User talk:Professor Storyteller

Republic of Texas (1861)
Thanks for your note. I've already reviewed the talk page, and I still do not believe that speedy deletion is appropriate: it does not fit into any of the criteria under which pages may be speedy deleted. This is not a reflection of my opinions about whether the content should stay or not; it's simply that policy doesn't allow for it to be removed in this way. Did you know that there are other ways to request the deletion of a page? I'd recommend that you go through the Articles for Deletion process (AFD) — you can place a note on the page notifying readers to go to a page where you explain your rationale for deletion, and others will be able to make input at that page. You've laid out a very good rationale for deletion, so I'm sure that it will be deleted if you go with AFD. If you choose to go with AFD, please let me know; I'll be happy to support your position and ask for its deletion. Nyttend (talk) 23:13, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your speedy reply. I do not know if I should answer here or on your page, as you did not copy this reply onto your page, but your page includes the top bar stating that you will not watch this page - and I have no idea how to send a "new message" flag.  Someone before me attempted the AFD process you laid out - you can see this by reviewing the edit history on the page - and lost the argument on procedural grounds seemingly similar to those you are using to support the deletion of my request for the page's speedy deletion.  Leaving the page up for another few weeks while the AFD process likely again comes to the decision it came to in the last process leaves students again at the mercy of false information when researching historical topics I teach.  Wikipedia has a justly deserved reputation for false information so severe most academic instructors punish its use by students, something I'm trying to mitigate - but events like this do not help my case in the slightest.  If you think AFD can resolve this by Monday, I'm willing to try it - otherwise I'm going to remove the content of the article and live with the fight there.  Thank you for your time.Professor Storyteller (talk) 23:20, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * First things first — you get the "new message" flag whenever someone edits your talk page; it appears at the top of every page that you load after someone leaves that note until you look at your talk page. Therefore, your message of "I answered at my talk page" did just what it should have.  You've slightly misunderstood; what happened before was the PROD process, a different thing that anyone can stop by removing a little piece of code.  People are strictly prohibited from stopping the AFD process by any means other than explaining why they believe that it should be kept or deleted.  Since you're uncertain about the process, I'll just start it for you and let you know.  Nyttend (talk) 23:26, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * By the way, please don't edit the article until I let you know; if you edit it while I'm nominating it for deletion, you might accidentally slow up the process. Nyttend (talk) 23:27, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, I've finished the process; you may find the deletion request at Articles for deletion/Republic of Texas (1861), where you should explain your deletion rationale. Since you want to delete it, please start your comment with the word "Delete" in bold (place three apostrophes before it and three apostrophes after it), so that it's easy to see at a glance what you think.  Please don't remove the text from the article while the discussion is taking place.  Nyttend (talk) 23:32, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I appreciate you starting this process, and for your tips on how to make this system work, and I will do as you ask on the Articles for Deletion. However, I am still extremely concerned about the time this is going to take - I'm presuming several weeks, based on past arguments among Wikipedia editors - and the persistence in the interim of the falsehood in a resource my students use.  Most users do not read the discussion pages, and will never know that the information in that article is blatantly false.  Please, if you have time still, help me understand why you don't want me to take the false information down, and if this is a Wikipedia-wide policy, where I might go to protest and petition for a change to be made in the policy.  Finally, I will be adding a note into the body of the article providing a synopsis of the actual facts of the matter making reference to the discussion page as a stopgap means of stopping the spread of this misinformation.


 * Thank you again for your help.Professor Storyteller (talk) 03:02, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Just a third party here who saw your comments. Normally, a WP:AfD discussion will last for seven days, after which community consensus will determine the result.  As to validity of article contents - the community makes good faith efforts to maintain data as accurate as possible, and the large deletion notice at the top of a page makes clear to anyone reading it that there's extra reason to question the article contents.  Additionally, every Wikipedia page has a link at the very bottom which points to the general site disclaimer which makes clear limitations of site content.
 * Please do not insert comments into the body of the article - articles are not discussion forums. As I said, the delete notice makes clear that the content is disputed.  That is sufficient. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 03:29, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Barek's words were at least as good as mine could have been, so I really don't have anything to say to some of your comments. A couple of things that weren't addressed: (1) When an article is at AFD, blanking a page (removing everything on it) is unhelpful, because it makes it harder for people to see what was on it and decide whether or not in should be deleted.  (2) I suspect that your fear about the process taking several weeks is due to confusion about the PROD process that someone tried before.  While it's true that the PROD started several weeks ago, it hasn't been suspended: when someone removes a PROD, like they did soon after it was added, that completely ends the process; PROD is designed to delete articles nobody wants to keep, so it's supposed to be easy to stop.  There's no room for this type of unilateral action in the AFD process, so you can rest assured that it won't be suspended like that.  Nyttend (talk) 03:56, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Barek - the large deletion notice is not sufficient information that the content is disputed, as it only discusses that the article is being debated for deletion, not that the information is disputed - much less verifiably wrong. Facts with evidence to prove them are facts, not something a group needs to decide yes or no on like an opinion or something with insufficient data to make a decision.  This article is no different from one asserting any other blatant falsehood, and the longer it lingers without the facts of the matter called out into easy reach, the longer Wikipedia spreads incorrect information and gives ammunition to its many scholarly detractors
 * Also, what I inserted into the body of the article were not "comments," like opinions on a discussion page. They are the facts of the matter established by the evidence provided - evidence that is nearly 150 years old and by no means disputed.  Nyttend asked me not to delete the erroneous information and bring the article into synch with that evidence, so I did not - something I still don't understand, given that Wikipedia's sole advantage is supposed to be the ability of those with information to correct misinformation - but instead referenced the correct information above the falsehoods.  If Wikipedia's standards truly require that false information stand for seven days with not even the inclusion of the contrary factual information, Wikipedia's standards are encouraging the propagation of false information - the very antithesis of the site's stated goals.
 * The thing is that we have to be careful to ensure that what seems to be false really is so. Please read the "Dealing with hoaxes" section of this policy page; using the discussion-based process helps to ensure that we don't overlook something.  If you continue to be opposed to this policy, you're always welcome to go to Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy and seek to have the policy changed.  Nyttend (talk) 04:36, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Nyttend - what prevents people from assuming this information is still true without my article addition? The block added by the initiation of the AFD process neither states that the information is factually wrong, nor does it reference the discussion page as you and I discussed.  Without some additional information in the article stub, the article is still providing blatantly false information under the Wikipedia letterhead.  Only editors and those with experience will know where to go to find anything else - certainly not college freshmen.  If Wikipedia is going to avoid its own stereotype, it's got to be able to react faster than seven days to blatant falsehood.Professor Storyteller (talk) 04:20, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Our definition of blatant falsehood is one that couldn't possibly be true, such as this one that I deleted tonight that spoke of a fierce civil war in New Jersey in 1908. We don't speedy delete incorrect information in cases in which someone could possibly have just misunderstood the sources; speedy deletion is for intentional hoaxes, such as the New Jersey civil war.  Your average college freshman should be aware that an article marked plainly as being up for deletion and as having no references isn't trustworthy.  Nyttend (talk) 04:36, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The content has again been removed from the article. Posting a message to an article, saying to see the talk page, is using the article as a discussion.  That is not appropriate.  Disputes belong on talk pages or AfD discussions (where it's already posted).  Please allow the AfD to proceed, the comunity will resolve this under the standard timetable. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 04:29, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Nyttend - if average college freshmen even knew what references were or why they were important, my service would not be necessary. The box your actions - which I still appreciate - added does not give any reason for the deletion, and anyone not versed in Wikipedia arcana could easily assume it was for reasons of editing, merging with other articles, or a "lack of notability," as one of the other boxes alleges.  There is no clear statement that this information is false, and without it or my insertion of actual historical fact - now deleted - the article continues to offer unabashed misinformation.  I can't imagine that the source I provided would be difficult to misunderstand in this way, as it makes no mention of the word "Republic" - this is the work of someone who presumed without checking their sources, and passed their presumption off as fact.  It would not be so damaging if the editing process would be permitted - but that is apparently also out of bounds.  I will be honest - today's events have made it clear to me that my position on Wikipedia is untenable, and that my colleagues seem to have been right.  Most disheartening, especially given the volume of people using Wikipedia for their sole window on history.Professor Storyteller (talk) 04:55, 10 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Barek - Your assertion is not true. The content I added was the actual fact of history in this regard, with the reference to my information for it suggested by Nyttend above.  I am aware, by the way, that this has been suggested for AfD - Nyttend started this process as a way to try to help me correct this misinformation.  Your request for me to allow the "standard timetable" of what I believe I was told would be seven days to process this request is in effect a request for me as a historian and an educator to stand aside and allow blatantly false information about history to be disseminated to the entire world for a week, apparently because the person posting the falsehood has a greater right to having their thoughts included on Wikipedia than I do to put forth historical fact supported by evidence.  If you truly will not allow me to correct this misinformation on this website while we all wait for the cumbersome process to unfold, I am utterly at a loss on this topic and on the subject of Wikipedia as a whole, something I had harbored great hopes for before tonight.Professor Storyteller (talk) 04:54, 10 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Nyttend - I apologize for overlooking a post of yours above on the deletion policy. I do continue to be opposed to a week-long delay.  In a matter this simple, there is nothing to overlook - which is why I started with speedy deletion.  I will attempt to get the policy changed - though I harbor little hope at this point, and I must allow more productive endeavors to take priority with my time moving forward.  Thank you again for your help.Professor Storyteller (talk) 05:39, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to violate Wikipedia policy simply because you don't believe college freshmen to be the adults that they actually are. If another professor in your department were to publish something erroneous in a print journal to which your library subscribed, would you hand-write your corrections in the library's copy of that journal?  I think you'd rather seek to publish a response in the next issue, even though that process takes many weeks to complete.  There's a process to disputing error in academia, and in the same way there's a process to disputing error on Wikipedia.  Nyttend (talk) 12:49, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * College freshmen are adults, and I never said they were not - I'll thank you not to put words in my mouth. College freshmen, however, do not as a rule know the importance of sources, references, or citations - which is not a component of adulthood, but of education.  If I and people like me do our jobs, they'll know it when they graduate - but not likely when they enter.  As for the example you give of errata in a journal, there is a clear and defining difference.  Journals are peer-reviewed by other experts in the field before information goes out to publication (and from there to the library).  No one peer-reviews information on Wikipedia, which massively increases the potential for errata, which in turn requires that Wikipedia have an extremely speedy means for removing factual errata to remain credible.  If new articles on Wikipedia were reviewed by a group of volunteer experts before publication for factual accuracy, I would support the lengthy deletion process - in the absence of such a system, speed is our only defense against misinformation.
 * I understand from the Discussion Page for this article that you wrongly believe I've logged in as an anonymous IP address to continue the debate. I have not, will never do such a thing, and are as offended by the suggestion as you seem to be by the suspicion - I presume that's the reason you've decided to begin removing my other edits from Wikipedia?  What will it take to convince you that you are wrong?  Or are you trying to suggest I abandon attempts to edit Wikipedia because I disagree with its AfD policy?Professor Storyteller (talk) 18:46, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi!
Ah yes, that's what happens on Wikipedia: 2+2=694 or some other number. So you are me and I am you, must be so because we agree with each other and disagree with the people who would be at home in a government office creating red tape! Not only that but I am writing for academia, and guess what? You are engaged by academia. Academia must be a one person operation somewhere! (lol). Anyway, you are not alone in your dispair. I used to financially contribute and I was at one time a major editor of Wikipedia articles being nominated to join the operational crowd. I backed off when I discovered that this is both a vehicle for good and a vehicle for creating a lot of trouble. What I was referring to in my comments when you invited me over here, was to the possibility that someone (I have no idea who that might be), created this stub in order to provide a reference point for something else, and this is another good reason for getting rid of this stub. But I have found numerous articles on Wikipedia that contradict each other in whole and in part. I only use it now to get an "instant take" on something and go from there. But Wikipedia is not alone in turning the Internet into a wasteland: Google and its sisters do a great job of bringing up all manner of rubbish when someone is attempting to perform research. I find that information is out there but it is not to be found by Google, except maybe on something like page 23 of their results. Don't dispair, trust in your own work but there will be no utopia on the horizon as a result of Wikipedia. When TV began all manner of promises were made for its wonderful opportunies - instead of which we get Simon Cowell, etc. You can find stuff that is worthwhile on TV, sometimes, but more of it will be found on BBC Radio 4 and NPR which are more suited to the likes of you and me. Now the Wikipedians know that you are not me and I am not you. (lol) 80.192.68.143 (talk) 11:55, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the post, and for your efforts in defense of the truth we're both trying to advance. I took a bit of time away from this issue to keep it from consuming my free time - my own research and teaching demands have to be my priority - but I see you've done an excellent job of defending our shared concerns.  You are of course correct on the dangers of not just Wikipedia but Google et al, but I don't want to leave the impression I ever believed a utopia was on option.  I merely hoped to play Canute for a moment, beating back the tide with a sword to satisfy myself and my peers as to whether or not the tide might be amenable to persuasion.  Sadly enough, Canute was proven right - again.  I am glad to hear I'm not the only one to reach this point, though.
 * As to the ROT-1861 article, I've found a tag about factual accuracy I hope will escape removal and revision by the policy hawks, as I'm using it consistently with the policy on the Wikipedia help page where I found the tag. We shall see.  Good luck with your research!  I'm interested in seeing/reading it whenever it comes to publication.Professor Storyteller (talk) 22:34, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Discussion on additional "Republic of ..." articles
I started a discussion at User talk:Pfly which may interest you due to your involvement at Articles for deletion/Republic of Texas (1861). There are additional articles which may require closer examination. --- Barek (talk) - 00:04, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I've posted my preliminary research results, recommendations, and a question for Pfly on his page.Professor Storyteller (talk) 00:41, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Retirement
In abeyance, for now.Professor Storyteller (talk) 09:55, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Discussion on Truth Versus POV
This discussion is a relocation of a discussion emerging on the U.S. State Talk Page between myself and another editor, but anyone reading this talk page is welcome to contribute their thoughts.Professor Storyteller (talk) 09:55, 16 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Sure, there are "facts" in what you state, but they're still subject to your own interpretation. If you don't realize that, it's probably not worth my time to discuss more. By dictator, I meant Santa Ana, not US Federalism, though we'll probably get there eventually. Since the "general welfare clause" has interpreted so broadly as to practically allow anything the Feds want to do in the last 80 years, we're probably not too far off from that point. - BilCat (talk) 11:02, 16 November 2010 (UTC)


