15, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Hence the relevance of the USA's higher median income, which shows that most Americans make more money than most Germans. And, while a small percentage of Americans (around the bottom 5% or so according to some charts I've seen but don't feel like digging up) likely make less then their German percentile counterparts, don't forget that "inequality" works on the other end too, so being "more unequal" doesn't by definition mean that anyone is necessarily poorer than the other nation. Indeed some Eastern European and third world nations are remarkably equal, though virtually their entire populations would fall under the US poverty line. Some people becoming more prosperous increases "inequality" even if nobody else is worse off. Economics isn't a zero sum game. VictorD7 (talk) 07:19, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

VictorD7. I find one thing interesting. Golbez and I might be agreeing on the U.S. economy versus Germany economy. Yes. There is a cost to all economies. You mention a high median income for the United States. However, you failed to mention the high cost of living in the United States that takes away that profit. The U.S. middle class is over taxed while the wealthier Americans pay less in taxes. So taxes and the high standard of living in Urban areas takes a toll on that high median income. Does Germany have people living in sewers? I don't think so. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:49, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * No, actually the median income comparisons are PPP adjusted, meaning they take cost of living into account. Also, the US has more progressive taxation than Europe does. The greater European redistribution comes on the spending side, along with starting off more "equal" in the first place by having fewer successful people than America. It's true that Americans are taxed less, but the biggest gap comes not on the high end, but for low and middle earners, who pay far more taxes in Europe (especially VAT consumption taxes, but also less progressive income taxes). If the US were to move to a European style social welfare system it would primarily involve massive tax hikes on low and middle income Americans. VictorD7 (talk) 00:49, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Break 01

 * VictorD7. Here is an article that states a quarter of millionaires pay less taxes then the middle class. Report: Quarter of Millionaires Pay Less Taxes Than Many in Middle Class National Journal, Catherine Hollander (updated: May 29, 2013) How is progressive taxation defined? The median income takes in the cost of living. Yes. That is a general statement. Most people live in Urban areas such as Los Angeles, New York, and San Francisco. The cost of living is extremely high there. Can someone with a median income afford to buy a house. Was that cost of living mixed in with rural versus urban areas? Also, does standard of living include renters and people who own houses? Many middle class people can't afford to by a house. That is why they rent. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:07, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * No, actually it (the WashPo piece your article links to) said "Critics initially blasted the Buffett Rule, arguing that the average millionaire already pays a significantly higher effective tax rate than middle-class families do. The CRS report, by Thomas L. Hungerford, a specialist in public finance, found that to be true: Millionaires, on average, paid about 30 percent of their income in federal taxes, while households earning less than $100,000 paid closer to 19 percent." It said that some millionaires who mostly rely on investment income pay a lower effective federal tax rate (not "less taxes" in absolute terms, but substantially more) than about 10 million people, which is a small percentage of the population and represents pretty high earners. And it still distorts the truth. I haven't read the CRS report, but Hungerford donated thousands of dollars to Obama and is a hack who cranked out a pro tax "report" last year that was so shoddily written, partisan, and wrong headed that it was retracted by an embarrassed CRS after withering widespread criticism. Plus Buffet's claims about him and his secretary have been debunked on various levels. It rare to see someone still repeating them.


 * The notion of taxing capital gains and regular income at different rates is an old idea embraced by both Republicans and Democrats (and many other nations) at various times for good reason: to encourage capital investment and its associated positive ripple effects for employees, consumers, and tax revenue. Even the ultra rich who rely solely on capital gains income pay higher effective tax rates than the vast majority of the population though, and certainly the top 1% we always hear about, a much broader category, does, as this chart shows. It's based on Tax Policy Center estimates, which are more reliable than Hungerford's pieces.


 * The top 0.1% pay an even higher rate. The overall population rate is in the teens. That's extremely progressive. I'm not sure what the point of your cost of living comments were, though I'll say that most renters aren't poor by American standards, much less global ones, and the rate of US home ownership is traditionally high by international standards. VictorD7 (talk) 02:48, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

VictorD7. I appreciate your information. However, none of your stastitics explains why there are people living in the sewers under Las Vegas. More UK (70%) and Italian (72%) citizens own homes compared to Americans (65%). Germany (53%) does have a housing issue or controversy. Housing is actually a current election issue in Germany. German Home Boom as Europe Stagnates Set to Hurt Merkel. Here is a cost of living index for world cities: Expatistan's Cost of Living World Map New York City is the 5th most expensive city to live in the world. San Francisco is 11th. Washington D.C. is 17th. Boston is 24th. Philadelphia is 26th. Seattle is 30th. Los Angeles is 33rd. Miami is 35th. Total cities counted in the index were 117. The Euro is worth more then the US dollar. Currently 1 Euro = 1.35 U.S dollar. Americans are paying more and getting less compared to Europeans. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:27, 20 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Housing ownership rates vary a lot by source, and you just listed a few of the highest ones, but not all homes are equal. Many renters are wealthier than many home owners. According to Census stats around 40% of the US poor own their own homes, so I'm not sure where you're trying to go with all this. Cost of living is already taken into account in the international comparisons. I wasn't talking about sewers, and I'm still waiting for you to tell me what percentage of the population is living in the sewers. VictorD7 (talk) 19:42, 20 August 2013 (UTC)


 * VictorD7, 40% of the US poor own their own homes? What is considered poor? Are you stating that someone making $20,000 a year owns their own homes? How is poor defined? Not all homes are equal, that is true. What source says renters are wealthier then homeowners? If one morally believes that living in sewers in not good for human beings, then the question needs to be why are these people living in sewers? I don't have statistics on people living in sewers. What about my question. Are there people living in sewers in Europe? Cmguy777 (talk) 07:09, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Why don't you have statistics about people living in sewers, Cmguy77? Maybe we should postpone the rest of this conversation until you do. Poor home ownership rates come from US Census data. You believe all renters are poor? You've never been inside of an upscale apartment? Or read about them or even seen them on tv? VictorD7 (talk) 16:54, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

VictorD7. The people who live under the sewer are part of the hundreds of thousands of homeless people who live in the United States. Source: Snapshot of Homelessness 633,782 people experience homelessness each night in America. Myself, I currently live in a house. I have lived in an appartment before, average but comfortable. I have been to a few California mansions before. I have been inside modern homes, townhouses, and apartments. I don't believe all renters are poor. You stated 40% of the U.S. poor own houses without citing a source. What is the income of the so called poor people who can own a house. I would state it takes an income of $6,388 gross monthly a year to buy a house in the United States. Source: How Much Income Do You Need to Buy a House? I would not call $76,656 a year in gross income poverty level. Have you ever seen a homeless person before? Cmguy777 (talk) 21:03, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Erm. You realize that there are different prices for different regions, right? A house that might cost a quarter million in Southern California can go for far, far less in Iowa. And poor people do own homes, through various methods (weren't poor when they bought; good deals; inheritance; really shitty home; really shitty area; somehow barely just staying afloat). That doesn't make them less poor. For example, let's say you have a home, but not enough income to eat well or get a car to go to work. You could sell your home; now you have two problems, as you now still don't have enough sustained income for food or transportation, and now also lack shelter. This thread seems to have run whatever disjointed course it was destined, as it ceased being on topic long ago. The argument over if poor Americans really are poor seems to be irrelevant, and everyone who's engaged in this thread is an idiot for getting involved with it. --Golbez (talk) 21:29, 21 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Golbez. I agree we seem to be going in circles. Yes. There are different prices for different regions and different circumstances for home ownership. If VictorD7 wants to have one last response that is fine and would be fair. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:45, 21 August 2013 (UTC)


 * While I agree this section never really found a point and probably shouldn't have been started (though it wasn't entirely without its uses), I'll reply to your comment about sourcing by providing this, and I'll answer your question by saying that yes, I've seen and interacted with homeless people in the US and other countries (including in Europe) before. VictorD7 (talk) 00:50, 22 August 2013 (UTC)


 * VictorD7. I believe that discussing income disparity in the United States is appropriate for the article. There are wealthy people in the United States and discussion of poverty gives current perspective how much income disparity exists within this country. I appreciate your answer on the interacting with homeless persons nationally and internationally. I have interacted with homeless people several times in the United States but not yet in any other country. Thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:22, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 21 August 2013
Please append "Fascism" to the "Government" section in the right hand bar. The United States Government is arguably a fascist government, as it fits the majority of agreed upon definitions: - An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization - Extreme right-wing, authoritarian, or intolerant views or practice

Nicksahler (talk) 22:50, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Lacks adequate sourcing. Also, no. --Golbez (talk) 00:01, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh brother, what next? I guess our friend has never visited China, Syria, Iran, Cuba, Saudi Arabia, etc. He sounds like someone who took his liberal arts courses and globalist indoctrination seriously. -- Gwillhickers 22:52, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I doubt this person expected to be taken seriously. They probably just wanted to speak their mind. Cadiomals (talk) 01:07, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Causes of the Civil War
While I'm glad the article does not spouse slavery as the only cause of the Civil War (it was mostly used as a motivator, not a cause), I noticed the article did not cover why so many southern states left the Union. The last straw was Abraham Lincoln's election. Not because he was elected, but because he literally was not even on the ballot for many southern states in the first place. It would be as if Obama was elected without being on half the county's ballots as a candidate. Needless to say, the already angry southern states were displeased and their populations were infuriated. That was what tipped the edge from tension into fragmentation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.1.80.153 (talk) 05:35, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * That seems like excessive detail for this article. --Golbez (talk) 13:16, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Golbez is too kind. A state legislature denying Lincoln's name on the ballot does not qualify that state to unilaterally leave the union, variously with or without permission of a majority of its own voters. Nonsense. Lincoln's election is certified as constitutional and binding on the American people in the states by the US Congress, -- before Confederacy state delegations are withdrawn AND before the lawfully elected Republican majority is seated. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:13, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree with the Virginia Historian. The Civil War began with the Compromise of 1820 concerning slavery and the admission of a state. Thomas Jefferson even predicted that a war would follow. He was right. Jefferson, and many in the South, did not want slavery to be curtailed in any way. Slaves were worth thousands of dollars. That is why Lincoln wanted to give the slave owners compensation for slaves. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:40, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
 * [aside --- additional subpoint of excessive detail] Jefferson was the head of the Congressional committee drafting the Northwest Ordinance prohibiting slavery. He sought admittance of free state Ohio during his presidency. Jefferson mentored his former secretary, then Governor Coles of Illinois, to overturn the pre-existing French slavery in the Illinois Territory at statehood. A faction of state legislature sought to allow slavery after statehood; they were defeated. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:35, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I had similar concerns about the American Civil War page itself, where it overall holds slavery up as the defacto reason why the Civil War erupted and said nothing of the banks, massive cotton sales to Britain, the funds of which were not being held in European banks on Wall Street, etc, as reasons why the States were concerned about Federal inroads into State business matters. As I said there, Follow the money. See the talk page there. Anything we can say in this capacity, in summary, I support. -- Gwillhickers 02:20, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Always find it interesting that people who argue about economic causes of the Civil War tend to ignore the economic impact of slavery itself. Just to note. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.189.109.215 (talk) 23:12, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