 * That's my point, actually - I'm not presenting my own research or some individual interpretation, but a distillation of the discipline of history's work on these topics over the last several generations. This really doesn't have anything to do with my views on subjects, which you would be very surprised about in more than a few occasions based on your stated read on me - it's the facts of history as established by the discipline's rigorous peer-review process, which is the only reliable way to access historical fact.  Opinions abound, interpretations vary, and biases pervade human thought - but the scientific method and its cousins for non-scientific disciplines like history correct for these, producing something far, far more reliable than any other method, especially the received wisdom that is the most common alternative.
 * Having just reviewed all of my edits and posts on Texas and Mexico, I can't find anything that in any way defends Santa Ana. Are you somehow conflating my edit pointing out that the original Texian/Tejano independence fighters sought separation over their belief in a right to own slaves with a defense of Mexico's dictatorship?
 * General welfare intersecting with the necessary and proper clause basically empowers the federal government do anything that is both truly necessary and proper in terms of not violating the specific limitations set on federal power in Article I and the amendments, a point SCOTUS upheld in the recent Comstock decision - including noted conservative justices. The reach of that interpretation waxes and wanes, but Hamilton et al were explaining the document they created that way in the 1780s and 1790s, so it's not new since 1930.Professor Storyteller (talk) 12:06, 16 November 2010 (UTC)


 * That the outcomes of rigourous peer-reviw process present only proven "facts" is your, and their, interpretation. They have been wrong before; they will be wrong again, yet we are supposed to accept their decisions without question until they change them through their own processes? Uh, no thanks. I may be dumb, but I'm not that dumb! - BilCat (talk) 12:50, 16 November 2010 (UTC)


 * No one is saying anyone is dumb - not on my talk page.
 * The outcome of the peer-review process is the removal of unproven received wisdom, errata, bias, falsehood, and fiction, in exactly the same way the scientific method removes the shackles of loyalty to received wisdom with provable verifiable fact. The only other alternative is faith in received wisdom under the name of tradition or religion - sources of knowledge which have been proven wrong more often than any other two fonts of human knowledge combined.  Every person seeking facts about the world has two choices - facts produced by disciplinary methods that offer analysis, critical thinking, and proof, or myths and stories produced by a generational version of the telephone game.  There really is only one rational, reasonable option - that which can be proved.
 * I still don't know what you were saying about Santa Ana.Professor Storyteller (talk) 13:29, 16 November 2010 (UTC)


 * As I said, it's all based on your one's worldview. So, which takes greater faith: to believe that a force/spirit/god/whatever that always existed/existed before created something out of nothing, or that nothing that never existed created something out of nothing? In the end, you're still left with something that's unproveable. That's not true science, but just another religion claiming infallibilty. - BilCat (talk) 14:00, 16 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually, no, it's based on evidence and proof. There is evidence for the things science and history have shown to be fact that any person can test for themselves.  Most religions in the traditions of Atlantic civilization - especially most of the variants of Christianity and Islam - will try to offer proofs to contradict scientific research and historical inquiry, but fundamentally they require belief in a set of documents set aside as scripture.  When someone like me - when I was a young person growing up in a conservative evangelical Protestant Christian tradition, before the weight of contrary evidence led me to walk away - asks for proof of why the scripture must be believed, the answer provided is circular - "we prove our point with this text, but this text cannot be proven - it must simply be accepted on faith."   Science and history and related disciplines provide proof after proof of the facts they've uncovered, and make no assertions where they have no facts.  Example here - I as a historian have no idea what the letter President Buchanan ordered burned after his death contained, though speculation abounds, and I won't assert any facts on that issue at all, because I can't prove it.  Another example, from my friends in science - what came before the initiation of this universe and its expansion during the process of inflation is unknown because it is currently unknowable - we can't make assertions about it one way or the other.  Religion, on the other hand, requires belief in things not only unproven but unprovable, and offers only calls for faith in the unknown as support.  Knowledge that can be proven and tested is fact - knowledge that must be believed because of assertions of faith is not.  It may be true, it may not be true - but it can't be proven as fact without disciplinary methodology.
 * As for me personally, I hold beliefs in things science and my discipline cannot prove because of experiences I've had which are persuasive to me, but aren't amenable to laboratory testing or documentary analysis. But because I am a well-trained critical thinker in the traditions of evidenciary research, I hold open in my mind the possibility that my beliefs are wrong, because new facts might come to light that prove that the life-changing experiences in question were nothing more than neurological events.  That proof hasn't happened, and I don't think it will, but it might - and so I have to entertain that remote possibility that I'm wrong.  But because I can't prove it, I don't provide it as fact - not here on Wikipedia, not in my research, not in my teaching, not even in private conversations with friends.  If someday some way to test it in a laboratory or with documents comes up, and there is evidence to support it, then I'll talk about it with friends.  If enough evidence, analysis, and scrutiny establishes it as fact, I might even share it publicly.  But so long as the unproven things I believe remain unproven, they stay within me.  And if they are proven wrong, I abandon them.  As a priest I knew twenty years ago was fond of saying - "Faith is the belief in things unproven, *not* the belief in things disproven."Professor Storyteller (talk) 14:18, 16 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Skillfully done! A long answer that completely avoids answering my point, as I understod the answer anyway. (More to come, but I have to switch OSes to get the quote right.) - BilCat (talk) 14:50, 16 November 2010 (UTC)


 * My illness has kept me awake for 24 hours now, so I'm still up! Anyway, I don't get into specifics about my life in WP, as I have enemies on WP that would dearly like to extend their disruptions into my real life, as has been done with others on WP. Conversely, I don't ask for personal information either, even just vagely. For the same reasons, I don't discuss my personal beliefs in the open either. I say that because of what I am about to say: I'm not in anyway asking for more personal information from you than you have already given.


 * It's been my observation that it's usually not the "things disproven" about Christianity that cause people to go away from it, to become post-Christians. Rather, it's usually something far more personal. One I've heard all my life is that it's because of the hypocrites in the churches. Often it's an unanswered prayer to something deeply wanted or needed, often regarding life and death issues. In other cases, it's something we don't want to let go of, a habit, an act, a person, something we know we'd have to give up to follow the Christ of the Bible. There are no easy answers. But in the end, we eventually come face to face with the fact we can't do it all on our own, that our demand for proof, for evidence that we can see, has to fall by the wayside to believe in something that is not unproven, just not seen with the eyes, or touched with the hands. But in the end, it is still our choice to make - no one can force us to believe in anything. - BilCat (talk) 16:27, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I am sorry for your insomnia - my disability and resulting illnesses often do this to me as well. Please let me know what point of your I missed in my answer.  That being said, and with full realization that you are not asking for this, I am happy to share the generalities of how I moved from Christianity to what you delightfully called being a "post-Christian."


 * My departure from Christianity began not as a result of any concern about hypocrisy or my personal habit, nor unanswered prayer - it came with the confusion I faced as a result of an experience I could not fit within the theological framework I'd been given. That led me to learn all I could first about the theology, then the history of the faith, trying to get the answer to the conundrum I faced.  As I dug deeper, I found more and more things in the very basic history of Christianity that not only could not be proven, but had been disproven by archaeology and documentary analysis - especially what happened between 4 BCE and 30 CE in Roman Judea, and what the oldest documents that speak of Yeso ha-Notzri actually say that he said.  By the time my personal quest had filled my head with what was functionally a degree in the history and theology of early Christianity, I was face to face with evidence I could not deny that the very foundation of Christian faith I was struggling with had been proven wrong decades, if not centuries, before.  As I realized the falsehoods and fictions I had labored under were just that, the conundrum fell away, and I realized that most of the questions I faced in daily life could be answered with science and history and the like - while the rest were things no human could ever know with certainty without taking unproven facts on faith.  Hence I became as I am now - and I am so much happier, healthier, and wiser than I was.Professor Storyteller (talk) 20:04, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

-
 * I don't know what happened to the question about Texas v. White, but here is the answer I tried to post:


 * It is an interesting case. Most of the decision is dry reading, as with most SCOTUS rulings, but the language gets a little colorful at the end - bear with me as I quote:


 * "The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of the States."


 * The main thrust of the ruling is that because final sovereignty under the Constitution rests with the people of America as a whole, no one state can unilaterally sever itself from America, as its decision only reflects the intention of the people within that state. The Court had no intention of creating a legal framework for secession, but was rather nodding at two facts of American constitutional law that cannot be ignored while articulating the Founders intent on union and secession.  The first of these was that the States acting in Congress consent to the admission of a new State.  Thus, if someone were to try to imagine how the sovereign American people might consent to one of their states departing, the best mechanism would be to somehow invert the admissions process - though constitutional scholars argue rather vehemently over whether "consent of the States" means a simply majority vote in Congress or a unanimous vote of all the State legislatures or something in between.  The second fact of American constitutional law that cannot be ignored is that we exist as a sovereign independent nation because of a revolution, and not just a war of independence - the sovereign American people rose up and forcibly rearranged their entire governing apparatus with both independence *and* the abolition of monarchy, aristocracy, and hierarchies of deference because they decided radical change was the only option to protect their freedom.
 * If SCOTUS did not acknowledge that the people hold the right to rearrange the foundations of their government through revolution, SCOTUS would accidentally undermine the constitutional foundation of American independence and our status as a republic - and everything else since. So when touching on this subject, they had no choice but to acknowledge that revolution is the American people changing the rules all at once.  Thus, it's basically a reflexive genuflection in the direction of the most indisputable fact of American constitutional law - revolutions have the ultimate meaning in our system.  But this means in practice is that there are two ways SCOTUS held that a State might leave the USA - some mechanism of Congressional vote or legislative ratification at the state level as yet uncreated in our law, or a revolution across all of America so thorough that it leaves not even the US Constitution intact.  It's not something SCOTUS is endorsing - it's just an undeniable fact of any government based on the will of the sovereign people.
 * Does that help?Professor Storyteller (talk) 13:51, 16 November 2010 (UTC)


 * OK, thanks. - BilCat (talk) 14:00, 16 November 2010 (UTC)


 * The way it's often interpreted is that the union can never be dissovled, period. I knew that wasn't quite right, but SCOTUS reading is way above my level! did they actually state in the ruling it has to be a national revolution? That's the part I'm a little unclear on still: the "except through revolution" part doesn't make that clear, as written there. - BilCat (talk) 14:12, 16 November 2010 (UTC)


 * True, it's not in my excerpt, because one has to follow the ruling's thread from one end to the other to understand what they're saying about revolution and even I'm not pedantic enough to quote that much text - I've read the darned thing to many times to want it hulking over my talk page. They hold that the Union was created as "perpetual and indissoluble" under the Articles of Confederation - the Constitution's predecessor - and that the Constitution, in not repudiating that idea specifically, left it in play.  They then go on to talk at some length about the fact that whatever changes the nature of the union has to be something the people of the nation as a whole agree to - then end with the colorful final paragraph.  That final paragraph, taken in context, provides the "national" revolution idea, because they've been talking about national-scope events and addressing the American Revolution.
 * The good, easily accessible sources on this front are flagged in the footnotes on the Wikipedia "Secession in the United States" article - I and several other editors hashed that all out a long time ago, and unless vandals have ruined them they should still be there.Professor Storyteller (talk) 14:23, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * One final note - there is another ruling whose name escapes me this weary morning that covers the distinction between successful and unsuccessful revolution and attempts at separation. Boiled out of the legalese and vagaries, it comes down to common sense - if the group attempting revolution or separation (secession) defeats the military effort to stop the revolution or separation, then its acts tend to be treated as valid - if not, they vanish like the Confederate war debt.  This is sort of a "realpolitik" principle in constitutional law - like international law's approach to what constitutes a sovereign country under the Montevideo Convention - if a self-identified polity controls a territory with a permanent population and enforces its will on the people living within that territory, then whether or not any other nation recognizes it or likes to admit it, under international law that polity is a de facto sovereign country and must be treated as such.  This other ruling was basically the same idea in constitutional law.  I think this case and its citations are in "Secession in the United States" as well.Professor Storyteller (talk) 14:32, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Digression on Puerto Rico
Prof, you mentioned on the US state talk page about PR becoming an "Incorproated" territory, but it's status remaining basically the same. I've never actually read anything on that specifically as part of a proposal for a future status. Most of what I've seen from domestic PR political efforts is to attain an "enhanced commonwealath status" which usually seems to refer to receiving the congressioanl voting rights and financial benifits of a US state, but without actually becoming a state, and reatining exemption from certain taxes (with no mention either way on the issue of incorporation). It woul--Seablade (talk) 03:36, 7 December 2010 (UTC)d probably also include PR remaining a "country", possibly issuing --Seablade (talk) 03:40, 1 December 2010 (UTC)it's own passports as it has been reported to have done recently. It is this desrire to be a "like a state while remaining somewhat independent" that is clouding the issue of future status domestically. In any referendum on the issue, it splits the statehood and independence votes, and this is is what is preventing an "ultimate status" for PR. Basically, enough politicians there want to continue to feed from the federal trough without the "penalties" of statehood, but they want all the benifits too!

However, I don't see an "enhanced commonwealth status" along those lines as being constitutional, but it could be there somewhere, probably in the general welfare clause. ;) To me, Puerto Rico has far too large a population to remain under federal authority without becoming a state. All the other unincorporated territories have very small poulations well under 100,000, compared to PR with ab out 4 million. The only other viable option is independence, though they could remain associated with the US under a Compact of Free Association, as with the Federated States of Micronesia (FSM), the Republic of the Marshall Islands (RMI) and the Republic of Palau. In fact, I think that is what many people think Puerto Rico already is, as its title in Spanish, Estado Libre Asociado de Puerto Rico, seems to indicate. - BilCat (talk) 00:02, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Anyway, we probably do need an intermediate status between state and territory for the other territories, esepcially Guam, American Samoa, and the USVI. Such a status would give them partial representation in the US Congress, perhaps one senator and one representative. Hoever, I;ve not heard anoyone else pubilcially discuss such optins. Such a status would probably have to be allowed through a constitutional amendement. - BilCat (talk) 00:07, 22 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually, what I was referring to was a proposal that's floating around Congress related to this year's push for a final status vote both on the island and in Congress. The vote would boil down to a two-stage affair where the island voted first on whether to a) leave everything as it is, or b) change the status.  If the voted for b), then they would get the option of 1) statehood, or 2) independence, or 3) unspecified enhancements to the current status to be negotiated by Puerto Rico with the Congress - which my information from the Congress makes clear will *not* include any right to vote in Congress, nor full financial benefits akin to a US state, but might shift around other aspects.  The smart money, if this vote were held, would be on b) winning in the first round, and most likely 1) winning in the second vote, though a plurality stalemate is possible, which in this system would require a third vote between the top two vote-getters in the second round.  But way back at the beginning, if they voted for option a), the one that leaves things as they are, that would constitute a formal decision from Puerto Rico's residents that they want this status to be permanent.  To that end, the Congress reportedly would vote to incorporate Puerto Rico at last.  This simply shifts the island from a territorial status in which Congress has the right to expel them with or without their consent, or cede them to another power (things that can legally happen to unincorporated territories, though not to incorporated territories or States), to a territorial status where they are part of America for good.  That last step - incorporation versus unincorporated - is the key legal process that makes Puerto Rico's current status unsettled, and not its "final status."  The former territories that are in Compacts of Free Association have finished this process, as have the States, and the unincorporated territory we ceded to the British Empire, Canada, Kiribati, Honduras, and Columbia in the 19th and 20th centuries, each with a different outcome.  As far as I know, the only incorporated territories of the USA that have ever shifted to another polity's sovereign control have been those where the boundary of American territory was established by surveyors to have not ultimately included the territory in question - notably the northern boundaries of Maine and the Louisiana Purchase and, in the 1970s, a tiny town thought to have been in Texas but ultimately determined to have been Mexican territory (which did not thrill Texans I knew at the time).  Incorporated territories, provided the surveying lines are finalized, don't leave.


 * I did a quick search and couldn't find anything about Puerto Rico's AFS government issuing passports - though I think the secessionists of the 1970s may have done that. As I understand it, the polling data and past non-binding referendum have shown the fight within Puerto Rico is between statehood and incorporated territorial status - independence as a sovereign nation hasn't received more than 5% since before I was a child.  What has prevented the resolution of the issue to this point is the insistence, from those in Puerto Rico who like their current status and want it finalized, that each referendum have three questions - independence, statehood, and status quo.  If the latter were taken out, statehood would win by over ninety percent - and if statehood were taken out, status quo would win by over ninety percent.


 * But I do agree with you on this idea you've heard of on "enhanced commonwealth status." It is absolutely not constitutional for any polity to have a vote in the US Congress that is not a State, because of the issues in Texas v. White we discussed above, and because the general welfare clause only applies to the sovereign American people, who are US citizens living in the several States and the incorporated territories like DC.  To have a say in the Congress, a polity has to commit to its people being a part of the sovereign American people, and this to commit to being a part of America until and unless all the rest of America agrees to let it go.  Having a say without being in the same Union is flat wrong - unethical, unconstitutional, and to be resisted.  That having been said, the Constitution as written today doesn't allow for congressional representation even for incorporated territories - States and States alone can have a say.  I would support a constitutional amendment to grant people living in incorporated territories a single vote in the House (though nothing in the Senate, because of the unamendable language in Article V), but I would want that amendment to also allow American citizens living outside the US to vote for that same member of the House, and I would want it to be extremely explicit in denying any unincorporated territory a vote for that member.  If a territory has not agreed to be as much an inseparable part of America as the rest of us, it needs to focus its attentions on resolving that question.  In or out, as my teachers used to say when we kids stood shivering indecisively at the door to the playground.


 * I also agree that Puerto Rico has too many residents to continue as a territory. While I think the current status is constitutional, and while I can't find anything in the Constitution to prohibit that status being made permanent, I agree with you that it's a bad idea, in large part due to the population difference you point out.  Puerto Rico needs to either become a State, by the consent of its people *and* the consent of Congress, or it needs to set out on its own as the newest sovereign nation in the Caribbean.  As you quite rightly point out, the Compact of Free Association mechanism could work for an independent "Republic of Puerto Rico," or CAFTA or NAFTA could be extended to cover them, to protect them from tariffs et al. The reason I think the people of Puerto Rico would resist independence is the loss of federal money - and the reasons I think Congress would resist statehood are a) concerns over the extension of statehood to the first polity which does not use English as its first or primary language, b) concerns over Puerto Rico's economic health, which were it a State would put it down near the bottom (though, depending on the measuring stick used, there are some American states in worse conditions), and c) a sad but undeniable tide of anti-Hispanic emotion rising in the darker corners of our body politic.  Ultimately, I personally think Puerto Rico's geography and culture are better suited to independence, though I would welcome more Hispanic-Americans into the multicultural success story that is America.  But I suspect the end result of this year's Congressional maneuverings will be no different than the past, and we will still be debating this as a nation on the century anniversary of Puerto Rico's integration under American sovereignty.


 * By the way, the name of the polity in Spanish seems to reflect a disconnect that's been papered over with carefully deliberate creative misunderstandings. Such creative misunderstandings are often the best way societies can duck insoluble issues, and translation allows for more of them than any other avenue.  In English, Puerto Rico's title is generic and carefully set to sound like some of our States and also some independent nations around the world, while in Spanish it's set up to sound like an American state while also incorporating a nod to being "free" of permanently binding ties, while tossing "association" in as way to add a little distance.  My best guess - these titles, in English and Spanish, reflect the painful consensus of large meeting rooms full of tired, irritable people who just wanted to get the business of semantics over with.  As a result, they have something for everyone and not enough for anyone - politics in a nutshell.


 * I also haven't heard anyone (but me) discuss options for our territories that will likely never become States for population reasons. The possible constitutional amendment I described above is intended basically for the District of Columbia (which I don't think should become a State, as that defeats the intent of the Founders in creating it) and Palmyra Atoll, in the extremely unlikely even it ever acquires a permanent resident population again - and, as I mentioned, for American citizens living aboard.  My thoughts on the rest of the territories are a bit unorthodox.  I believe that with China's rise we will find it harder and harder to defend the western Pacific, and thus I don't think incorporating those territories - other than perhaps Guam, which is crucial for our defense of the Pacific - is a wise idea.  But I am fundamentally unhappy with inhabited unincorporated territories, for that flies in the face of the rest of the spirit of the Constitution, though not its letter.


 * My opinion - and it is just that, an opinion - is that the Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, the United States Virgin Islands, and American Samoa should become independent nations under Compacts of Free Association. As they are not incorporated territories, Congress has the right to declare them independent with or without their consent, though I would obviously rather they consented.  Guam, as I mentioned, merits some consideration for territorial incorporation, though we might accomplish the same military goals with it as an independent nation in a CFA with a mutual defense and base leasing agreement.  I further believe Wake Island, Midway Islands, Johnston Atoll, Baker Island, Howland Island, Jarvis Island, and Kingman Reef, as they have no permanent residents, can remain unincorporated territories.  I believe that unless oil or other useful materials are discovered within the EEZ's around Baja Nuevo Bank, Serranilla Bank, and Navassa Island, we should consider ceding our claims there - they are unincorporated and uninhabited, and it might help spread a bit of goodwill to a region we will need to remain friendly for decades to come.