RfC
Do you support or oppose this edit? Pass a Method  talk  16:23, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Support mainly because i added sources and could find dozens more. The rationale for reverting me is insufficient because WP:Verifiability mentions no criteria requiring less used etymology to be omitted. In fact etymologies and multiple denonyms are widespread. Pass a Method   talk  16:23, 28 August 2013 (UTC)


 * First of all, you're not new here. You should know that a discussion is not a vote. Why didn't you even bother to discuss this before bringing it to a vote? So I'm going to skip voting and discuss the matter.
 * That said. There are many, many demonyms for this country. The most common by far of course is "American." But there are dozens of others, used for political or linguistic reasons. "Usonian" is one of these. However, just because you can show dozens of sources that it exists, you will be very hard pressed to find one that shows that it is used, especially in the modern day. "Yank" is used far more than Usonian and so far as I know, no one is suggesting adding that. Hell, there's surely more English speakers that say Estadounidense than Usonian. --Golbez (talk) 16:51, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Golbez. The existance of the term is proven, but not its widespread use; at least not widespread enough to justify its inclusion in this manner.  -- Jayron  32  16:54, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose "finding" usage is WP:OR. The sources are not sources at all, although one states "Usonian" is used, it does not state how prevalent, falling short of WP:Verifiability "citation must clearly support the material as presented in the article". Need (many) reliable sources that state "Usonian" is a second place Demonym. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 18:45, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Golbez and Jayron. i.e. I don't think I've even heard of "Usonian" before, and if I have it never registered. Almost sounds like someone from a different planet. -- Gwillhickers 21:44, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Feedback
(I'm posting this here as many of you have been involved with and active on the Jefferson page before.)

Informed feedback is needed on the Thomas Jefferson talk page regarding whether we should list Architect in the info box on that page. The issue has been discussed at length there in the upper sections. -- Gwillhickers 19:21, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

American federal republic
Encyclopedia Britannica, United States' first sentence reads, “officially United States of America, abbreviations U.S. or U.S.A., byname America, country of North America, a federal republic of 50 states.” But the US defines itself as more than the Encyclopedia Britannica entry. The Clean Water Act for instance, defines US waters to include territorial seas.

The federal republic is manifest in Congress, including six Members of Congress not state Representatives --- they are elected by US citizens in 1) District of Columbia, 2) Puerto Rico, 3) Northern Marianas, 4) US Virgin Islands, 5) Guam and 6) American Samoa.

For the purposes of a general readership, Should the six territories --- though not states, US citizens represented in Congress --- be included in the first sentence describing the American "federal republic"? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 18:36, 12 September 2013 (UTC)


 * No, because the fact that the U.S. may exercise jurisdiction over territories outside the federal republic does not mean those territories become incorporated into the republic. DC by the way is part of the republic, since it was carved out of territory already in the republic.  TFD (talk) 19:02, 12 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, people in a place are in a federal republic when people are citizens AND the place is represented in the national legislature.


 * Jurisdiction over people alone does not bring US citizenship in Guantanamo Bay. Jurisdiction over place alone does not bring a territorial Member of Congress for uninhabited Palmyra Island. The organic acts of political union for modern DC, PR, MP, VI, GU and AS include citizenship and territorial Members of Congress alike, inclusion in the American federal republic for all six. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:40, 13 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Again, unless you have an affirmative statement from the supreme court, congress, or high executive saying that any part of the unincorporated territory is part of the country, not including definitions clauses, I'm not sure we have anything more to discuss. And as for said statements, there's degrees; are they part of the country? are they incorporated? is the incorporated/unincorporated dichotomy irrelevant? Is it an off-the-cuff comment or legislation? Anything is useful. I'd be happy for any statements saying anything about territorial status, to add to the library of statements, so maybe we'll eventually find a solution. My point is, EB and your own theories on statehood aren't helping anything. Only the U.S. government can define itself. Anything you've said here is original research. --Golbez (talk) 13:28, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

You offer no sources to support ''"The six US territories are not a part of the American federal republic". Can you dispute any source with a directly stated reliable source that is not of your own original research? The following is NOT original research,

1) At a US Government Printing Office publication by Homeland Security, Welcome, a guide for immigrants citizenship, p.7, “The US now consists of 50 states, the District, the territories of Guam, Am. Samoa, and the U.S. Virgin Is., ... the N. Marianas." The incorporated/unincorporated dichotomy is a judicial term of art to justify discrimination among internal tax regimes of the US and its possessions. Congress alone is to decide territorial status. Internal taxation variability is not of interest to the general reader, nor does it bear on participation in the American federal republic among any of the six territories.

2) ‘‘State’’ [in the United States] includes the [DC], Puerto Rico, Guam, the Virgin Islands of the US, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands.” [(36) p.23]. 8 U.S.C. 1101 Aliens and nationality.

3) Executive Order 13423, "‘‘United States’’ when used in a geographical sense, means the fifty states, the District … Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, the US Virgin Islands, and the Northern Mariana Islands." – all six territories.

4) This is not original research on my part: Lawson and Sloane in the Boston College Law Review, “Regardless of how Puerto Rico looked in 1901 when The Insular Cases were decided or in 1922, today, Puerto Rico seems to be the paradigm of an incorporated territory as modern jurisprudence understands that legal term of art.” [p.1175] Political scientist Bartholomew Sparrow summarizes, the US has always had territories… “At present, the US includes the Caribbean and Pacific territories, [DC] and of course the fifty states.” (Levinson and Sparrow, 2005, p.232). To date, there is no reliable counter source by modern scholar or USG publication to deny the six territories are a part of the American federal republic, there are only reliable sources to include them. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:30, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I have no response unless it is to a source as requested. --Golbez (talk) 16:36, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Since I have modern scholarly, executive and legislative sources enumerating all six US territories in the American federal republic, --- and you have none excluding them, --- I suppose we have a dispute as to what the basis of WP edits should be. I would select as a single source: Welcome, a guide for immigrants 2007, Homeland Security, Government Printing Office, citizenship, p.7, US Today (map) p.101. ISBN 978-0-16-078733-1, because it addresses the US as required by the 1933 Montevideo Convention, as a sole person in the eyes of international law, regardless of its internal tax regimes among states and territories.
 * With no reliable source identified to make exception, the proposed language including the US as the USG currently defines itself is, The US “is a federal republic consisting of 50 states, a federal district and five territories represented in Congress.” TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:57, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't really need to give sources because they've been given dozens of times before, and it's the status quo. As for your source, I can pick it apart: "As a permanent resident, you have the right to: ... Live and work permanently anywhere in the U.S." Since one does not in fact have the right, even as a citizen, to live and work permanently in American Samoa without permission, that throws this blanket statement into doubt. I'm not saying this is saying American Samoa is not part of the country; I'm saying, you can't annex an island (or un-annex) with a brochure. If we had decided American Samoa was part of the country, and I supplied this brochure as evidence that it shouldn't be, would you accept that? Because of this statement? --Golbez (talk) 15:20, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Insert. American Samoa is the last outlying territory, so the federal relationship is unique. Nevertheless, the issue is whether to include US citizens there, -- their children, their spouses and the "Court House" Samoans who declare for US citizenship when they turn 18 --- as a part of the American federal republic. They have unrestricted travel anywhere in the US. They are US citizens and are represented in Congress by territorial Members of Congress just as DC and the other four territories. You are again using an internal regulation to Wiki-secede a part of the American Union, without sources in the face of US statutory, executive and scholarly inclusion. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:45, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Insert-2. It seems the information needs to be restated in the face of editors misreading complex internal regulations relating to American federalism. To be clear to newcomers to the United States who aspire to US citizenship, the USG explains in text narrative p. 7 and in a map, "United States Today", p.101 in "Welcome, a guide for immigrants citizenship", the USG explains, “The US now consists of 50 states, the District, the territories of Guam, Am. Samoa, and the U.S. Virgin Is., and ... the N. Marianas." TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:11, 16 September 2013 (UTC)


 * TVH, none of your sources say that the territories are part of the "federal republic." TFD (talk) 16:31, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * @TFD, USG defines itself as 50 states and six territories in statute, and those statutes are so interpreted for international purposes by the State Department Manual. How does INCLUSION in the national legislature -- then exclude citizens in a place from a federal republic? No source says, "The USG excludes modern DC, PR, MP, VI, GU and AS." Sources in this discussion to date INCLUDE them by enumeration, just to avoid any confusion. With no counter sources, WP policy would include knowledge, not exclude it. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:45, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

@Golbez. The status quo failed in the previous dispute resolution, in part because the status quo is unsubstantiated by a reliable source. Scholars trump USG, USG secondary sources --- such as our pamphlet vetted by various federal agency lawyers, --- trump USG primary sources, primary sources trump summaries, extracts and indexes. Because this issue is difficult for some to understand, we must rely on legal scholars such as Lawson and Sloane in the Boston College Law Review, and political scientist Bartholomew Sparrow in Levinson and Sparrow, --- instead of WP editor original research or other assertions without sources. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:45, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * You have presented all this before, and we have discussed each of your sources. TFD (talk) 10:02, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * And you misunderstood that an academic anthology has more than one voice, or that the editor could also write a contributing article from his conference presentation. Your only critique was that nothing can be used because there were more than one point of view in an anthology. Have you any sources to add to one press release ten years ago from the Puerto Rican Independence weekly newspaper? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:16, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Again, it is up to you to provide a source supporting your views, which you have consistently failed to do. TFD (talk) 10:26, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * No counter-sources, only "I-can't-hear-you? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:07, 16 September 2013 (UTC)