 * But that last bit is just my opinion - and as unlikely to happen as my Constitutional amendment. I do wonder, however, if some enterprising State government won't eventually decide, in the midst of financial crisis or natural disaster that is worse in one particular geographic area, that it might save money by redefining its borders without the economically depressed or disaster-stricken area.  I have no idea how that would play out from a constitutional perspective - but it does create the odd yet plausible vision of a territory rejected by a State government but which the federal government refuses to acknowledge is not part of the state, leaving who knows what future for such a piece of territory.  In light of recent oddities like the efforts in Utah and California to divided the state and the territorial swaps proposed between Utah and Nevada (and discussed among several New England states), anything is possible.Professor Storyteller (talk) 02:25, 22 November 2010 (UTC)


 * OK, thanks, that helps make things a little clear. Do you have any ref/links handy to anything about PR being incorporated but remaining a territory? Also, I wasn't aware the US Constitution had unamendable provisions - can you further elaborate? - BilCat (talk) 02:47, 22 November 2010 (UTC)


 * OK, I cunfused "Puerto Rican passport" with Puerto Rican citizenship! My memory is crap these days, so I never know what I can or can't recall correctly :( - BilCat (talk) 02:55, 22 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually, now that you ask for it, I can't get to the www.congressmatters.com blog site to load on my computer - I don't know if that's local to me or the blog is down. But if you can get to it, and presuming the entry from May or thereabouts hasn't been removed or changed given November's events (perils of internet sources), you should be able to see the analysis/commentary/reporting I saw.  Look for key terms on "territorial incorporation" or references to "final status."


 * I understand about the memory thing. My medical problems have driven me to the point where I keep a notepad on my person with a pencil at all times, just to remember things that are liable to dribble out my consciousness if I'm not careful.


 * As to the unamendable provisions of the US Constitution, allow me to quote the relevant passage from Article V:


 * "Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate."


 * Basically, the controversies and floor fights at the Constitutional Convention boiled down to a series of compromises - like the existence of the Senate itself as a part of the Great Compromise. The issue of slavery was tiptoed around, but the issue of the slave trade was slightly different, as there were slaveowners who supported ending the slave trade to raise the market price of their own human "property."  The slave states dependant on the slave trade threatened to walk without a temporary injunction, leading to the first (and now expired) unamendable provision, a prohibition on ending the slave trade until 1808 CE.  The other was intended to ensure that not even the supermajority (75% of the States) needed to amend the Constitution could strip the smallest states of the equality in the Senate that was at the root of the Great Compromise.  Thus, ". . . no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate."


 * What this means in practice is that no amendment can give some States more Senators than others, unless the affected States were to consent to it. That means that it would theoretically be possible to change the Senate's state-by-state equality if every single State ratified the relevant amendment (and the number of Senators per State could be any number provided it was the same for all States).  But given that this ban on certain types of amendation includes a presupposition that the Senate will continue to exist, most constitutional experts agree that no amendment could abolish the Senate completely.  Amendments could reduce the number of Senators to one per State, transfer all power from the Senate to the House (or some other legislative structure), and deny Senators any pay, creating something like the largely ceremonial House of Lords in the UK, but the Senate itself cannot be amended out of existence, nor can the balance between States be changed without unanimous consent.  Thus, historians and constitutional scholars speak of this as the "unamendable provision of Article V."


 * Article V is interesting reading. It includes a means to call what is called an "Article V Convention," for the proposing of constitutional amendments directly to the States for ratification without having to have the proposals approved by Congress.  I focus on this in my classes because all but 2 of the necessary number of States (2/3rds) have called for such a convention in regards to a balanced budget amendment.  If such an convention were called, though, constitutional experts agree it would not be limited to just the balanced budget amendment, but could go anywhere Article V allows amendation.  Consequently, I tell my students that their generation could very well be the first to sit in an American constitutional convention since the Founders - and they need to understand the Constitution as a result.  It usually starts a good class discussion.Professor Storyteller (talk) 04:14, 22 November 2010 (UTC)


 * OK, thanks. - BilCat (talk) 04:32, 22 November 2010 (UTC)


 * My pleasure! Thanks for asking!Professor Storyteller (talk) 04:54, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Three things: Please read completely the Political Status of Puerto Rico: Options for Congress on the U.S. State talk page, The option 3 as you described is completely inaccurate, The option three does not have anything to do with the current territorial status. On April 29, 2010, the U.S. Congress voted 223–169 to approve a measure for a federally sanctioned process for Puerto Rico's self determination, allowing Puerto Rico to set a new referendum on whether to continue its present form of commonwealth political status or to have a different political status. If Puerto Ricans vote to continue to have their present form of political status, the Government of Puerto Rico is authorized to conduct additional plebiscites at intervals of every 8 years from the date on which the results of the prior plebiscite are certified; if Puerto Ricans vote to have a different political status, a second referendum would determine whether Puerto Rico would become a U.S. state, an independent country, or a sovereign nation associated with the U.S. that would not be subject to the Territorial Clause of the United States Constitution.[107] During the House debate, a fourth option, to retain its present form of commonwealth (status quo) political status, was added as an option in the second plebiscite.[107][108]

Second The Puerto Rico citizenship is the State citizenship. Each State has one by their State constitution. The federal court already decided that you can not resign to the U.S. Citizenship without resign to the State citenship. You can not keep the State Citenship and resign to the U.S. Citizenship.

Third: Please read the current valid Federal Court decision that indicate that Puerto Rico is an incorporated territory. The decision is on the U.S. State Talk Page. "CONSEJO DE SALUD PLAYA DE PONCE v JOHNNY RULLAN, SECRETARY OF HEALTH OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF PUERTO RICO". The United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico. --Seablade (talk) 19:18, 25 November 2010 (UTC)


 * It appears option 3 has changed since the last time I read the blog in question - but much changes in Congress quickly, so that doesn't surprise me. Thank you very much for the correct information!  I'm glad to see the repeating vote option to ensure we don't end up with this non-final status indefinitely.


 * Puerto Rico citizenship is something I'm not totally clear on, but I would need some sources to support any assertion that those residing on the island hold something equivalent to State citizenship under American constitutional doctrines. They may have citizenship in their territorial government in addition to their US citizenship, but that does not equate to State citizenship.


 * In reading the case you provided, I learned something interesting about citizens of unincorporated territories - which I noted on the US State talk page - but I do not see any statement of Puerto Rico as an incorporated territory. The fact that Congress is considered independence, noted in the other document you've cited, underscores the fact that Puerto Rico is not incorporated as inalienable territory of the United States of America.  An incorporated territory is one which no longer has the option of departing the sovereign control of the United States - all fifty States, the District of Columbia, and Palmyra Atoll being the territory in question.  The rest of America's territorial holdings have not been incorporated - though the Congressional report you included shows that one of the elements of "enhanced" status under discussion is creating a permanent relationship neither side can unilaterally abrogate - which is most likely incorporation, the process used prior to this point.  A quick survey of sources on American territories outside of Wikipedia confirms this - which is also the information provided within Wikipedia's articles on these matters.Professor Storyteller (talk) 20:03, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Please read this:

United States District Court, District of Columbia decided:

Plaintiff’s arguments boil down to a disagreement with the Secretary of State as to whether or not he meets the relevant criterion of “intent” needed to expatriate. Plaintiff argues that he meets all of the elements: He left the United States, went to the consular’s office in the Dominican Republic, and took a formal oath of renunciation. In rejecting Plaintiff’s renunciation, the Department notes that Plaintiff demonstrated no intention of renouncing all ties to the United States. While Plaintiff claims to reject his United States citizenship, he nevertheless wants to remain a resident of Puerto Rico. The Immigration and Nationality Act makes it unmistakably clear that Puerto Rico [*46] is a part of the United States for such purposes. (See 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(38'''), providing that the term “United States” for the purposes of the statute refers not only to the 50 states of the United States, but also Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Virgin Islands.) Indeed, after attempting to renounce in the Dominican Republic, Plaintiff returned to Puerto Rico without making any effort to be documented as an alien under the Immigration and Nationality Act. In other words, while claiming to renounce all rights and privileges of United States citizenship, Plaintiff wants to continue to exercise one of the fundamental rights of citizenship, namely the right to travel freely throughout the world and when he wants to, to return and reside in the United States.

Plaintiff’s response to the Secretary’s position is to claim a fundamental distinction between United States and Puerto Rican citizenship. Unlike the states, which cannot exist alone and apart from the United States, Plaintiff argues that Puerto Rico is a distinct and separate entity with a independent national history and identity. Thus, he objects to the Secretary of State’s position that renunciation of U.S. citizenship must entail renunciation of Puerto Rican citizenship as well.

See 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(36) Providing the term “State” definition on the U.S. Federal Code.

C. REQUIREMENT - RENOUNCE ALL RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES

In addition, please read carefully page 28 of 30 of the SCOTUS.

Contrary to the Philippine Islands, where since 1916 Congress, pursuant to Article IX Civil No. 06-1260 and 06-1524 (GAG) of the Treaty of Paris, announced and subsequently began to relinquish sovereignty, in the case of Puerto Rico it did exactly the contrary in exponentially increasing constitutional terms. As such, the ties between the United States and Puerto Rico have strengthened in a constitutionally significant manner. Boumediene, 128 S. Ct. at 2255. '''Congress, thus, is no longer justified in treating Puerto Rico as an unincorporated territory of dissimilar traditions and institutions, when the Constitutional reality is otherwise. Id. It is the judicial branch that determines when and where the full terms of the Constitution apply. Id. at 2259; see also Trailer Marine Transport Corp., 977 F. 2d at 8 n.4 (holding that the issue of extending the Constitution to Puerto Rico is for the courts to decide). The Congressional incorporation of Puerto Rico throughout the past century has extended the entire Constitution to the island, and today entitles the territory and United States citizens thereof to full enjoyment of all rights and obligations under the Constitution.26'''Let it be clear. The court today is in no way attempting to overrule the Insular Cases as applied to the U.S. territories — only the Supreme Court can. The court, rather, today holds that in the particular case of Puerto Rico, a monumental constitutional evolution based on continued and repeated congressional annexation has taken place. '''Given the same, the territory has evolved from an unincorporated to an incorporated one.''' Congress today, thus, must afford Puerto Rico and the 4,000,000 United States citizens residing therein all constitutional guarantees. To hold otherwise, would amount to the court blindfolding itself to continue permitting Congress per secula seculorum to switch on and off the Constitution. Boudemiene at 2259. IV. --Seablade (talk) 05:46, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Also read Page 29 of 30 of the Playa v. Commonwealth

Under the Equal Protection Clause, given Puerto Rico’s status as an '''incorporated territory of the United States,''' a heightened level of scrutiny is available to protect the Commonwealth and its citizens from discriminatory federal legislation.Cf. Harris v. Rosario, 446 U.S. at 654 (Marshall, J. dissenting) (noting that in an unincorporated territory this heightened level of scrutiny is unavailable). Matters, however, are complicated because the Supreme Court has held that a State is not a person under the Fifth Amendment. State of South Carolina v. Katzenbach, 383 U.S. 301, 223-24 (1999). More so, a State does not have standing as the parent of its citizens to invoke this constitutional provision against the Federal Government, which is the ultimate parens patriae of every American citizen. --Seablade (talk) 06:25, 26 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the information - a quick note before I get into details - nothing you've posted here includes pages of a SCOTUS decision. The decisions you have provided are District court rulings.  The news article you provided on SCOTUS didn't have 28 pages, so I'm not clear on what you're asking me to review carefully from the Supreme Court.


 * As to your points:


 * The District Court cases you've posted are fascinating reading, and the judge in question makes a good argument for the arrogation of the process of incorporation to the judicial branch from the legislative, and a similarly good case for stating that Congressional action make have crossed the incorporation threshold. However, this is just a District Court ruling, and one that has not been acted on by the Supreme Court - and the judge in question makes a clear statement that even in their view, only SCOTUS can determine a territory is incorporated with regard to constitutional protections.  As a result, no matter how good this judge's case is, until and unless the Supreme Court overturns its Barzac decision - which in part included the fact that Puerto Rico is an unincorporated territory - Puerto Rico is still an unincorporated territory.  That's why the federal government sites I checked still list it as unincorporated.  It may be hard to justify from our sense of right and wrong - and I have great trouble on that perspective with the entire idea of an unincorporated territory, see my commentary above - but as far as the law of the land, Puerto Rico is an unincorporated territory until the Supreme Court sees the logic and right of overturning Barzac.


 * The US Code section on State citizenship you've posted is in reference to INS matters only - that isn't the same as State citizenship under the Constitution's 14th Amendment, unless and until the Supreme Court overturns its Barzac ruling on Puerto Rico's status as an unincorporated territory.


 * Thanks for the interesting reading, though! I'll be rooting for SCOTUS to overturn Barzac and add that to my advocacy in my personal life.Professor Storyteller (talk) 21:33, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Ok, thank you for your time! The natural born U.S. citizens in Puerto Rico, really are disfranchised by the political status with some barely exemptions:

Only the "fundamental rights" under the federal constitution apply to Puerto Rico, including the Privileges and Immunities Clause (U.S. Constitution, Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1, also known as the 'Comity Clause') that prevents a state from treating citizens of other states in a discriminatory manner, with regard to basic civil rights. The clause also embraces a right to travel, so that a citizen of one state can have privileges and immunities in any other state; this constitutional clause regarding the rights, privileges, and immunities of citizens of the United States was expressly extended to Puerto Rico by the U.S. Congress through the federal law and signed by President Truman in 1947.

Other fundamental rights such as the due process clause and the equal protection guarantee of the Fourteenth Amendment were expressly extended to Puerto Rico by the U.S. Supreme court. In a brief concurrence in the judgment of Torres v. Puerto Rico,, Supreme Court Justice Brennan argued that any implicit limits from the Insular Cases on the basic rights granted by the Constitution (including especially the Bill of Rights) were anachronistic in the 1970s. --Seablade (talk) 20:09, 27 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree, and not just for Puerto Rico. All unincorporated inhabited territories  are not able to exercise the full panoply of rights and freedoms Americans expect.  I do agree that steps like 48 USC help, but they are just acts of Congress, subject to revocation should majorities change - and individual rights and freedoms should never be vulnerable to changing majorities.


 * One final note - while I do think Justice Brennan had a point, only three other justices concurred with him in this opinion, which meant that it did not represent the majority will of the Supreme Court and thus was not binding precedent or case law.


 * I advocate for a Constitutional amendment which would extend the full protections of the US Constitution and a voice in the US House of Representatives to all American citizens not living in any State. This amendment would specifically extend all federal constitutional protections to all American citizens regardless of where they reside, removing any disadvantages under federal law, and would empower them to vote through a federal absentee ballot for a member of the United States House of Representatives created specifically to represent them and them alone.  If that were to transpire, Puerto Rico's residents - who are American citizens by law - could have full federal constitutional protections and a say in Congress without any need to resolve the seemingly insoluble statehood/incorporation/independence debate.  Another amendment I advocate for would eliminate the Electoral College, replacing it with a process whereby the secretaries of state of the States transmit to Congress sealed certificates printed with the number of votes each candidate for president received in their State (instead of sealed certificates with the votes of the Electoral College in their State as under the 12th Amendment), which Congress would tabulate (instead of counting as with EC votes).  This amendment allows the American people to vote for president with their popular vote yet does *not* create a new federal election bureaucracy.  In that amendment, votes cast by Americans not living in States would be cast on federal absentee ballots and added into the State totals during the joint session of Congress for such tabulation.  These two amendments working together would empower all American citizens not living in the States - including DC as well as Puerto Rico and the other territories - with a say in the matter of the presidency, a voting committee-ready voice in Congress, and all the federal protections American citizens living in States enjoy today.


 * Thoughts?Professor Storyteller (talk) 08:02, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Please read this:

Igartua IV - http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-1st-circuit/1545899.html

In special, II. The Status and Impact of the ICCPR - Circuit Judge Lipez and Torruella Opinions

Thoughts? --Seablade (talk) 03:51, 30 November 2010 (UTC)


 * This unanimous ruling appears to me to be exactly constitutional - no entity which is not a fully admitted State can send voting entities to the US House of Representatives (or to the Senate) under the Constitution. However, what I am proposing is a constitutional amendment that would - as the ruling explicates briefly in its opening paragraphs - alter that dynamic by altering the language of the Constitution.  Such an amendment would create a seat in the House to be elected by American citizens not resident in any State - but not in the Senate, as the language of Article V arguably prohibits such an amendation, though that is unclear - to enfranchise all American citizens, including those living in DC, all the territories, and overseas.  While not as ideal as statehood for a deserving entity like Puerto Rico, it would at least serve as a form of enfranchisement - and if Congress shook off its paralysis and admitted Puerto Rico as a State (provided the island's residents voting for statehood in a referendum), this proposed amendment and the representative it created would continue to serve the people of DC, USVI, the Marianas, Guam, and citizens residing in foreign countries.


 * Does that sound like something you might support, were I ever to get my act together and get it to my Congressperson and Senators and thus into the body politic for a nation-wide debate?

Not really, just do your part here on Wikipedia, this is an encyclopedia and the POV must not be allowed is the sources are very clear!

I would like to cite Congressman Pedro R. Pierluisi:

"Indeed, for generations, our sons and daughters have served alongside their fellow citizens from the states on battlefields in Europe, Asia and the Middle East. When patrolling in enemy territory, the differences between them mean nothing; what matters is that the flag on their uniform is the same. I support statehood because I believe the people of Puerto Rico have earned the right, should they choose to exercise it, to become full and equal citizens of the United States.

But I was elected to represent all of the people of Puerto Rico, including those whose vision for the Island’s future differs from my own. Those who support the current status, independence or free association are as entitled to their views as I am to mine. I respect their right to advocate for the particular status option they prefer.

What I do not respect are efforts by individuals or groups to obstruct the self-determination process because they fear that process will reveal the public’s support for a status option other than the one they favor. For the sake of the people of Puerto Rico, four million proud and strong, these anti-democratic forces must not be allowed to prevail.

They must be defeated".

--Seablade (talk) 03:40, 1 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Good quote - I liked that.


 * To be clear - I was not asking if you would support something related to Wikipedia, merely trying to ascertain views from people I come into contact with on issues related to amendments I am working towards asking my Congresspersons to propose. It helps me understand whether or not there might be support for my proposals, but it has no impact on matters related to Wikipedia.  I do thank you for your input, though.Professor Storyteller (talk) 04:34, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

''Report By the President's Task Force On Puerto Rico's Status (December 2005)

The Federal Government may relinquish United States sovereignty by granting independence or ceding the territory to another nation; or it may, as the Constitution provides, admit a territory as a State, thus making the Territory Clause inapplicable. But the U.S. Constitution does not allow other options. It therefore is not possible, absent a constitutional amendment, to bind future Congresses to any particular arrangement for Puerto Rico as a Commonwealth.

Report By the President's Task Force On Puerto Rico's Status (December 2005)

--Seablade (talk) 03:19, 6 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Interesting - are you suggesting that any "enhanced commonwealth" status is fundamentally not a ultimate status?Professor Storyteller (talk) 04:54, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

No, I am not suggesting that any "enhanced commonwealth" status is fundamentally not a ultimate status. The reports of December 2005 and December 2007 conclusions are that there is not any constitutional enhanced possibility to the commonwealth territorial (colonial) status. The conclusion is that Puerto Rico just has four constitutional Options: 1. Territorial Commonwealth (Status quo just as is! 2. Statehood 3. Independence 4. Sovereign nation associated with the U.S. that would not be subject to the Territorial Clause of the United States Constitution.

The options 2, 3 and 4 are constitutional finals options. The current territorial status is not an ultimate status. This conclusion is supported by the Congressional Research Service report and by U.S. Court decisions.

The reports were the U.S government answer to the 1993 and 1998 Wishing Dreaming List plebiscite description to enhance the territorial status. The analysis was performed and the result is that any enhancement to give more autonomy or power that any other of the U.S. states and still be under the U.S. sovereignty is not constitutional. As recently as last year, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor indicated that Puerto Rico “seem[s] to have become a State within a common and accepted meaning of the word.”  United States v. Laboy Torres, 553 F.3d 715, 721 (3d Cir.2009) (O'Connor, Associate Justice, Retired) (quoting United States v. Steele, 685 F.2d 793, 805 n.7 (3d Cir.1982).  The purpose of Congress in the 1950 and 1952 legislation was to accord to Puerto Rico the degree of autonomy and independence normally associated with a State of the Union. Examining Board v. Flores de Otero, 426 U.S. 572, 594 (1976), and the wishing list presented on the 1993 plebiscite and proposed by the pro "commonwealth" party should give Puerto Rico sovereign powers that any other jurisdiction has under the U.S. sovereignty.  Since the U.S. Government declare that this no constitutional, the pro commonwealth party all that do now with the status issue is obstruct the self-determination process at all cost.--Seablade (talk) 03:36, 7 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Fascinating - in short, then, the only constitutional options for ultimate status are basically independence as a sovereign nation-state (with or without a specific set of agremeents with the USA) or statehood. I don't know if you explicated this on the US State talk page, but I think this might be helpful as you've explained it here.  It fully refutes, in my opinion, Student7's claim that Commonwealth/Territorial status is a final one.  Thanks!Professor Storyteller (talk) 04:34, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Done, it was included on the US State talk page! --Seablade (talk) 01:16, 8 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much - and I'm sorry to have missed its inclusion before this. I have been quite ill and have not been at my best.  Also, thank you for your support on the quest for consensus.Professor Storyteller (talk) 04:39, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

At just 40 minutes to end the 24 hours that you gave for additional comments from any other interested editors it looks that finally we have a consensus! I will be really glad that you performed the update! Thank you! --Seablade (talk) 04:11, 13 December 2010 (UTC)


 * So it appears! I will make the change - thanks for all your help!Professor Storyteller (talk) 04:35, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

secession in US discussion
Thanks for your comments, and even wisdom, for that matter. I'm relatively new at wikipedia. when I hit on a thread like this, I feel like I'm in a graduate seminar (that's good) again ...
 * I think that we would treat one another more gently if we could only know more of our own connections, by blood and by marriage. By marriage, my kids now can claim "cousin connects" with Cuban and Guatamalan (Mayan). By blood, Grandmother Susan did the geneology on one side back to Algonquin - Powhatan, too far back for federally specified percentage, although I wonder what would happen if we were allowed to recombine percentages from disperate tribes in our bloodlines ... I guess it would make for a tangled mess comparable to trying to award reparations to individual African-Americans for slavery. Maybe there can be no collective guilt, only personal responsibility, each for our own actions? I gave this alot of thought coming from a German family, however mixed it was, and coming of age reading much about the holocaust, the Eichmann trial in Israel ...

Sometimes I feel like throwing in with Teddy Roosevelt: there are no hyphenated Americans, only Americans. If you buy into the Declaration of Independence, live here and pay taxes at a gas pump, you are an American when you pledge allegiance, and choose to renounce elsewhere.
 * Okay, okay, I cannot defend 19th Century romanticism. Just about everything I write is just for discussion anyway ... I don't mean to trivialize the illegal immigrant problem. I should recuse myself. I'm old enough, I am so old, that the only thing I see is, the more kids paying into social security, the more income longer for me. Anything that keeps kids out of paying into social security takes money out of my pocket. The system will never go bankrupt, each Congress will keep pushing back retirement til the actuarial folks say it's 50% of the age cohort like when it started. Well, and we gotta have more kids. But I digress.

Virginia has state reservations for Mataponi and Pamunki, persisting settlement communities like the Rappahannock in Caroline County (lots of Native American owned and operated car sales/maintenance/repair/salvage ... see Thomas Sowell's work on cultural constellations making for predelictions of success in various pursuits), tri-racialites up in the Appalachians ... and some numbers of duely incorporated chapters of federally recognized tribes. And lots of Virginians like me, invisible to the tribes and glowing firebrands to the one-drop dudes.
 * color racism is a wonderment. I have had college professors point to a classic period print of Pocahontas in England and say she was pictured as white, when the bone structure of her face is clearly portrayed as the more narrow Algonquin, not English at all. I love the anthropological maps that National Geographic publishes showing the variety of "races" across each continent.
 * Up a mountain draw west of a Virginia teachers college in the 70s, some unfortunate student teacher saw 4 out of 5 of her elementary class with jet black hair, coal black eyes and copper skins. She wrote up a grant request for school aid for Native Americans, trying to get the school a photocopier, and she was fired. Locals of the town said that all their kin were "pure" white. They belonged to associations which posited that attribute as the first qualification for membership. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 04:47, 23 November 2010 (UTC)


 * You're quite welcome! Thank you for your kind words.  I'm also relatively new to Wikipedia - and not all that far from graduate seminars myself . ..