 * TVH, I need to make sure I'm reading you correctly. By saying "Scholars trump USG", you're saying that what scholars say is more important in determining the makeup of the country than the country's own government? And that they can contradict what that government says and be correct? Let's review here. This is something that only the government in question can decide; it can't be decided for them. Whether or not the United States controls, owns, occupies, manages, contains, etc. the territories can be up for scholarly debate. Whether or not Puerto Rico is functionally an internal territory, external territory, occupied land, etc. is a matter of scholarship and sourcing, not a matter of law. Same goes for Puerto Rico. What is not a matter of scholarship, however, is the bit that flips it to being part of the country. Occupation/ownership/integration etc. are all processes, substantial things; whether or not an area is considered part of a country is a bit, yes or no, that can only be decided by the government in question. Here's an example. Iraq invaded Kuwait on August 2, 1990. They completely conquered Kuwait on August 4, 1990. Baghdad was at that point the sole authority over Kuwait. However, it was not annexed by Iraq until August 28, 1990. For the 24 days in between it would be completely factually incorrect to call Kuwait part of Iraq, as only Iraq can decide what it thinks is part of itself. Did the structure of control substantially change on August 28? Doesn't matter. What changed was the bit - it flipped from Iraq saying Kuwait was not part of Iraq to saying it was. Another example: "Although at the time Israel informed the United Nations that its measures constituted administrative and municipal integration rather than annexation, later rulings by the Israeli Supreme Court indicated that East Jerusalem had become part of Israel."
 * My point is, is that the extent of control is up for scholarly debate; the terminology of that control is up to the government in question, as it is entirely a matter of self-definition. It's like saying you can't call the Democratic People's Republic of Korea because it fails on at least two of those names. no, they're fully allowed to call themselves what they want, even if it disagrees with the facts on the ground. Puerto Rico may well be fully integrated as an internal territory of the U.S., but unless the U.S. (in the official capacities I've set forth) says so, we are not allowed to disagree. No one is, just as no one can seriously disagree with "DPRK" being the name of the DPRK. --Golbez (talk) 13:31, 16 September 2013 (UTC)


 * @Golbez. Thanks for the respectful reply, though without sources to support your position. My guess is that this section is already too long, but here goes.


 * The US sources I provided enumerate all six territories as a part of the US. Scholars reaffirm the common sense meaning of the words. But you say statutory definitions of US law are not admissible as sources to define the US legislatively, executively, in secondary government sources (Homeland, State Dept), or scholars. I observe that US citizens represented in six territorial Congressional districts are repeatedly enumerated as a part of the US. How is it you then say only the USG can define the US when it does so as sourced by linked references by law and executive order to include 50 states, DC and five territories -- then you deny their inclusion?


 * Consider a parallel. In Great Britain, each of the four “nations”, England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland are denominated a part of Great Britain because they have representation in the national legislature, Parliament, --- even though since 1981, birth on Northern Ireland soil is not sufficient for citizenship without parentage, as in American Samoa. Although American Samoan have the right of “Court House” citizenship after age 18 of their own volition, making them more a part of the US than Northern Ireland is of Great Britain, were we to pick apart internal regulations for our determination of inclusion – without sources for Great Britain -- to which I would also object. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:45, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * TVH, I would be interested if you had any sources that claim the invitation of a non-voting delegate to attend a parliamentary body incorporporates a territory into the country. Cf the UN, that had a non-voting delegate from Switzerland, because Switzerland, although a nation, was not a member.  Also, in your example of the UK, when Wales was invited to send members to parliament, it did not become part of England, but merged with it to form England and Wales.  Similarly, Scotland did not become part of England and Wales but joined with it to become the United Kingdom of Great Britain.  Ireland did not become part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain, but joined with it to become the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.  Similarly we could speak of the United States and Territories, which includes the federal republic of the United States and its overseas possessions.  TFD (talk) 19:28, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Insert. A Member of Congress is not an observer. In US constitutional practice, a territory is not a state, but they are made a part of the country by congressional statute as territories --- not your unsourced judicial fiat. A territory does not have a state Representative in Congress, --- it has a territorial Member of Congress also called a delegate or commissioner. Since the Articles of Confederation they have had the right to speak from the floor which your observers do not. Today territorial Members of Congress may vote in the Committee of the Whole; they now vote in House committees, in House-Senate Conference committees, and in their party caucuses. They have offices equivalent, and make eight military academy appointments a year, as do state Representatives, unlike your observers.


 * The six territories, --- DC, PR, MP, VI, GU, AS --- are a part of the US federal republic by virtue of citizenship of its inhabitants and territorial representation in Congress. That is the constitutional practice of the US since the Articles of Confederation according to Sparrow, not me. DC is included as a “state” by enumeration everywhere in law “state” appears by statute, just as are the other enumerated territories – they are a part of the US as are “states”: DC, PR, MP, VI, GU and AS.


 * I wish you would tell me where you get your information. Wales and England are each called a “nation” in Great Britain, they are not “merged” as Georgetown and Anacostia into Washington, DC. My point is there is no reason to delve into the internal regulations of a nation when defining its extent for the general international reader at WP. Instead follow the 1933 Montevideo Treaty, where, when treating federations, each nation is a “sole person” in the eyes of international law, which in a proposed phrasing you almost have right as of your last post. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:00, 18 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Your comparison between NI and Guam is also flawed. First, the same citizenship law has always applied equally to NI and every other part of the UK, unlike the US and territories.  Second, unlike Guam, all persons born in NI before 1981 were UK citizens.  The new law only prevented children born of foreign parents from becoming citizens.  The US law prevents children of Guam parents from becoming US citizens.  For the analogy to work, people in NI who did not have one parent who was born in England or Scotland would not be citizens, while children of immigrants born in England or Scotland would be.  People entirely of NI ancestry born in NI would not be UK citizens.  TFD (talk) 19:59, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Insert. You are misinformed. Since 1981, citizenship among the four "nations" of Great Britain is not alike of the soil in Northern Ireland. NI now requires additionally a British parent, a requirement only there, not in the other three "nations". Children born in Guam are US citizens by the soil. You may be thinking of American Samoa, the last "outlying possession" with a large modern immigration from independent nation of Samoa. There children of a US citizen parent are US citizens as it is in Guam, as their spouses may be, and American Samoans, US nationals of the soil, may declare their US citizenship on turning 18, the so-called "Court House" citizenship. The point is that internal regulations differing among polities of a nation such as GB citizenship or the discriminatory territory-state taxation regime in the US, are NOT a basis for Wiki-excluding those polities from the nation as a "sole person", either in UK or US. There is no scholarship supporting such a contrived Wiki-secession. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:18, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * See the Home Office website: "Even if you were born in the United Kingdom [after 1983], you will not be a British citizen if neither of your parents was a British citizen or legally settled here at the time of your birth."  Like the U.S., nationality law is the same everywhere in the country.  TFD (talk) 19:31, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Insert. Very well, the residents of Guam and American Samoa and the places they live in --- are more surely a part of the American federal republic by blood and soil, self-government and representation in Congress, --- than the poor merged populace in Wales by parentage alone can be made a part of the UK. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:31, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * There was nothing in my statement that needed sourcing, so I'm unsure what you're asking for. As for your Northern Ireland argument, not sure that matters, every nation has the right to define itself accordingly. Jus soli is almost entirely a western hemisphere phenomenon, but that doesn't mean that regions with jus sanguinis are any less legitimate. I don't know why you're arguing against a position I didn't present. And I can absolutely say only the USG can define the extent of the USG. That's kind of how this works. Even if it doesn't match fact, that doesn't change their self-definition. Argentina may define itself as including the Islas Malvinas, but that doesn't mean it actually does - but we still respect that when talking about how they define themselves. The U.S., absent a proper source, does not appear to identify itself as including Puerto Rico. I would be very willing to change my stance should a proper source emerge, but considering the difficulty in finding an affirmative congressional, high executive, or high court statement saying that any presently external territory is considered a fundamental part of the country, one wonders if that betrays the fact that there isn't such a source. And no, definitions clauses don't count. If you're going to accept one as gospel then you must accept them all as gospel, and I'm pretty sure the District of Columbia is not a state. --Golbez (talk) 15:53, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Insert. US includes states, USG defines "state" to further include, by enumeration -- DC, PR, MP, VI, GU, AS -- alike. It does this in legislation relating to international status AND in domestic legislation AND by executive order implementing law. But you administratively dismiss USG definition of itself --- calling on me to undertake original research without reference to scholarship in the field. Editor Golbez complains USG must define USG without scholarship sourcing, but USG statutory definitions are not acceptable to the administrator Golbez ALONG WITH scholarship of political science and constitutional law, confirming them. Why are no reliable sources permitted on this WP page in this case?

The internal discriminatory tax regime implemented between states and territories to preserve domestic sugar monopolies are difficult to parse through, that is why WP policy in general calls for use of reliable sources in academically, peer reviewed publications for authority. That policy should also apply specifically to this case. In a law journal by Lawson and Sloane --- which TFD claimed to support Wiki-secession of Puerto Rico. BUT to the contrary, after a scholarly discussion of previous interpretations which no longer apply in the modern world, Lawson and Sloane say in the Boston College Law Review, “Regardless of how Puerto Rico looked in 1901 when The Insular Cases were decided or in 1922, today, Puerto Rico seems to be the paradigm of an incorporated territory as modern jurisprudence understands that legal term of art.” [p.1175].

That is, Puerto Rico is included in the US by USG primary sources (legislative, executive and judicial – federal district and appellate courts), USG secondary sources (State and Homeland) and scholarly sources (Lawson & Sloane, and Sparrow). There is no difficulty finding these sources, you will not acknowledge them, a different problem in WP editing and administration. DC is not a state, but a territory, a part of the US federal republic by virtue of citizenship of its inhabitants and territorial representation in Congress. That is the constitutional practice of the US since the Articles of Confederation according to Sparrow, not me. DC is included as a “state” by enumeration everywhere in law “state” appears by statute, just as are the other enumerated territories – they are a part of the US as are “states”: DC, PR, MP, VI, GU and AS.