 * We might treat each other more gently with more connections - but then again, humans are evolved to be vicious to other hominins with similar appearance, all the way back to the extinction of Homo neanderthalensis.


 * One note - my ancestry is through a different Algonquin group and tribe, but I know that the federal ancestry percentages are no longer definitive, as my tribe does not use them. Ancestry alone is enough - you might check that for the tribes in question.


 * Responsibility for one's own individual actions is crucial, but responsibility does not end with the passing of the perpetrator of atrocity - if that atrocity provides benefit to the perpetrator's inheritors. Anyone who derives benefit from a past atrocity inherits with that benefit the obligation to make reparations to those who inherit the disadvantages born of that atrocity.  Americans today live with benefits derived from the appropriation of the middle of North America from Amerindians and centuries of uncompensated labor from Americans of African ancestry, and as such we all bear a share of the responsibility for discharging the obligations those atrocities created.  Reparations for slavery are just as necessary as monetary compensation to Amerindians for every acre taken by  fraud, broken treaties, or any other act the people at the time the act was committed recognized as a crime - and compensation for the descendants of any group to suffer rape, mutilation, torture, death, or cultural annihilation.  Between the two, America might well end up owing as much to its own citizens as it does to our Asian creditors.


 * I love old TR - though not who I consider our greatest president, some days he's almost my favorite - but I strongly disagree with him. I believe that America, like all envisioned communities based on shared ideals - individual freedom for America - includes many cultures, languages, and traditions.  So long as the ideals of individual freedom and respect for the Constitution remain forefront in an individual's approach to politics, law, and governance, they can be an American - no matter what language they speak, culture they practice, or traditions they honor.  I'm proud to be an Amerindian-Irish-French-Russian-Scottish-American, and I'm proud of every part - especially the American part.


 * Most of my generation - born in the early 1970s - see Social Security as something we pay into for the sake of our parents and elder relatives. A survey a few years back showed that something like 7% of my generation believed that Social Security would pay out to us when we retired - while 47% believed in non-human cognates from the stars.


 * I wouldn't worry about the demographic rate - alone among industrialized democracies, Americans are having babies at well above the 2.1 live births per female needed for one-to-one population replacements. Besides, with organ and tissue printing and intracranial neurological scanning, practical immortality is not more than a generation or three away.


 * Amerindian ancestry is a much larger part of American culture than most Americans are willing to accept. The British Empire in North America and the United States of America have worked hard since the 17th century to minimize recognition for Amerindian metis in the hopes of lessening treaty obligations.  Although recognized Amerindian peoples make up less than 1% of American citizens, genomic evidence seems show as many as a quarter of Americans have Amerindian ancestors.


 * Amerindians, in my experience, succeed in a great many pursuits - just as often and in the same distributions as non-Amerindian Americans.


 * Race is a sociocultural construction. Geneticists have long ago established that the categories Americans use for race have no genomic commonalities or markers.  These constructs settled in around the mid- to late 17th century because they were useful in dividing Americans - something that continues to this day.


 * Any association that calls for "'pure' white" ancestry as a condition of membership is one to be assiduously avoided. Nothing good can come of that.Professor Storyteller (talk) 07:32, 23 November 2010 (UTC)


 * This is so rich (good sustenance), I may not be able to pursue this strand much further. But let me say, I do like the idea of some sort of restorative justice. I was generally persuaded by John Rawls "Justice as Fairness". It provided a rationale for "affirmative action" much in the way formal reparations might work. Although reparations often require an element of shame. Malcolm X once said, no man need spit on the grave of his ancestor for justice to be done.
 * It is well to provide federal funding for Amerindian advanced education. I hope that it has not lapsed since the last time I took a look. When the restorative hand is lightly guiding the general population, and the recipients are individuals, not classes, justice is easier to sustain across many kinds of majorities over time ... not in perpetuity, but until there is restored (or fostered) among the living, equal opportunity for equal attainments. Ill-gotten advantages perpetuated to a class without merit should be mitigated.


 * Rather than outright confiscation and division of the great land holdings of colonial Virginia, Jefferson and Madison hit upon the idea of ending "primogeniture". That is, when a man died, his land could NOT be conveyed whole to the eldest son. It was to be divided either equally among his widow and male heirs, or in another way, one-third to the widow, and two-thirds to all surviving children. In this way "nature" would break up the great holdings, over time, not the action of a rogue majority which might use the law to precipitously attack one group without applying the penalty uniformly. I'm not sure where that leaves the post-1918(?) "family trust". Can they be divided at a death, then recombined again voluntarily? In the Rockefeller case, the Texan probably would have bolted, "naturally", without coersion of the state ... :-)
 * If the restoration is somehow accomplished to bring about equal opportunity and equal attainments among the Amerindians here, we do not have to even look at the question of which tribes in what nations threw in with the British in 1812, or with the Mexicans in 1848, or the Confederacy in 1860 ... or what percent is ruling in the case of internal civil wars, like the Red Sticks. Otherwise endless litigation would ensue to determine how past actions might be interpreted as voiding a treaty from the Amerindian side ... when the goal is individual liberty and justice for all, here and now. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 22:42, 23 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much for your kind words, but I understand - 'tis the season to be busy.


 * I've not read Rawls, but I do agree an element of shame is involved. I must disagree with Malcolm X (yet again) - to admit reparations are necessary is by definition to admit that something shameful was done by one's predecessors.  Only those who can disconnect themselves emotionally from those they follow can avoid the shame.


 * The entire idea of approaching society by classes if fraught with problems.


 * Actually, Jefferson et al were not the first to abandon primogeniture - the inheritance process you're describing shows up in 17th century American legal cases and has roots back deep into the Middle Ages. This process of dividing land holdings actually made the process of expropriating land from Amerindians worse, as more and more children were needed to work land not yet converted to European-style agricultre, but those children could not inherit a useful unit of land.  They moved west instead, numerous enough to be the "swarming people" to the tribes they crushed.


 * I'm not sure what you refer to with the "family trust" - I'm thinking of at least three different options. Could you elaborate?


 * The goal is in part individual liberty and justice for all - but the goal is also to ensure that each of the treaties signed and ratified according to the US Constitution are in fact treated as the binding supreme law the Constitution requires. That means we have to run down each and every treaty and determine whether or not the United States of America acted in accordance with those treaties - and in any case where it did not, no matter how minor, the appropriate restitution, remuneration, or reparation must be taken.  Which tribes side with whom in 19th century wars are only relevant if the tribal nation in question abrogated a treaty with the USA to do so - and even then it's only relevant if the USA was adhering properly to the treaty at the time.  In this process, we have to also uncover whether or not the individuals identified by American negotiators as having real power - in the Montevideo Convention sense - to bind the tribal nation to their will actually did so.  In a few cases there will be treaties signed by Americans not authorized to act on behalf of the US government - in a great many cases the alleged "sachem" of the tribes will turn out to be no such thing.


 * But in short, regardless of the effect on individuals now, we the American people must hold our government accountable for its handling of treaties, or else we will be standing idly by as the Constitution itself is violated. Clearing these issues up and bringing DC into the right with Amerindian treaty issues will benefit all Americans, regardless of ethnicity, by restoring some of the necessary supremacy and inviolability the Constitution should always hold.


 * I hope you have a nice Thanksgiving!Professor Storyteller (talk) 03:11, 25 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with your reading of the Constitution, just not sure I can follow to policy.
 * Although, relative to your earlier point, and supporting your position on holding the USG accountable in multiple venues, I saw the results of the Cobell versus US Departments of Interior and Treasury trials in federal court at http://www.cobellsettlement.com/press/background.php#legis … and, as one would expect, the lawyers point out that the grounds of the this case are pretty strictly circumscribed.
 * But I believe that the settlement makes the entire policy debate open in places it would not have been taken seriously before ... just an observation, without endorsement ... TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:47, 13 December 2010 (UTC)


 * The settlement does open the discussion, and that is an excellent thing. However, as with all such things, final power remains with Congress, for it is Congress that must agree to release the funds.  As I understand it, when the wheels came off the Democratic majority's wagon - effectively in February or March of 2010, long before the actual electoral defeat of November - the Congress abandoned efforts to fund the settlement.  If that continues, the settlement will collapse - and we'll be right back where we were before.  Ultimately, it will take pressure from ordinary Americans to make this work - and that would require America surrender the last vestiges of its racism, something I don't anticipate in my lifetime.  Perhaps by mid-century, on the centennial of the Civil Rights movement - but even then I am cynically doubtful . . . Professor Storyteller (talk) 18:59, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Articles of Confederation
Prof, would you mind reviewing this edit,and any other edits made by similar IPs, to the Articles of Confederation page? Seems a bit POV-ish to me, but I wanted to get a second opinion on them. Thanks, and have a happy Thanksgiving, even if you're not sure who to thank! ;) - BilCat (talk) 06:24, 25 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree this is definitely POV - how do I find others by similar IP addresses? And where would you like me to support you?  Happy Thanksgiving to you as well!Professor Storyteller (talk) 20:07, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Constitution
Could you take a look at this diff? A user is attempting to redifine the definition of "constitution". I think he's confusing two separate ideas, but I'm not familar enough with the issue to know exactly where he's going wrong on this. I'm on a short health wiki-break, so I'm not able to take the lead on discussing the issue on the talk page. (No discussion has been started as I write this.) His previous edits are here. and you can read all of his edit summaries on the article's history page. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 20:22, 30 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Happy to help! I'm sorry to hear about your health issues.  I've reverted the erroneous edits and am starting the discussion now.  You are correct about the conflation - but this individual also is operating from a relatively narrow philosophical base which he/she believes to be absolutely true.  As a result, I suspect this is going to be a nasty fight.Professor Storyteller (talk) 00:33, 1 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, judging by the users' other activites from his contributions page, it will be! I find his dating "constitution" from 1789 to be very odd - does that mean the US Constituion written in 1787 would not be valid use of the term? It's also possible there may be some language limitations on the user's part - the Britannica ref ceratinly doesn't say what he is trying to say! Thanks for helping out. - BilCat (talk) 00:44, 1 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm glad to help. As for the dating, my guess is that he's operating from an entirely euro-centric vision - French Revolution era, based on his source citations.  I wonder if the language limitations might be the result of a linguistic barrier - perhaps the focus on the French Revolution has linguistic or ethnic roots?Professor Storyteller (talk) 01:07, 1 December 2010 (UTC)


 * He finally responded on the article's talk page. He continued to edit war, though, and has been given a 48-hour block. - BilCat (talk) 23:34, 1 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Okay, time for some ignorance on my part regarding Wikipedia stuff - what is a 48 hour block?
 * I gave detailed answers to his/her points - hopefully this will give him/her something to think about. There is a very large gap in his/her knowledge of American history and constitutional theory in general.  I believe s/he is trying to advance a definition of constitution which is limited to democratic constitutions, and is trying to argue that any constitution created before the Enlightenment was only "adapted" to democracy and this, in his/her view, not a "real" constitution.  I've provided the data on where the myriad errors lie, but I have a feeling that won't suffice.  Can a permanent block be enacted if s/he continues the edit war in the face of consensus against the edits?
 * Thanks!Professor Storyteller (talk) 00:43, 2 December 2010 (UTC)


 * They were blocked by an administrator for edit warring. Generally the admin has leeway in how much time to block for WP:3RR violationsm, usually 24-72 hours. If they continue to revert war after the block expires - quite likely given their previous conduct on Silesia-related topics per their talk page - then they risk longer blocks, including indefinite. Sometimes the whole process can be quite subjective, as a comunity-run site can be, but usually editors like this one have a short life on WP - unless they go to creating other accounts after their indefinite block, and/or use IP addresses. That's not permitted, and so it's fairly easy to get them blocked for using WP:SOCKs to continue non-consensual actions - and we can generally revert them on sight. This one will be quite easy to spot - most of them are! You'll learn the ropes in time. :) - BilCat (talk) 01:51, 2 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Okay, thanks! That makes good sense, and I'm quite happy to find there is a process for this sort of thing.  I agree with your edit - I went through the contributions page, then the talk page - if I'm reading it right, this isn't the first such block as you describe that's been put on.


 * One last newbie question - what seperates an administrator from an editor? Not that I want to be an administrator - I've got too much to do as it is.  I'm just curious as I learn the way things work.Professor Storyteller (talk) 22:22, 2 December 2010 (UTC)


 * See Administrators - that should explain the differences better than I could. Btw, I'm just an editor, not an admin, and I'm not up to their standards! -


 * Thanks!Professor Storyteller (talk) 22:54, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

PI Insurrection NOT Indian War
Please have a look-see at my answer to North Shore Tom's assertion that the Philippine Insurrection should not be included because it is indistinguishable from Indian Wars...

Also, trying to think this subject through, considering the various 'Indian Wars', in one of by side-bar self-essays, it occured to me that in the case of the Five Civilized Tribes, the Cherokee in particular should be considered for the first Amerindian inclusion in 'secession in the US'. Other secessionist movements inside states are seriously treated, soooooo

How about a separatist, independence, self-governing movment apart from Georgia that is endorsed by George Washington, US Treaty, and the John Marshall's Supreme Court? Organized on Enlightenment principles, reflecting a legislature of Senate and House. Should not the Cherokee Nation in Georgia, Tennessee and Alabama be represented, based on what is previously accepted? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 02:09, 4 December 2010 (UTC)


 * The trick here is that Amerindian nations were sovereign nations prior to British/American conquest in exactly the same way the Philippines were prior to their conquest by the Spanish. States and other creations of English-speaking people of America are vitally different in terms of a secession debate, as they voluntarily acceded to the initial confederation that created the sovereign American people.  Amerindian nations were conquered and forcibly integrated, just as the Philippines (and Hawaii) were.  This I think is the crucial difference between secession of the States or parts thereof, and conquered indigenous sovereignties.


 * So, in short, while I think the Philippines deserves their own section, I don't think they and Amerindian secession are equivalent to the rest of our topic - but thank your for consulting me!Professor Storyteller (talk) 20:55, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

to complete D of I thought
In the 'secession in the US article', I've tried to mirror the first point, and provide a 'complete the D of I thought' additional point. A year or so ago, I tried to express the idea of "long train of abuses" based on my own reading of primary sources, and North Shore Tom quite properly boxed my ears for it, unsourced (not scholarly) POV and all that. So now, after a little practice, I've tried to array Gordon S. Wood, Alan Jayne, Paul Eidelberg, and the Library of Congress historian. Both an edit, and a discussion item. I'd appreciate your look-see. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 17:07, 11 December 2010 (UTC)


 * At first glance, I think you've done a good job of synthesizing the relevant scholarship and sourcing it. There may be resistance from other editors who view the article as having a more narrow focus as a whole, but I don't share that view.  Thank you for your efforts here!Professor Storyteller (talk) 21:07, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

what is secession?
DC Carol is wondering whether micronesia petition in a legal procedure in the context of a liberal democracy is 'secession'.

I. So there IS some room to use the political science definition previous alluded to, critieria for "BELLIGERENT secession" as (a) sustained combat even in defeat, (b) control of territory and governance of the people in it, (c) declaration of independence, (d) acknowledgement of the rebellion in the sovereignty ...

II. Or, there can be legal, PROCEDURAL secession under the soveriegn sway of an essentially democratic nation... say,
 * India and Pakistan partition, then independence from Great Britain.
 * Or, surprise! when Okinawa voted for 'reversion' in a referendum in the 1970s, it was transferred by treaty from the soveriegnty of the US to become the new (restored sovereignty) equal-to-the-home-island prefectures of Japan ... embarrassed the Soviets because they still will not reliquish late WWII islands that they occupied, but the US is supposed to be the imperialists ... see Catherine the Great and every Russian fuler since regardless of philosophy or ideology ... surprise ! the Russians take over two provinces of adjacent Georgia under a 'democratic' Russian ruler ...

III. Or, we can have a category of POPULAR SOVERIEGNTY, those who appeal to the soveriegnty of a people in a territory for their independence or autonomy, like Key West ... my hesitation, is that it is not enough to be confused. One should strive to impose sequential order ... with scholars if we can, or to include most scholars on the topic, maybe categories of our own, for the sake of including scholars... TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 21:54, 16 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Some thoughts:


 * Belligerent secession only occurs after political or procedural secession has been carried out, but the previous Montevideo Convention-compliant sovereign polity contests the secession and legal means are exhausted - as with the United States of America in 1861. Had the USSR contested the secessions of 1991, that would have become belligerent secession.  In essence, belligerent secession is just the final indicator that the seperation is not mutually consensual.


 * India and Pakistan were not secession. The occupying power divided them specifically to weaken them prior to independence - the same cynical abominations that were carried out by European powers in Africa in the mid-20th century.  See Sir Pendril Moon's "Divide and Quit" for a good view of this cynicism from within the British Raj itself.  Also, the retrocession of Okinawa or the Panama Canal Zone did not constitute secession, as these were handled by changes to existing ratified treaties.  The status of those areas as US territory was governed by treaty, the treaty changed - it is far simpler than the departure of unincorporated territory, much less incorporated territory.


 * By contrast, the secession of the former Soviet republics from the USSR is a good case of procedural secession that went largely uncontested - after the tragedies in the Baltic republics. The division of Czechoslovakia is another example.  Attempts include Quebec in 1995, which failed by just a tiny number of votes, only to support dwindle afterward.


 * Popular Sovereignty has another meaning entirely in American history related to the mistakes and manipulations of the 1850s, and of course to Bleeding Kansas. I wouldn't be able to support it's use in this context simply because it would make the job of American history teachers that much harder.  This last category is basically a territory whose residents seek seperation because they no longer envision themselves as a part of the community of the whole polity, because their Benedict Anderson-style "imagined community" has shrunk to just the territory they are a part of.


 * My counterproposal, then, would be that there are three steps of secession. First, a desire to secede in a territory due to the change or restoration of imagined or envisioned community status.  This desire is stated either in a referendum or a large-scale wide-spread broadly-based demand for such a referendum or related process - that's procedural popular unilateral secession.  If the previous polity agrees, it becomes procedural popular achieved secession.  If it disagrees and warfare erupts, it's belligerent secessionl.


 * But these are just my ideas. One of the sources in the secession in the US article - I don't remember the name, but it's footnoted with the Texas v White reference in the lead - is a book on secession and new nations in the early 1990s.  I don't have time to comb it, but it's on Google Books.  It might have good information that could help and be both expert and sources.Professor Storyteller (talk) 20:51, 18 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I like your counter. It centers on the people, the interacting players, rather than on disassociated aggregates or documents. In support of your focus, I recall Lincoln, objecting to Polk administration territroial claims, saying something like: Anyone can make a map. His test for the Nueces River-Rio Grande dispute was to ask, to which government do the people living there pay their taxes? The answer was Mexico, not Texas ... TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:50, 19 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you! I'm not sure we can use it, because it's not sourced by anything but my own head, but I do agree that we need to focus on the views of people.  My research work is on a sense of nationhood in a specific group as they shift from more traditional fictive kin and larger structures to an Enlightenment-inspired self-description, and I have to side with Anderson - on this sole and only issue - that the imagined/envisioned community of a people is what they belief it to be, pure and simple.  The official documents, at least those without a Guha bottom-up read, would have probably argued that the Soviet people were 100% on board with the USSR in the spring of 1991, but their envisioned communities were their republics-as-nations, and other fragmentations, ready to go the minute the official view failed.  If nation-building is not successful, and successful each generation, the imagined/envisioned community fails.


 * I had a philosophy professor, far back when I was an undergraduate, who used a slightly different metaphorical test than Lincoln's proof that the trans-Nueces population identified with Mexico. He described it as the "punch to the gut" test.  He didn't actually punch anyone, but he said that one's identity is what one answers if a stranger runs up, punching one in the gut with no warning, and in that moment of shock, chaos, and confusion shouts, "What are you?"  If you answer "American," then that's the primary identity other than your own name.  If you answer "historian," that's how you define yourself.  The answers are different for every person, but moments of shock reveal who we are.  I had been concerned in the 1990s that the American nation-building exercise was failing, only to see the response - in person and in poll after poll - after the tragedy and horror of 9/11 prove me wrong.  When hit with a shock and asked who they were, 92% of the people living in the USA answered "American."  The nation-building exercise was strong, and we were not in danger of becoming the next Yugoslavia.
 * But I wander in this my short break from grading . . .Professor Storyteller (talk) 18:58, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

"We the People..."?
Prof, would you mind weighing in at Talk:United States Constitution/Archive 3? No doubt you've dealt with the question before, and have a well-researched answer. The next post, Talk:United States Constitution/Archive 4, is somewhat related, so you might want to weigh in on that one too. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 05:51, 17 December 2010 (UTC)


 * It seems to me Professor Storyteller you choose to do not discuss our ideas any more. Although you declare to be Constitution and Democracy defender you decided edit the article ‘Constitution’ in opposite way. This is you choice to do not work for changes in the article to express values of the Enlightenment/Democratic/Modern Constitution. I conclude you price the group-editor-friend solidarity more than search and slow improvement. See for more in respond dated 17 Dec 10 at the article Discussion Page. --Cleaghyre (talk) 16:35, 17 December 2010 (UTC)


 * BilCat - Things are hectic right now - end of the semester grading and such - but I took a quick swing at both of them with notes for further reading in Wood, Newmyer, and Ellis. This could get a little heated, as the far right in the politics of 2010 is struggling against the N&P clause in Article I and trying to revive the erroneous Jeffersonian doctrines of the 1790s (forgetting that Jefferson wasn't at the Constitutional Convention, didn't initially like the new document, and worked hard to interpret it into something he liked better in a clause-by-clause process the authors of the document opposed), and it appears at least one of the posters in this debate is drawing on modern revivals of 1790s Jeffersonian thought.  Thanks for the heads up - I'll try to be more specific if required when time permits . ..


 * Cleaghyre - Again, due to the consensus requirements of the discussion on the Constitution talk page, I'm only going to be able to provide this sole response, and I will not be responding on the Constitution talk page. Wikipedia policies are binding on anyone who edits or contributes to Wikipedia - this is a condition of the use of the site.  Those policies include the requirement that we seek consensus in edits and disputes - this is in fact the very foundation of "wiki" process, and is not something any of us can ignore without breaking the policies we've agreed to abide by in editing or contributing to the site.  As a result, I am bound by the consensus of the other editors on that discussion just as I am bound by consensus in all other aspects of my editing.  As I noted before, Wikipedia is not an academic site, and does not follow the academic process of solitary research followed by peer review.  As a result, I am honor bound to obey the policies of Wikipedia as I agreed to by editing, and those policies require me to honor this consensus.  I understand that you disagree with these policies, but they are what they are and they are not something either of us can change.


 * One final note - your view on the definition of the word "constitution" in English is in error for a variety of reasons I explicated in great detail on the Constitution talk page. That is why I am not supporting the edit you've proposed.  The fact that a constitution need not be democratic to be a constitution, and the fact that democracy can exist without a constitution, are facts supported by overwhelming evidence - and the defense of facts supported by evidence is exactly consistent with my obligations to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States of America.Professor Storyteller (talk) 02:29, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Professor Storyteller
Professor Storyteller. my apologies. I have been abbreviating your title as 'professor' since mine can be TVH with no significance. But I did so without realizing that yours could be a conjoining of two cultures, using both titles of honor for the business of conveying corporate memory. I promise I meant no disrespect. I have adopted your shorthand 'Amerindian' for the sake of conciseness, but I should not shorten your chosen Wiki name. my bad. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:40, 24 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I appreciate that, and I am surprised someone deduced the duality I was subtly expressing - but do not let it worry you. In the real world, my students (who originally gave me this nickname) shorten my actual name to just my title of "professor" as well, so I scarcely notice when the same thing happens on Wikipedia.  Given that "professor" is a title I've worked long and hard to achieve, and one I'm proud of, it is not at all offensive to be called by it.  So whichever you prefer, "Professor Storyteller" or "Professor" or "The Professor" or even "Prof," please feel free.  I will answer your delightful answer to my answer on the question of Confederate revolution, but as my family honors the holidays taking place today and tomorrow, it may be Sunday or Monday before I can find then time to do your fascinating exploration justice.