There are no counter sources to including all six US territories, only original interpretation by WP editors without authority of scholarship, or USG primary or USG secondary sources to contradict the outcome of the last dispute resolution: include the 50 states and six territories represented in Congress as a part of the US federal republic: DC, PR, MP, VI, GU and AS. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:16, 18 September 2013 (UTC)


 * "There is no difficulty finding these sources" All evidence to the contrary, considering the only source you presented when saying that was an irrelevant third party one. I've already told you why I discard most of the other sources you use, so please stop trying to convince me by using them, that's not going to happen. Period. Now, I entered this conversation, so I can't very well fault you for not satisfying my criteria as I started it, not you, so I apologize for badgering, but this is my notice that I am now exiting it until such time as that criteria is fulfilled, as we seem to have nothing more to discuss. --Golbez (talk) 13:27, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay thanks anyway. Please be advised that the US federal system is a complicated one. Homeland Security Department of the pamphlet "Welcome" is a cabinet level department in the US executive branch, not a "third party" source irrelevant to geographical extent of the US. This round I've used links to congressional legislation, presidential executive order, political science and constitutional law scholarship. You have no counter sources, no supporting scholarship and no reason to discard them. There is a reason the status quo excluding five of the six US territories with territorial representation in Congress failed in the last dispute resolution cycle. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:30, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Almost, very close, TFD. “Similarly we could speak of the United States and Territories, which includes the federal republic of the United States and its overseas possessions.” With your input, I would amend my first suggestion this round by adding:

We could better say, ''“The US is a federal republic of 50 states, a federal district, and five territories represented in Congress. It has nine overseas possessions and it assumes international defensive obligations by Compact of Free Association with Micronesia, the Marshall Islands and Palau."'' TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:42, 18 September 2013 (UTC)


 * United Nations General Assembly observers have "the right to speak from the floor". There is no difference between a "delegate" and an "observer."  Also, the five territories are not part of the U.S.  TFD (talk) 14:55, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Insert. You repeat your oft stated position that you do not acknowledge USG constitutional practice as a nation, but maintain it is a confederation with the right to secession for each polity as at the UN, we disagree, I produce sources, you do not. Your Lawson and Sloane conclude after their survey of alternative views, that PR is politically incorporated into the USG, regardless of its discriminatory tax regime.
 * In the US, territories may be a part of the federal republic without becoming states. Territories do not have, have never had the rights of state Representatives, but territories are included in the federal republic by resident citizenship and representation in Congress. This inclusion in the federal republic was available to DC in the 1970s only well after its judicial "incorporation" for domestic tax purposes.
 * In US constitutional practice, modern 21st century DC and the other five territories all equally have the rights of territorial Members of Congress with larger prerogatives than those of continental territories of the 1800s, with citizenship and self-government larger than Alaska Territory and Hawaii Territory in the 20th Century. No one disputes AK Terr. and HI Terr. were a part of the American federal republic before statehood. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:15, 20 September 2013 (UTC)


 * TVH, you keep presenting the same invalid arguments. If you want to read the replies, butcher through the numerous discussion threads you started which are now archived.  TFD (talk) 08:43, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * You cannot find one which applies in the modern world to restate here.
 * Still no sources to counter the inclusion of all six territories in the American federal republic. You have only your Wiki-secession hobby horse of the PR independence party, netting under 3% of the PR popular vote last year, for the fifth time. Even the Cuban UN delegation allows Puerto Rico is internal to the US. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:00, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

No mention of its part in Iraq sanctions?
We all know that the US had a part in the UN sanctions, so why is this not mentioned? Sanctions_against_Iraq Especially as some claim that the US was the driving force behind them. Not to mention that Madeline Albright, US Secretary of State, found the deaths of half a million Iraqi children justifiable. http://www.chomsky.info/interviews/20051129.htm http://www.globalissues.org/article/105/effects-of-sanctions — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.149.71.23 (talk) 11:18, 17 September 2013 (UTC)


 * In writing brief articles, it is important to determine what weight each aspect of U.S. history deserves. U.S. foreign policy and military actions have had significant effect on dozens of countries, but they cannot all be included.  TFD (talk) 13:30, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * footnote. TFD probably has the right emphasis overall here, though Treasury activity isolating bad-actor banks is an important part of the US anti-terrorism effort, grown exponentially now, from "Why are they at the table" to "Where is Treasury" in international security deliberations. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:48, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

From http://www.theguardian.com/theguardian/2000/mar/04/weekend7.weekend9: Denis Halliday resigned as co-ordinator of humanitarian relief to Iraq in 1998, after 34 years with the UN; he was then Assistant Secretary-General of the United Nations, one of the elite of senior officials. He had made his career in development, "attempting to help people, not harm them". His was the first public expression of an unprecedented rebellion within the UN bureaucracy. "I am resigning," he wrote, "because the policy of economic sanctions is totally bankrupt. We are in the process of destroying an entire society. It is as simple and terrifying as that . . . Five thousand children are dying every month . . . I don't want to administer a programme that results in figures like these." When I first met Halliday, I was struck by the care with which he chose uncompromising words. "I had been instructed," he said, "to implement a policy that satisfies the definition of genocide: a deliberate policy that has effectively killed well over a million individuals, children and adults. We all know that the regime, Saddam Hussein, is not paying the price for economic sanctions; on the contrary, he has been strengthened by them. It is the little people who are losing their children or their parents for lack of untreated water. What is clear is that the Security Council is now out of control, for its actions here undermine its own Charter, and the Declaration of Human Rights and the Geneva Convention. History will slaughter those responsible." So what has been described as genocide of over a million individuals is not important enough? Baffling. 86.134.176.4 (talk) 20:52, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * So, we are to take the word of one individual as deciding the importance of this. Interesting.  Tell us more.  -- Jayron  32  20:55, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm curious, what edit would you propose? You realize this would get, at most, six words. Right? So, "The U.S. participated in the Gulf War and later sanctions" is about all you'd get. If you're expecting a paragraph, you're very mistaken. Look at the rest of the history section - it's crap in structure and content, but at present wars tend to get a sentence. This would not get better treatment than a war. So instead of telling us something's missing, tell us what you think should be there. That will make this go far less confrontationally, as I see it headed now. --Golbez (talk) 20:56, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * "Under President George H. W. Bush, the United States took a lead role in the UN–sanctioned Gulf War." to "Under President George H. W. Bush, the United States took a lead role in the UN–sanctioned Gulf War as well as the Sanctions against Iraq, a genocide of an estimated million people according to a former Assistant Secretary-General of the United Nations." 217.35.89.48 (talk) 19:28, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's not happening. The linked article spends one paragraph out of dozens on the genocide idea, we certainly aren't going to dedicate half of the sentence to it. That's not a proportional description. You might get a link to the sanctions but nothing more. Furthermore, you're saying the sanctions = genocide. That's not remotely backed up by the article. They may have caused what some consider a genocide, but the sanctions are not "a genocide". I'm not seeing anything further to discuss here, except whether or not to link the sanctions. --Golbez (talk) 20:18, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Wait, so a genocide of an estimated million people, taking half a sentence, is not proportional? You have a whole sentence for an attack which killed just 3'000. If anything it isn't long enough. Interesting that there doesn't seem to be a mention on the History of the United States page either. Come on guys, you can't just ignore history that's inconvenient. 86.134.176.4 (talk) 10:41, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * We aren't. We're saying, you're saying on this article that it was a genocide, which is far from consensus. Also, as you said, there's no mention on the detailed history page; you should bring that up there, as the sanctions really should be mentioned there. Maybe it's on military history of the United States? Doesn't look like it; you should bring this up there as well. The basics of it is, this is very much a summary article, and we can't have much detail, even for wars and conflicts in which thousands of people died. Please stop being so confrontational; some people here might deserve it but I'm truly trying to be civil and give it to you straight. This isn't about trying to "ignore" anything, it's about giving the proper space. And, again, the article itself is far from convinced that it was a genocide, so our mention of it certainly can't go there. --Golbez (talk) 05:13, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * My opinion is that half a sentence to point out a policy that killed over one million people is entirely proportional. 217.35.89.48 (talk) 17:49, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * You can point out the policy, you can't call it a genocide if even the linked article doesn't agree. --Golbez (talk) 18:18, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Policy requires us to provide the same weight to events as they would receive in reliable sources. It could be that the media should have paid attention to the effects of the sanctions, but the fact is they did not.  The place to address that deficit is in the court of public opinion, not here.  Or if you think that we should have different criteria for what is included, then take it up in the policy discussion pages.  TFD (talk) 19:01, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Can you point me to where this policy exists? "It could be that the media should have paid attention to the effects of the sanctions, but the fact is they did not." Demonstrably untrue, John Pilger had an article in The Guardian, Noam Chomsky, possibly the most well known intellectual of our times has commented on them. PBS even mentions them here albeit with a negative slant: http://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/stories/iraq/sanctions.html. So it's clear that it has been covered in the media so that's surely not the reason. Now, disputing the numbers I can accept, but it is clear that however limited, it has been covered by the media. We should move on from this discussion and discuss the actual number of deaths before entering it in.