 * Thanks again, and have a great holiday season!Professor Storyteller (talk) 18:54, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Problems with the Constitution
I've copied the discussion about the United States Constitution here on your page. I'm interested in your views. What I've found is that as I get older, I keep learning new things, and enjoy trying to see things in new ways. In the past, I've been surprised when I found that ideas and conclusions which I had trusted were true, were false, which led me to further exploration as well as a sense of the importance of being open, rethinking, questioning. At present, my views on the Constitution are that it was acceptable in the past, but that it will be unacceptable in the future, and here are my problems with it.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:22, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

1) Awkward transition between presidents; from election day to the inauguration of the next president, there are effectively two presidents -- one in office, one awaiting office, and this allows confusion. Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:06, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

(2) Under-representation of voters from populous states in the Senate. When the Constitution was inaugurated, there wasn't a large disparity between large versus small states. Today, the population ratios between say California versus Wyoming mean that Californians are hugely underrepresented in the Senate; there is speculation that this has caused shifts of wealth from urban states to rural ones like Wyoming (eg Bridge to Nowhere in Alaska). Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:06, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

(3) DC voters lack representation. A known problem for decades; why hasn't this been fixed? Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:06, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

(4) Supreme Court is politicized. I don't think it does an adequate job of checking the other branches (although it's better than nothing); I agree with scholars such as Adam Tomkins that a parliamentary system does a much better job of checking the government. Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:06, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

(5) Original Constitution fails to include a right of privacy. Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:06, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

(6) Possibility of a military dictatorship should a significant terrorist attack happen such as a catastrophic attack on Congress. Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:06, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

(7) The Electoral college system is cumbersome and confusing. Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:06, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

(8) Popular election of senators. Here's a situation in which the original constitution was right in my view (letting state governments choose Senators) but it was changed by an amendment. It's important for state governments to choose Senators to give state governments a voice in the national government. My general problem here is that state governments have lost significant power to regulate their own economies, which is against the spirit of federalism. Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:06, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

(9) Inability to get rid of an incompetent president quickly. Examples: Wilson (suffered from an economic malady); possibly Roosevelt in last years in office; Bush (clearly incompetent choice to attack Iraq). Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:06, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

(10) Life tenure for unelected Supreme Court judges. 15 or 18 year term limits would be better in my view. Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:06, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

(11) The Ninth amendment has been seriously ignored. Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:06, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Many of these flaws have been cited by other constitutional scholars and there is fairly widespread agreement that they're serious and need fixing. Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:06, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

(12) To add to the list, I see serious flaws with the overall architecture of government. The foreign policy architecture is deeply flawed, in my view, since it entrusts too much power in one overburdened official (the president, who has both domestic and foreign policy duties). America's foreign policy can only be as good as the president. An incompetent president or one distracted with domestic matters can cause America's foreign policy to be mindless and erratic. My overall conclusion, after reading numerous foreign policy experts, is that America's foreign policy is middling, happenstance, lackluster, average. There's a fairly long list of obvious mistakes such as Vietnam, Iraq (Bevin Alexander's book lists many mistakes) along with successes (containing communism, surviving) -- it's a mixed bag. In the past, America could get away with this mindlessness because of its size and wealth; but in the nuclear age, with the danger of nuclear terrorism, foreign policy can't be an experiment, a happenstance, rather it must be consistently sound and smart. So I propose a structure more like the Roman Senate (during the Republic years). It rarely made mistakes. It avoided unnecessary wars. It consistently rewarded friends and consistently punished enemies. But to fix this structure, it requires another convention. And of course it needs checks and balances. During the Bush years, the republic had EIGHT years of a seriously incompetent commander-in-chief, with widespread agreement about this from partisans on both left and right, and there is the risk that this could again happen. Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:06, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

(13) Further, the United States lacks an intelligent strategy to prevent terrorism. The Constitution is partly to blame here. It needs to confront the whole issue of anonymous movement in public -- that is, how can we identify movement while preserving privacy? This is the key to preventing terrorism in my view. I think there is no adequate way to prevent serious terrorism without overhauling the Constitution. This, in my view, is a serious question for citizens, but I don't think Americans are really citizens in any serious sense of the word. Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:06, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

(14) Today's US government is corrupt, with well-documented wastages of money and funds, and further I see as a dangerous shift in power to the presidency and away from the Congress (which should have been the most powerful branch). The executive can essentially legislate by using a vast bureaucracy of agencies that are largely unaccountable to the public and hidden from debate. Presidents have begun issuing signing statements -- a fairly recent innovation -- when they describe how they intend to interpret a law made by Congress, which effectively puts an executive twist on a law. The most egregious sign of concentrated executive power is, of course, the power to start wars without Congressional approval (Vietnam, Grenada, Panama, Iraq (there was a token vote)). The Constitution explicitly gave the war-making power to Congress. So why does the president have this power? Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:06, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

(15) One more huge flaw: citizenship isn't defined. I think citizenship should be a contract between individual and state with specific, enumerated responsibilities and privileges, such as paying taxes, serving in the military, police protection, Bill of Rights guarantees, voting, serving on juries, and so forth. I think it should be an active relation which is chosen by a person and declared in a public ceremony. Right now, we become citizens automatically if we're born here and we have the dubious accomplishment of becoming eighteen years old. Americans don't know who their congresspersons are or what they voted for. Gerrymandering is a huge ongoing flaw since it creates absurd district maps designed to keep elected officials in office. Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:06, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

(16) States rights. I see the national government as overwhelming state governments by taking away much of its regulatory authority with creative interpretations of the Commerce Clause which you should be well aware of. The IDEA of federalism is combining the benefits of small-state regulatory smarts under the umbrella of national protection. (according to Tocqueville & others). But unfortunately Washington has trounced state government authority in many issues (eg No Child Left Behind etc etc). Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:06, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

(17) Congressperson are in office for life, essentially, since re-election rates hover around 90% for those congresspersons seeking re-election. Once they get in office, they have huge unfair advantages based on (1) campaign funding (6 to 1 advantages according to some sources) (2) franking privileges (3) gerrymandering. Elections should be competitive. They aren't. In my view, this is one more instance in which Americans have stopped paying attention to politics, and I see this as a serious flaw with long term repercussions. I see Congress as out of touch with the people. I have a general problem with the "two-party system" which stifles debate, marginalizes fringe voices, and leads to a staleness of thinking (although there are pluses with the two-party system according to thinkers such as Patrick Allitt -- big benefit -> economic stability, hard to underrate.) Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:06, 20 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Basically America has gotten by because of historical advantages in terms of geography and natural resources, but I don't see this framework as being sufficiently competent to take it into the next century. It needs a new structure. It's time for a constitutional convention in my view. And my general overall problem with this article is that it makes people think that all is fine and dandy, but it isn't. Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:06, 20 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Evidence exists in contradiction to most of your points, and there is no scholarly consensus that the Constitution is irretrievably flawed, as any issue with the document can be corrected with amendation. However, Wikipedia policies prohibit detailed point-by-point discussions and debates on such matters on article talk pages.  That being said, I would dearly love to discuss this with you in detail, as I think we share a common interest in improving things as a whole.  Would you be amenable to adjourning this to my talk page?Professor Storyteller (talk) 00:36, 20 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Sure.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 02:42, 20 December 2010 (UTC) I'm wondering what your thoughts are about these topics.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:22, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this to my page! I'm very much looking forward to going through all of this with you - this sort of thing is one of my keen interests in the world - but today and tomorrow I will be heavily involved in holiday preparations and celebration. Would it be alright with you if it takes me until Sunday or Monday to get a good and proper response to your post in place?Professor Storyteller (talk) 18:57, 24 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Of course. Have a good holiday! --Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:14, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

No States' "Rights" in the Constitution
Looking at the US Bill of Rights, I note, in the US Constitution, there are no STATES rights, all the brilliant points to be found elsewhere in Calhoun's "Disquisition" notwithstanding.


 * the 9th Amendment says that enumeration of RIGHTS in the constitution will not "deny others retained by the people". that is, PEOPLE have rights.


 * the 10th Amendment says that POWERS [derived from the people] not delegated to the United States, and not prohibited to the states are delegated to the states or the people. Recall, all governments derive their just POWERS from the consent of the people governed ...


 * and, in Article VI of the US Constitution, there are enumerated prohibitions placed on the STATES:

"This Constitution, AND the Laws of the US ... AND all [US] Treaties ..., shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every STATE shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any STATE to the Contrary notwithstanding.

"The Senators and Representatives ..., and the Members of the several STATE Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the US and of the several STATES, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support THIS Constitution [as supreme to any other, foreign or domestic];


 * "but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." [versus restrictions still existing when We, the people, adopted our US Constitution as one people. Religious tests were used in several subordinate STATES, both for election and for suffrage, until the people living in each state chose otherwise.]

The people have rights, not the states. The people are sovereign, not derived creatures, aggregates, states, corporations, et al. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 03:48, 14 January 2011 (UTC)


 * What is your view about this? I agree with your interpretation of the current wording of the Constitution. Are you saying that only individual persons, or people, can have rights? That is, it doesn't make sense logically to say that a "state has rights"? Or are you saying that the Constitution does not specify that states have any particular rights, therefore states don't have rights, and therefore this is a good choice because the Constitutions is good? In my view, a federal arrangement, with one superentity (the Federal government) working with lesser entities (state governments) should work in the following way: the national government should provide defense primarily (and perhaps settle squabbles between the states); the state governments should regulate their own economies primarily. This arrangement combines the safety of size (making it less likely that individual states will be picked on by foreign powers) and the benefits of small-state regulatory smarts where decision-making is close to the people, where bad choices are more immediately felt, and where people can move across state borders if a particular state regulates badly, and in so doing, encouraging all states to regulate more wisely. This is how the U.S. should function in my view. But it doesn't. Washington has, in my view, usurped most tasks of economic regulation with creative interpretations of the Commerce Clause, and the result is corruption, lack of freedom, bloat. I argue that the Constitution should include states' rights.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:10, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

State citizenship
Please could you review the State citizenship update by exxess?

Thanks,

--Seablade (talk) 05:30, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Help with historian WP biography pages
I’m trying to develop a biography of an historian as though their life work were comparable to an architect’s. Since April 6, I’ve tried to improve the Pauline Maier biography page from where I found it, basically a bio lifted from one publisher’s author page and a link to their site.

As I expanded the article, I laid out my rationale on the discussion page. I requested an article review, and, well, it was tagged as resume-ish, self-serving, biased and promotional. All illustrations related to the historian’s work were deleted as “not belonging”. So, I have tried over this month to improve it.

Two thoughts. (1) To allow a biographic entry is to allow readers to see the subject’s work in article illustrations. In I.M. Pei's article, there is no attempt to 'balance' the architecture illustrated with that of Frank Lloyd Wright. Similarly with Isaac Newton, Claude Monet and Henry Ford. A "professor" professes something, which is, willy-nilly a point of view. Will WP community allow illustrations pointing to the places and subjects of books and lectures authored by the historian being treated?”

(2) I studied the WP bio pages of four comparable contemporaries to Maier. Two neo-Whig historians (Bernard Bailyn and Gordon S. Wood), and two neo-Progressive historians (Gary B. Nash and Howard Zinn). All also wrote some social history. None of these other articles are tagged with a banner, though the Zinn piece has a hidden note for unsubstantiated assertions. None puts the subject's work in a balanced context of historiography.

Would you take a look at the article and discussion page? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:34, 30 April 2011 (UTC)


 * (3) a goal of WP is to grow out of merely making lists to writing articles that can engage and inform the reader. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:09, 30 April 2011 (UTC)