 * Balancing aspects says, "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject." Weight is defined as "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic."  Certainly the media has covered the Iraq sanctions, but there are hundreds or even thousands of stories that have received more coverage.  TFD (talk) 22:22, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Genocide requires directed acts of mass violence with the intended extinction of a targeted group. That is different from unintended consequences. It happens that cows milk given to infants enables their system to adapt and digest it; but if cow's milk is introduced to children over two years of age, they dehydrate and die. During a regional famine in India in the 1960s, the USG gave surplus powdered cows milk to feed Indian children, causing hundreds to die. That was tragic, but not genocide either on the part of the USG or the Indian government accepting the food aid in a time of famine. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:12, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * It was a directed restriction of goods. Those restrictions directly reduced Iraq's intake and people died as a result. Please don't excuse the US for the deaths of a million people when Madeline Albright herself said it was the right thing to do. Would you excuse the Nazis for the Warsaw Ghetto? The Israelis for Gaza? Come now, cut the bias. 81.137.229.125 (talk) 13:27, 24 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Sounds like you have the bias. People died as a result of Saddam Hussein's actions. Even when Red Cross/humanitarian goods were delivered for the people, he still had them appropriated for his own/the military's use. There is no comparison between US/UN policy here and the Nazis' actions. A simple case of Reductio ad Hitlerum. And it has no mention in the article because it had minimal impact in the overall scope of American history. Boneyard90 (talk) 15:51, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Error that should be fixed
At the bottom of the section on religion it says "ofter western countries", I'm sure it should be other — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.172.154.87 (talk) 13:38, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Thanks! --Golbez (talk) 05:22, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Lawson and Sloane

 * Butcher through the archives - they are all there many times and I cannot be bothered to copy them because no evidence will persuade you. In any case, it is unnecessary because you need to a source to support the inclusion of the unincorporated territories.  TFD (talk) 10:34, 20 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Lawson and Sloane in the Boston College Law Review p. 1175, whom you misrepresented in the archives, but they conclude, “…Puerto Rico seems to be the paradigm of an incorporated territory as modern jurisprudence …” You have only your own interpretation of complicated revenues regimes from over a century ago without any modern scholarship to support you, --- and should be disallowed as original research. You cannot be persuaded to read to their conclusion, sources you reference, -- as in Lawson and Sloane directly quoted here, but repeatedly misrepresented in your posts.


 * You will not read your own misrepresented sources, which you dare not republish. The Insular cases uniformly say Congress is to include those islanders as citizens and within the American federal republic by territorial representation in Congress, just as in the Northwest Ordinance. --- Which Congress now has, as I have sourced, but you will not read. The Insular Case possessions without citizens can be "foreign in a domestic sense" only in regards to a discriminatory tax regime to favor state-side sugar producers, as shown by law journals citations --


 * That is not exclusion of islanders as citizens, nor can you find a source to deny they are represented by territorial Members of Congress in the US constitutional tradition of two-hundred years --- finally now, for all six since the 1990s --- the modern 21st century American federal republic. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:26, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Lawson says that according to the federal government (p. 1161), Congress (1143), the courts (as decided by the insular cases), as well as international law (p. 1124), Puerto Rico is unincorporated. The United States has agreed to respect the right of self-determination of the citizens of Puerto Rico, and not unilaterally incorporate their nation.  TFD (talk) 12:51, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

True, and in its turn, seven times over fifty years, by constitutional convention, legislature resolution and plebiscite Puerto Rico has chosen to integrate with an existing state (the United States) as a commonwealth, both in 1952 as cited in Lawson and Sloane, and last year in 2012. Only 2-3% ever vote for independence, even with half the Puerto Rican population residing state-side. TFD has misrepresented three citations and again ignored the scholarly conclusion --- in peer reviewed publications, it usually follows a discussion of alternative interpretations. In this case, the Insular Cases are not overruled for discriminatory tax purposes, but they are superseded by Congressional acts making territories organic to the US in their Organic Acts.


 * TFD says Lawson and Sloane p.1124 says international law alienates US territories. No, in “Postwar decolonization norms and the principle of the self-determination of peoples require that Puerto Ricans enjoy the right to “external” self-determination— that is, the right to choose political independence, integration with an existing state, or free association in a referendum” in 1952 cited in the article, and now again in 2012, 3% popular vote for independence in both 1952 and 2012. TFD advocates a fringe doctrine held by only 3% of PR islanders.


 * Lawson and Sloane p. 1143 says, “neither Puerto Rico nor the CNMI (Northern Marianas) has requested either independence from the United States (separation) or admission to the Union as a state (integration), and the United States has therefore had no occasion to decide whether to accede to such a request.” – that has nothing to do with courts, TFD has no direct quote to support his position.


 * Lawson and Sloane p.1161 says, “Yet General Assembly Resolution 567 does not purport to require complete equality in constitutional guarantees; it is only one factor that enters into the determination of associated statehood. ” Allowing for the constitutional practice in the US distinguishing between states and territories within the requirements of international law. – that has nothing to do with USG excluding its six territories; TFD has no direct quote to support his unsourced position to exclude them.


 * Lawson and Sloane conclude p. 1175, “ Regardless of how Puerto Rico looked in 1901 when The Insular Cases were decided or in 1922, today, Puerto Rico seems to be the paradigm of an incorporated territory as modern jurisprudence understands that legal term of art.” That is what scholars conclude, Puerto Rico is the paradigm of the six politically incorporated territories with mutually agreed to citizenship, and self-government in a federal republic with representation in the national legislature (Congress) according to the constitutional practice of the majority state (US). TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:40, 26 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Ad before, Lawson and Sloan have opinions and arguments regarding the status. However, Lawson and Sloan do not have the authority to change the status of unincorporated territories to incorporated. That will require action by Congress or the courts. older ≠ wiser 12:09, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * a) Peer reviewed journal is informed opinion to include islanders, not editor unsourced opinion to exclude islanders -- the "opinions" are different for our purposes at WP, so one is WP reliable source, the other is WP original research.
 * b) Congress by organic acts make DC and four territories organic to the US, American Samoa is the last "outlying territory", of US citizens with representation in Congress. Citizenship is mutually agreed upon in federal self-government and representation in the republic’s national legislature, Congress -- as territories in the 200-year US constitutional practice.
 * c) No English speaking court has determined its nation’s citizenship in over one hundred years. This discussion bears on including the modern six US territories as represented in Congress as a part of the “American federal republic”. That is accomplished by the 21st century by Congressional acts referenced in USG primary, USG secondary and scholarly sources -- but there are no contrary sources to dispute inclusion of US citizen islanders in the modern American federal republic. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:12, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Admitting scholarship

 * a) Scholarly opinion has no effect on legal status. Legal status is clearly and unambiguously described as unincorporated by authoritative sources.
 * b) Original research and speculative.
 * c) GAO reports have unambiguously concluded that these territories remain unincorporated. No amount of scholarly opinion can change that. older ≠ wiser 17:19, 27 September 2013 (UTC)


 * a) Scholarly opinion clarifies legal status that WP editors do understand on their own authority. WP original research into primary documents does not always yield clear and unambiguous conclusions as to the meaning or extent of the law. Legal status is clearly and unambiguous ENUMERATED in USG secondary interpretation of the law for WP editors unsure as to the application of it: At Welcome to the US: a guide for new immigrants’citizenship, (2007) p.7, “The US now consists of 50 states, the District, … Guam, Am. Samoa, and the US Virgin Islands, ... Puerto Rico and the Northern Marianas."


 * b) U.S. Dept of Insular Affairs (DOI) defines Organic Act. "The body of laws that the United Congress has enacted for the government of a US insular area; it usually includes a bill of rights and the establishment and conditions of the insular area's tripartite government". These provide explicitly for protections of the US Constitution, US citizenship, US tax provisions, local self-governance and territory representation in the US Congress. Puerto Rico Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, Northern Marianas


 * c) GAO reports that territories are unincorporated for a discriminatory tax regime, without reference to citizenship (fundamental rights), self-government (federalism) or representation in Congress (voice in a republic). Your internal tax reference discussing nationhood is a simple non-sequitur. Various internal regulations do not affect the composition of a nation-state as a “sole person” before international law. There is no source to exclude six modern US territories from the American federal republic. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:54, 28 September 2013 (UTC)


 * a) The official status of the territories is unambiguous. The practical reality may not be as clear. It may be appropriate to note what current scholarship says (if it represents the position generally accepted by majority of scholars in the field and is not an position advocating for change). But such scholarship has no authority to change the official status.
 * b) and c) More of your attempts to read between the lines and make a synthetic analysis. The current status of the territories is unincorporated. Full stop. older ≠ wiser 11:48, 28 September 2013 (UTC)


 * You have no supportive source for your assertion. "Unincorporated" in American jurisprudence applies only to a discriminatory internal tax regime as we read in the GAO report. There is no scholarship making a larger interpretation, you simply reassert your non-sequitur that discriminatory taxes mean discriminatory citizenship or no voice in the national legislature.


 * Congress in the modern era, as called upon by the Court, has superseded it by statutes cited here in the 21st century. The once Pacific and Caribbean islander "savages" of your Insular Cases --- are now mutually made citizens, with federal self-government, participating as politically incorporated members of the republic in Congress.


 * That is not synthesis, which requires piecing together disparate data --- all are repeatedly enumerated in secondary USG sources from State Dept. and Homeland Security, primary USG legislative and executive sources, by political scientists and constitutional scholars. To the contrary, there is no source to exclude the six US territories from the American federal republic. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:33, 29 September 2013 (UTC)


 * And you keep repeating your synthetic analysis (and yes, it is correctly called synthetic analysis). The plainly stated fact is that the current status of these territories is unincorporated. No amount of scholarly opinions can change that. older ≠ wiser 11:48, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Bkonrad-onw, You keep arguing sourced information by simply reasserting your unreasoned denial. You have no source to exclude the six modern US territories from the American federal republic. There is no scholarly support for your fringe POV.


 * You have only a nonsequitur that territories unincorporated for discriminatory internal taxes (GAO report) cannot be organically incorporated in federal republic with states (US statute) --- but your understanding is refuted --- when USG primary, USG secondary and scholarly sources all attest to the US union -- including DC and five enumerated territories in a 21st century federal republic. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:25, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
 * There is nothing you have said to refute the fact that the status of these territories is unincorporated. That is all that needs to be said. older ≠ wiser 11:10, 30 September 2013 (UTC)


 * There is nothing more to be said on taxes: territories are judicially unincorporated for discriminatory internal tax purposes as held in the Insular Cases. But the holdings are restricted to the subject addressed, territories "foreign in a domestic sense" for internal taxation.


 * Congress was called upon by the Court to make citizens and politically incorporate territories after the fashion of the Northwest Territories. Which Congress has now done in the 21st century -- much delayed with egregious injustice in the past -- but now with mutual citizenship, self-government and territorial representation in Congress, including islanders in PR, MP, GU, VI, AS, and African-American DC.


 * What more to be said, concerns the extent of the American federal republic, --- which today includes 50 states with a federal district and five territories represented in Congress. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:10, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Sparrow
This sparrow that keeps being mentioned, weren't they the one who wrote that because the territories could be considered part of the USA that meant the USA wasn't a federal republic, but an Empire? Why are we only discussing half of his position in our discussion of the lead? CMD (talk) 06:14, 19 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you, yes the anthology is “they”, but they do not have the same voice. You remember correctly, Bartholomew Sparrow speaks of the US as “democratic empire”, “the fact of federalism combines democracy and empire” for Indians, Mexicans, African-Americans and inhabitants of the insular territories. Sparrow’s essay spends a substantial discussion of the “internal empire” of USG lands in states, whether Indian reservations or mineral rights acreage. Whenever a group “for long periods in US history had no political voice and who have been dominated politically.”
 * Sparrow’s ultimate test is statehood, and there is no immediate prospect of statehood for the six territories in the near future. Nevertheless, in the 21st century the modern territories, --- including the African-American majority in DC, --- now have territorial representation, a voice in Congress which DC did not have until the 1970s and others did not have until the 1980s. Legal scholars such as Lawson and Sloane at Boston College can observe Puerto Rico has a voice in self-government that makes it politically incorporated as modern jurisprudence understands the term today. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:00, 20 September 2013 (UTC)


 * That is your personal opinion unsupported by sources. TFD (talk) 10:36, 20 September 2013 (UTC)


 * To what can you possibly be referring? DC is represented in Congress as a territory, not as a state. Guam is unlikely to become a state soon, nor a part of Hawaii. I say, two constitutional scholars, Lawson and Sloane who are often disagreed, co-author in 2009 …Puerto Rico’s legal status reconsidered in the Boston College Law Review, p. 1175, to say “Regardless of how Puerto Rico looked in 1901 when The Insular Cases were decided or in 1922, today, Puerto Rico seems to be the paradigm of an incorporated territory as modern jurisprudence understands that legal term of art.”
 * TFD says, that is my "personal opinion, unsupported by sources”,--- but he is without a modern source to counter them -- or one may be archived but discredited, including a misrepresentation of Lawson and Sloane's conclusion quoted here. Is this, “I-can’t-hear-you?” I am not holding myself out as an expert, I am faithfully reporting a verifiable reliable source in a peer reviewed scholarly journal. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 18:32, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * No need to counter your claims which are only faulty reading of sources. TFD (talk) 20:04, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Is this hobby-horse still on parade? While scholars may offer learned opinions (or in some cases, argumentative speculations), they are nothing more than their opinions. The current legal status of the inhabited territories is unambiguous in GAO reports to Congress -- they are considered to be "unincorporated" and that term is unambiguously defined in those reports. Until such time as Congress changes their status or the Supreme Court issues rulings that affect their status determination, there is little to discuss other than opinions and speculations. older ≠ wiser 20:24, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Note: Still no sources to exclude the six US territories from the American federal republic. We can read constitutional scholars, [Lawson and Sloane p.1175 concluding, “Regardless of how Puerto Rico looked in 1901 when The Insular Cases were decided or in 1922, today, Puerto Rico seems to be the paradigm of an incorporated territory as modern jurisprudence understands that legal term of art.”

Congress has made citizens with their representative and referendum agreement, the citizens in those places are given representation by organic law politically incorporating them into the American federal republic. The territories ARE "unincorporated in a domestic sense" for the purposes of discriminatory internal tax regime, but Congress alone determines citizenship and representation in Congress. It is possible editors of good will can misconstrue the internal regulations of a federal republic; it is complicated.

That is why Bkonrad and TFD original research cannot be used, or rather unsourced assertions cannot be used, --- but rather WP articles should use reliable constitutional scholars and political scientists published in peer reviewed sources. There is division among scholars, one of which CMD alluded to in his post above, but Bkonrad and TFD have found no scholar in any field supporting their "exclude" interpretation of modern Congressional organic acts for DC, PR, MP, VI, GU, AS. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:29, 21 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Again, you are misrepresenting sources and providing original research. Other patient editors and myself have extensively addressed the numerous errors and faulty arguments you have presented, which you can find archived.  And again, you need sources to add territories to the U.S., it is no use berating editors for not presenting sources.  However extensive sourcing has been presented to you.  Incidentally there is no organic act for American Samoa.  TFD (talk) 07:55, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Another reason the proposed language is good, to define the US as a federal republic of 50 states, and a federal district with five territories represented in Congress. --- a) Sources are linked in this section for inclusion, b) there are no sources for exclusion, c) the same two editors who lost the last dispute resolution reappear without sources again. --- I'll supply additional legislative, executive, judicial, secondary government and scholarly sources as the topic reappears. An online encyclopedia can include knowledge based on reliable sources. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:30, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * We cannot say that until you provide sources which you have consistently failed to do. TFD (talk) 03:21, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Okay. In this exchange Sep 12-22, done for now in the face of personal attack and "I-can't-hear-you" without counter sources.

a) You have consistently failed to read the ENUMERATED six territories found at, (1) 8 U.S. Code Sec. 1101 congressional legislation, and (2) executive order, and (3) USG secondary source interpreting the law to define the "United States today" (2007) p.7, 101, to include DC and five enumerated territories represented in Congress.

And b) in the face of constitutional scholars p.1175, direct quotation including a modern territory as politically “incorporated” in the jurisprudence sense today, you have consistently failed to find ANY reliable source which excludes from the American federal republic – six 21st century US territories with territorial representation, DC, PR, MP, VI, GU and AS, all with a voice in Congress, which is the expression of the American federal republic. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 21:52, 22 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Lawson says that according to the federal government (p. 1161), Congress (1143), the courts (as decided by the insular cases), as well as international law (p. 1124), Puerto Rico is unincorporated. The United States has agreed to respect the right of self-determination of the citizens of Puerto Rico, and not unilaterally incorporate them.  TFD (talk) 12:48, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * [Insert] True, and in its turn, seven times over fifty years, by constitutional convention, legislature resolution and plebiscite Puerto Rico has chosen to integrate with the US as a commonwealth, beginning in 1952 and last year in 2012. Only 2-3% ever vote for independence, even with half the Puerto Rican population residing state-side. Why do you continue dismissing islander self-determination? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:25, 1 October 2013 (UTC)


 * @TFD, Yes. @TVH, the scholars you are so fond of quoting, themselves describe their purpose as seeking to clarify several unacknowledged or underappreciated legal tensions in the U.S.-Puerto Rico relationship and to explore ways to resolve them. One such legal tension they identify is that by their analysis, Puerto Rico seems to be the paradigm of an incorporated territory as modern jurisprudence understands that legal term of art. That does not equate to Puerto Rico or the other territories in fact BEING legally incorporated. They are pointing out an apparent incongruity in the present status. In time, it may well be that their analysis will sway Congress and the courts to do something about the status. But until such time, such scholarship is only an opinion. older ≠ wiser 14:41, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Why does Bkonrad post as Bkonrad and older≠wiser in the same post? Besides the enumerated inclusion of all six territories in a) legislative, executive and for Puerto Rico judicial primary documents, and b) USG secondary (State Department, Homeland Security Department) sources. --- we have political scientist (Sparrow) and constitutional scholars (Lawson and Sloane) who provide more reliable information as to territorial status than your unsourced assertion to exclude them. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:53, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

GAO Reports

 * Nothing unsourced. It is fact supported by the GAO reports. older ≠ wiser 11:56, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Again, no source. What GAO report, "Bknorad also older≠wiser"? "GAO reports" is not a source, it does not serve to counter a properly cited reliable source published in the Boston College Law Review. Name the report others can witness, a page number to find your asserted information and a link, if there is one.
 * Some excluders have referenced a historical chapter of US history which is reported superseded in the same document on the same page reference. There are no reliable sources supporting your excluding --- six modern US territories of citizens represented in Congress -- from the American federal republic. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:36, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Don't be so obtuse. You know exactly what GAO reports. You've cited them yourself numerous times. The November 1997 GAO report Application of the U.S. Constitution unambiguously states in the summary Results in Brief section on page 6: . That June 1991 GAO report Applicability of Relevant Provisions of the U.S. Constitution unambiguously stated:  older ≠ wiser 14:42, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Your reference does not support your argument excluding islanders --- with citizenship, self-government and representation in Congress --- from inclusion in the American federal republic.

a) GAO Report p.8, All departments, agencies, and officials of the executive branch treat Puerto Rico administratively “as if it were a state; … each of the five larger areas was authorized to elect its own governor. ... Puerto Rico, American Samoa, and the CNMI [Northern Marianas] have internal self-government under locally-adopted constitutions. Guam and the Virgin Islands … remain under organic acts approved by the Congress. P.26, Although the insular areas cannot elect representatives or senators, the Congress has created a form of representation for them.” equivalent to that of DC. The six territories are organically a part of the US by Organic Acts with fundamental rights, but with discriminatory tax regimes.

b) Lawson and Sloane p.1161 says, “Yet [UN] General Assembly Resolution 567 does not purport to require complete equality in constitutional guarantees.” for the minority populations in a federal state under international law. The judicially defined, “unincorporated territories” are allowed a discriminatory tax regime, GAO, p. 45 note 25. The Court held that the Uniformity Clause of the Constitution, at Article I, § 8, did not apply to unincorporated territories and, therefore, that different duties could be applied.” That discriminatory tax regime for the territories does not bear on islander citizenship or their territorial Members of Congress which qualify islanders to be included in the American federal republic. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:55, 28 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Being treated as if it were as state is quite explicitly not the same as BEING a state or having the status of a state. Whatever opinions and arguments from Lawson and Sloan you might misconstue as statements of fact, they have no authority to change the status of the territories which are clearly and unambiguously stated in the GAO reports as remaining unincorporated. older ≠ wiser 11:40, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * 'as a state', and statutory definitions of 'state' (38) in the Immigration and Naturalization Act to INCLUDE the District, PR, MP, GU, VI, AS does not ex-clude them from the American federal republic -- the expression INCLUDES them.
 * As the GAO report reminds us the US judicial term "unincorporated" applies only to internal tax regimes, not to the dismembering of the Union which your non-sequitur suggests. That there may be some confusion in British and American usage is why we must rely on US scholars to understand the US constitutional meaning from an international perspective for the WP United States article. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:47, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * These definitions include because without being explicitly included they might be considered as excluded in a legal challenge. As has been explained to you repeatedly (and which you consistently opt for WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT), these definitional inclusions for specific purposes do not have general applicability beyond the specific context in which the the definition is used.
 * . The GAO reports unambiguously and explicitly conclude that the territories remain unincorporated. Full stop. Anything beyond that is speculation. older ≠ wiser 11:58, 29 September 2013 (UTC)


 * GAO, p. 45 note 25. citation with direct quote as above. --WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT?


 * --- exactly. Now, by statute they CANNOT be considered excluded. Why do you persist supposing they might be 'unincorporated' for anything other than taxes?


 * proposed language: The US … is a federal republic of 50 states with a federal district and five territories represented in Congress. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:37, 30 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but your cited source GAO, p. 45 note 25 does not say what you claim. Please stop spewing BS.
 * What sort on illogical Non sequitur is that? By the specific statutes to which the definitions apply, yes, that definition applies. But you cannot claim that such definitions apply beyond their specific context. older ≠ wiser 11:16, 30 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Again unreasoned denial without sources to support it. My GAO reference says what I reported, the holding was restricted to taxes. "Downes involved a dispute over whether customs duties imposed on goods imported from Puerto Rico had to be uniform with those imposed on goods traveling between the states." Because the Act includes the six territories, As you say, being explicitly included means you cannot exclude them, and there is no source to exclude them. There is only your unsupported interpretation of a tax holding at court a century ago. You have no reliable sources to support your assertion to exclude islanders from the modern American federal republic.


 * The specific context which you will allow as a reliable source --- the Immigration and Naturalization Act --- defines the organic United States, and the peoples and places alien to it. Nations are treated as “sole persons” under international law. The US as a nation is the subject of the discussion, so INA definitions apply to the discussion. To the contrary there is nothing excluding the six US territories from inclusion in the American federal republic anywhere you have found in the U.S. Code. Something trumps nothing, I have primary, secondary and scholarly sources, you have nothing supporting unsourced assertion. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:54, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * You keep repeating the same old synthetic analysis based on selective misreading of sources. Further discussion appears to be pointless. older ≠ wiser 11:25, 1 October 2013 (UTC)


 * A direct quote is not synthetic reasoning. the USG enumerates, “The US now consists of 50 states, the District ..., the territories of Guam, Am. Samoa, and the U.S. Virgin Is., ... Puerto Rico and ... the N. Marianas." "United States Today", p.101 in Welcome, a guide for immigrants citizenship. There is no source to support your excluding islanders from the modern American federal republic, your GAO cite specifies 'unincorporated' applies only to an internal tax regime.


 * Proposed: The US is a federal republic of 50 states with a federal district and five territories represented in Congress. as sourced. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:03, 1 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Not synthetic? Indeed. To be perfectly clear ... the GAO reports clearly and unambiguously defines what the term "unincorporated" means. And they further unambiguously state the territories, with the only exception being Palmyra are unincorporated. And yet, through your superior intellectual skills, you have determined that when the GAO reports say the territories are unincorporated, "unincorporated" does not actually mean what the reports say it means. Quite interesting. older ≠ wiser 15:09, 1 October 2013 (UTC)


 * We know that US citizen islanders are explicitly included in the American federal republic by statute, and, “” [Bkonrad, ouw]. We know court holdings are limited to their findings. And Insular Cases are limited to internal tax regimes --- “that different duties could be applied” (GAO) period, full stop. We can find no source to exclude the six modern US non-state territories from the American federal republic. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:41, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Stitching together isolated factoids devoid of context is the essence of synthesis. The GAO report does not qualify the definition of unincorporated in the way you claim. Simply another example of you wishful misreading of sources. older ≠ wiser 11:13, 2 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Direct quotes enumerating the constituents of the US federal republic from several reliable sources are not stitching together anything, only a direct contribution of knowledge for an online encyclopedia. You on the other hand have no modern sources --- only a century-old series of court cases limited to taxes referring to islanders as "savages".


 * The descendants of those islanders are now mutually US citizens, federally self governing, and represented in the Congress of the American republic. Nothing contradicts any of this territorial status for DC and five territories alike. There are no sources to exclude them, only your unreasoned denial, based on an undisclosed prejudice. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:37, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Blah, blah, blah. The official status of the territories is unincorporated. You have nothing to refute this. older ≠ wiser 14:47, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * “unincorporated...that different duties could be applied” (GAO). Cherry picking to alter your source is not sound editing. The sentence shows limited application of the term "unincorporated" to taxes -- the case does not bear on national extent.
 * Your unsourced bias against Insular Case "savages" is refuted in this century by enumerated inclusion of five insular territories in independent GAO and Congressional Research Report, USG secondary sources from the State and Homeland Departments, Statutes, Executive Order, political scientists and constitutional scholars.
 * You have only blind prejudice without any modern supporting sources to counter, “At present, the US includes the Caribbean and Pacific territories, [DC] and of course the fifty states.” – Bartholomew Sparrow, p. 232. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 15:17, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * No, you are the one cherry-picking your sources. The definition of unincorporated in the GAO reports is unambiguous and is not qualified in the way that you claim. The official status is unincorporated and you have nothing to refute that. As you are simply repeating the same old, same old, ad infinitum, I shall attempt to refrain from responding any further to your posts. But do not in any way presume that silence is tacit agreement to your errors. older ≠ wiser 15:23, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) You still have no source to exclude islanders from the American federal republic. 2) You acknowledge the five insular territories are explicitly enumerated as included by modern statute, . 3) The statute supersedes the century-old Court holding for tax purposes explained in a direct quote from your GAO source. == No grounds for opposition remain. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:13, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
 * You really are persistent in making stuff up and completely misconstruing what others say. older ≠ wiser 09:28, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
 * You cannot find a source excluding modern territories.
 * You cannot use a source without truncating its sentences.
 * You have no argument besides personal attack and POV.
 * "", really? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:59, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

international extent of US responsibility
Last sentence of the introductory paragraph should include the international extent of US responsibility. The US exercises full international defense authority and responsibility by Compact of Free Association with Micronesia, the Marshall Islands and Palau. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:37, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

The lengthening contributions made to the earlier introductory paragraph show some interest in the topic, so I reintroduced earlier contributions in full -- but in the "Foreign Relations" section, as those in Free Association are independent nations. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:50, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

How much more detail can we possibly add to the lead?
The lead as of now is five long paragraphs extending past my own computer screen. Can someone please explain to me why mentioning the Compact of Free Association with three very small island nations in the Pacific is so crucial to the lead when the same information is basically repeated in the Foreign Relations section? That is not how a WP:LEAD is supposed to be structured. I quote: "The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic"

There are supposed to broad summaries of the main ideas which are then elaborated on in the body. For example, we also don't need to go into too much detail on American income levels and how it compares to other nations in the lead when that is explained in full in the Economy section. It is How much more detail can we add before it gets to be too much? Why don't we add a paragraph to the lead about every country we have a military base in, or would that be pushing it? Cadiomals (talk) 21:04, 4 October 2013 (UTC)


 * 1) Current economic summary is of more general interest and probably belongs in the introduction. BUT
 * 2) Two paragraphs might be removed entirely from the introduction -- they are mostly restatement of detail which appropriately belongs in their respective history sections alone. I mean paragraph three beginning “Paleo-Indians” and paragraph four beginning “Driven by the doctrine. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:57, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not really opposed to the lead as it currently is, and while I think a couple of details can be trimmed off those two paragraphs, I don't think they should be removed entirely. Giving a broad overview and summary of the origin and history of the United States that is expanded on greatly in the body is relevant and follows WP:LEAD as long as it doesn't become saturated with unnecessary details. The History section makes up a large portion of the body so it's emphasis in the lead "reflects its importance to the topic." When we start adding details of exactly why the US broke away from Britain or how the US helped win World War II, it becomes a problem. I think the lead as it currently is, is fine, which is why I was asking how much more detail could we possibly add. ICadiomals (talk) 18:48, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
 * There is a lot of excessive information in the lead. TFD (talk) 20:11, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Nevertheless, the Office of Insular Affairs jurisdiction is over both Territories and Freely Associated States. It is of interest to the general international reader that three island communities have independently chosen affiliation with the US for defense in relation to other nations, given there are alternatives. Public Health services also obtain. The "listing bases" canard for the introduction is just reductio ad absurdum. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:44, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
 * It may be of interest to you, and it is important to the articles about those countries, but it is relatively insignificant to the topic overall. TFD (talk) 17:30, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for permitting information about islanders of independent nations in the foreign affairs section. They, the people, are connected to the US in an internationally significant way. The article shows improving maturity here, overcoming manifest prejudice as other editors have noted. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:47, 8 October 2013 (UTC)


 * One must read into the 29th paragraph to find any mention of "democ..." & much further to find any mention of "voting". The USA played a prominent role in empowering "the people" thru expanded suffrage, yet the idea has little prominence in the article.--JimWae (talk) 08:46, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Deepwater Horizon
My addition of information about the Deepwater Horizon oil spill was recently removed. Why? What is consensus on this? It seems logical to me (Ukraine has a mention of Chernobyl, Japan has a mention of Fukushima). Rwenonah (talk) 21:00, 7 October 2013 (UTC)


 * For one thing it was 2010, not 2012 (and it looks like your sources may have been busted), but I removed it because the subsection is just a broad summary overview and doesn't contain any other specific events. The article doesn't mention disastrous historical storms or earthquakes either (just Katrina in the Contemporary section, and even that inclusion was controversial).  Including an oil spill from 2010 and only that one is recentism at best, or worse, an incremental first step toward what I figured the section was in danger of becoming all along, a laundry list of specific environmental incidents and/or political complaints, and one with ludicrously more prominent page placement than more fundamental sections like "Government" and "Demographics" to boot.  If you have to add it maybe you could add it to the Contemporary History section instead, though I can't promise someone won't come along and delete it and/or some of the other stuff there at some point, especially if the History section ever finishes getting its long needed overhaul, and if you add it there it should be consolidated into a single sentence with less detail.  And even if that one inclusion survives that doesn't mean the Contemporary History section should become a laundry list of environmental items or political complaints either. VictorD7 (talk) 21:21, 7 October 2013 (UTC)


 * "Recentism is writing or editing without a long-term, historical view, thereby inflating the importance of a topic that has received recent public attention..." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Recentism
 * On 20 April 2010...an explosion on the [Deepwater Horizon] caused by a blowout killed 11 crewmen and ignited a fireball visible from 35 miles (56 km) away...and, on 22 April 2010, Deepwater Horizon sank, leaving the well gushing at the seabed and causing the largest offshore oil spill in U.S. history. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deepwater_Horizon   Arcanicus (talk) 23:17, 7 October 2013 (UTC)


 * And in this case it'd be the only oil spill mentioned, and indeed the only specific environmental incident mentioned (positive or negative), both inflating its importance and that of oil spills generally when there are numerous other categories of incidents that could be mentioned. VictorD7 (talk) 01:53, 8 October 2013 (UTC)


 * "The subsection is a broad summary overview". Yes, that's correct. But that isn't justification to remove my addition. Deepwater Horizon was a huge, if not the greatest ever, environmental issue in the United States, which is, after all, the focus of the subsection. In fact, if you google "Greatest environmental disastergreatest environmental disasters", it's interesting to note that virtually all of the articles were written in response to Deepwater Horizon. As for recentism, this is an event that caused article-writers to look back over humanity's greatest natural disasters. It's also the largest accidental manmade oil spill ever. While it may be recent, it is also massively high-profile and important. Other sections, like "Economy" and "Health", go into almost absurd detail, about things like San Diego Comic-Con (what the hell?), unionization rates, air conditioning ownership, and other weird, unimportant, low-profile things. For example, "Public Debt" and "Family Structure" are both much longer than "Environmental issues". I certainly wouldn't say they are more important, so why are they longer? Both go into confusing examples, including discussing concerns, something you slammed me for trying to add to this section before. In comparison, adding what is, after all, the world's largest accidental manmade oil spill, and which got a massive amount of international press and attention, and impacted the U.S. hugely, is not recentism. As for your complaints about it becoming a "laundry-list of specific incidents and/or political complaints", that is a straw man argument. Deepwater Horizon was not any specific incident, as I have outlined above. Again, Chernobyl and Fukushima both merit mentions in their respective country articles, so why not this? As for political complaints, this has nothing to do with politics, so that's no grounds for exclusion.Lastly, I propose we move this subsection from "Geography" to "Science and technology", as it is in too prominent a place.Rwenonah (talk) 23:35, 7 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Why not put it into the Contemporary History section? The Fukushima incident is in Japan's "Modern history" section. It's not even mentioned in the Environment section. Chernobyl is briefly mentioned in Ukraine's Geography section, but its impact is still ongoing (the context of the mention) and far more severe than the oil spill was, and Ukraine doesn't even have an "Environment" or "Environmental issues" section. In fact most nation articles I checked don't have an "Environment" section, much less an even more niche "Environmental issues" section, including but not limited to the British (it also doesn't mention the spill at all, despite it being committed by a British company!), Canadian, Swedish, Mexican, German, Russian, Polish, Indian, South African, and Greek pages. Those that do typically keep it as a short, vague summary, and the few that include more detail shouldn't unless there's something extreme happening that's significantly impacting the nation.


 * And no, the BP oil spill was far from the worst environmental incident in US history. Massive deforestation over a century ago and generally polluted air are more historically relevant topics that impacted far more of the nation. There have been multiple oil spills, volcanoes (does environmental damage have to be man-made for some reason to count? And while we're on the subject why are environmental disasters more worthy of mention than destructive natural disasters?), nuclear testing, and other things. The reason BP pops up to the top of your searches is because it is so recent (the Exxon Valdez Alaskan spill got tons of global press coverage too), which is exactly the kind of thing the recentist rule cautions us to be on guard against.


 * I actually think some of those other sections you mention have too much detail too and are the kind of thing we should avoid repeating with an Environmental issues section, but at least in most cases those other items deal with the country as a whole, not just a particular incident in a particular region, and recentism obviously goes out the window when you're talking about current and frequently updated economic or population stats.


 * Even if we were to expand the Environmental issues section, the logical course for that expansion would be to summarize the comprehensive environmental picture (e.g. featuring a brief rundown on air and water quality, mentioning broad recycling efforts, animal preservation, etc.), not add a sensationalistic segment about a single cherry-picked incident (even if it was the largest in a single, cherry-picked category), or a disjointed list of specific incidents.


 * As for your move proposal, I don't see how it would logically belong more to Science and technology than Geography, though I'm still not crazy about the idea of having an Environmental issues subsection to begin with since it's really niche for a country summary article (much more so than broad, legitimate subsections like "Family structure" and "Public debt"). An "Environment" subsection (sans "issues") would be easier to defend, but a good one on this page would stay short, vague, and comprehensive. It wouldn't be limited to man-made impact or negative commentary. Indeed it would read much like the Geography section already does, since broadly defined, the two are almost synonymous.  Adding "issues" seems like pet agenda pushing, especially if it turns into a list of negative incidents or complaints about US policy as it's threatened to in the past.  In my opinion abortion, race relations, and some other topics are more deserving of their own sections than Environmental issues is, though every editor could have his own areas of particular interest, underscoring the danger of getting into such niche interests at the section level and then blowing it up once established. The current subsection is barely acceptable because it's a brief, neutrally written summary outlining the contours of environmental policy discussion; in other words what's appropriate for a niche topic in a country article. It hasn't blown up into a political battlefield where competing political camps post talking points back and forth, and where said debate itself serves to elevate "Environmental issues" higher than other, equally or more important topics.


 * The BP spill line fits better in the Contemporary history section, following the Japanese Fukushima/US Katrina model (consolidated and with errors corrected, of course), if it needs to be included at all. VictorD7 (talk) 01:53, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * If you feel it would be better off in contemporary history, I am perfectly happy to move it there. However, the rest of your suggestions, heavily laced as they are with unwelcome implications, are less acceptable. To start, your point that most pages do not have environmental issues sections is false. Many do, and they are often much more extensive than this one. South Korea, Brazil, Japan, China, Australia, Ireland, Madagascar, Ethiopia and Switzerland, for example, all have them. Also, BP is of questionable nationality, having merged with two American and a Scottish company. However, your point about specific incidents is a good one. However, I think that the section could nonetheless do with expansion, as you mentioned later on. For example, the massive deforestation that you mentioned could be added. On that topic, one can't call "air pollution" or "deforestation" an incident. They are much larger, long-term problems. As much of this discussion is about the difference between a broad problem and a specific incident, I wonder that you would use them in that context. This seems contrary to your other views.Again, the spill has had massive, far-reaching effects both within and outside of the United States, as well as being the largest accidental oil spill ever. Those are impressive credentials. You seem to be suggesting excluding it simply on the grounds that it is relatively recent, which isn't what the rule means (I hope).  Your suggestion that abortion is an equally important topic is a joke, right? Placing abortion on an equal level with deforestation or air pollution is strange, but placing it on an equal level with all of them together is really weird, and seems to be blowing a topic already made hugely controversial up to a further, undeserved, position of importance. Your ideas for expanding it are valid: deforestation at the least deserves a place. Your continued complaints about how "niche" this is are getting rather hypocritical when there are already sections for "Prison population" and "comic books" both of which are, I hope we'll agree, much less important topics. Lastly, your comment about cherry-picked categories is equally hypocritical, given the huge number of economic comparisons, often in obscure categories, between the United States and "other OECD" or "European" nations.  And speak for yourself, but this section doesn't really involve politics (for me). Rwenonah (talk) 23:20, 9 October 2013 (UTC)


 * First, I said the section doesn't need expanding. My comments were about the logical course of expansion even if one were to expand it (it wouldn't be a laundry list of specific events), like say in a different, more topically dedicated article. The current summary already mentions controversies over "oil" and "water", which covers oil spills and other material. Most pages I sampled have no "Environment" section, but I acknowledged that some do, like the Japanese Environment section that doesn't mention Fukushima (and last I checked British Petroleum is still British headquarted). Even if one were to expand US environmental commentary (like on another page), deforestation and polluted air are "problems" that have seen massive improvement over the decades. Regardless, such issues pale in comparison to abortion, which deals with life and death, and 50 million killed babies in recent decades. Even the possibility that pro lifers might be right about life beginning before birth (scientifically they're obviously correct) vaults this human rights' issue way above a politically focused environmental issues section in importance, though I don't support either political controversy (or other such examples of issues many find important) having its own section, and am willing to tolerate the current, skewed format as long as the Environmental issues subsection stays brief, summarized, and neutrally worded. Finally, there's nothing "hypocritical" about me describing this topic as "niche" because I completely agree with you about the Comic and Prison population subsections. I even started a section to gauge support for removing the Prison population header that you're invited to post in if you want. At least the Comic subsection doesn't seem to have the potential to blow up into a separate controversy featuring points and counterpoints, but if you want to go ahead and delete that I certainly wouldn't mind. It looks like a key sentence or two could easily be folded back into the main Literature section. VictorD7 (talk) 23:45, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Right, that seems logical. I don't think, judging from the amount of opposition to any edits to "Environmental Issues"section, that I or anyone else will be expanding it anytime soon. Anyway, at least you've acknowledged that a good portion of pages do have such sections. I don't see how something being a human rights issue, or having a certain supposed casualty level, automatically places it above any and all environmental issues. Such a claim is obviously your opinion. I'm not sure abortion can be classified as human rights either.


 * I'm goign to go ahead and add "Deepwater Horizon" to the "Contemporary History" section, as we semi-agreed. Rwenonah (talk) 19:43, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
 * This event is significant, but not likely the biggest environmental disaster in aggregate. At most, it would deserve a line or two IF it resulted in meaningful policy changes that impacted how the US does its business of oil extraction.  What I've seen is mostly reparations for economic harm cause by the disaster.  Fukushima on the other hand has led to massive changes in Japan's approach to electrical generation as they are moving away from nuclear power.  That's major, and justifies treatment in that article. Mattnad (talk) 14:10, 12 October 2013 (UTC)