Jump to content

Talk:United States/Archive 73

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 70Archive 71Archive 72Archive 73Archive 74Archive 75→Archive 80

America is a Continent, not a country

The only place on earth where America means a country is in the USA. For 95% of the global population, America is a Continent, just like Asia, Europa and Africa. There is no such thing as North, Central and South America, just like there is not North, Central and South Barak Obama. One person, one Continent. For a global publication like Wikipedia, it is unacceptable that this confusing naming carries on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.105.201.2 (talk) 21:09, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Not true. The term is however infrequently used in some countries in the Western hemisphere, such as Canada. TFD (talk) 21:20, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
"North, Central and South Barak Obama" - Since when was the President of the United States a country/continent? I'm not sure I like your comparison. Although I do personally think that Europe and Asia are clearly part of the same continent (and mostly on the Eurasian Plate with some exceptions in the Middle East, Siberia, and India). Dustin (talk) 21:26, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
Most geographers define two continents, North America and South America. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:27, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
Also, I don't see how you can see Africa, Asia, and Europe separately but North and South America together. I might understand if you see it as America and Afro-Eurasia, but otherwise, it seems to be an inconsistent standard. Dustin (talk) 21:37, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
Agreed. The inconsistency of the "one American continent" proponents on this point has always irked me. --Khajidha (talk) 17:36, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
From our own continent article: "The seven-continent model is usually taught in China, India, the Philippines, parts of Western Europe and most English-speaking countries, including Australia and England". That's a hefty chunk of the world, there. So there goes your "95% of the world" don't use this system. There are multiple continental systems in use around the world, no single one can be said to have universal appeal. Given that, this version of Wikipedia (the English one) uses the one most used in English speaking countries. If that does not match the system utilized in your language, please see the Continent article for a discussion of all the different systems. However, it is not proper for you to try to impose your language's norms on another language. --Khajidha (talk) 17:36, 9 June 2015 (UTC)


"America" is a short form of "United States of America", just like "United States" is. "America" referred to the hemisphere centuries ago but that use has since been supplanted by "the Americas". Today "America" overwhelmingly refers to the USA around the world, in both English (relevant for English Wikipedia) and non English speaking countries. This has been tested every which way to Sunday in past discussions. It's not even close. VictorD7 (talk) 17:56, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
While it may coexist with the seven-continent model, in multiple Spanish-speaking countries, the term "America" without "North" or "South" added can often refer to the entire landmass. I think your use of the term "overwhelmingly" is not true. What proof have you that this applies in non-English languages? I am not advocating a change, but what proof for non-English speaking countries? Dustin (talk) 03:17, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Read through this extensive discussion (including the two related sections above this one) if you wish on the America disambiguation talk page. Extensive evidence from every angle is presented, including variations of "America" in foreign languages referring to the USA, and English language news sites based (and often state run) in Russia, China, Japan, Iran, etc.. In Africa, Asia, and Europe it's not even close. Though the proposed redirect from "America" to the United States page was declined by the closing admin for bogus "sensitivity" to Latin America reasons, he acknowledged that the redirect supporters had logically proved their case, and my separate proposal to move the USA article link to the top of the America disambiguation page where it belongs, reflecting its primacy, gained consensus and was implemented. In the redirect discussion the closer concluded, "Among people outside the Anglosphere outside Latin America, those searching for "America" are more likely to be looking for information on the United States. In some areas of the world, they are far more likely to be looking for information on the United States. This was most prominently noted by the use of "America" in other languages to refer to the United States." That said, of course English is what matters on English Wikipedia.
Oh and I just noticed before posting that a redirect move finally gained consensus and was implemented almost a week ago. It's about time. VictorD7 (talk) 07:09, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Regional Languages

The chart "Regional languages" is inaccurate and illogical. The national language of the United States is English, and the footnote thoroughly explains the exceptions (no official language at the federal level; Hawaiian is official in Hawaii, several Native languages are official in Alaska, one or two official languages other than English are recognized in US territories). Spanish and French have special accommodation in certain states. There is no reason to introduce a wordy chart (spelled in British English) listing 10 languages, while conveniently leaving out quite a few others that fit this skewed concept. The chart is thoroughly POV, politicized original research that has no place in this WP article. Also, spellings used in any article titled "United States" are American, not British. The chart should be deleted.Mason.Jones (talk) 14:47, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

"illogical" "thoroughly POV" "politicized original research" C'mon, tell us how you really feel. I've done it above, I'll do it again here: It's vastly more helpful if you explain your issues with the article without insulting those who work on it. Even something so minor as "appears POV" is better than directly ascribing motives. There are reasons other than politics and lack of logic that something might appear in the article; history, compromise, even misplaced edits. Unlike what I refer to as 'above', however, you actually gave some good reason why it should be omitted. "regional language" does seem to have a specific meaning, usually used in Europe, so yes, perhaps we shouldn't use that infobox entry for this. However, I must question the particular vitriol with which you've attacked the spelling of the word "recognise", as if 1) we have any input on that (you need to take that up with the infobox people) and 2) that it has any substantive impact remotely equal to the text next to it. Half of your complaint seems to be about a single letter, which drowns the impact of the other half of your complaint. Finally, a note to all who come here: You really don't need to be so damn aggressive in your complaints. It's not like there's no one here paying attention to them. Be chill. Jeez. --Golbez (talk) 15:39, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

I said "tendentious POV", using standard WP terms -- and I would never use the word "damned" when replying to another WP editor. I attacked no one person in my comment, while you have been inordinately impolite and aggressive with me. The "United States" article suffers from constant additions that are POV-driven, and this chart is a textbook example. First, WP's "Regional Languages" template, once saved, contains the mystery word recognised. None of the languages in the chart are "recognized" except for the official languages named. The United States government does indeed accommodate other languages, but the chart infers much more than that (and it never defines "recognized," while leaving out a number of other languages that would fit that fuzzy nomenclature). I stand by my original comment; I used standard declarative sentences that insulted no one. Your reply comes much closer to insult.Mason.Jones (talk) 18:30, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

I do actually apologize, mainly because you're not new here so don't need to be told how things are, and we've had a lot of rude people wander by insulting us for working on this article. I still think you could do better with your complaints. --Golbez (talk) 21:03, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Comparing the source to the chart, the chart includes the eight languages with highest percentages; other languages omitted have less than a million speakers over five years of age. The aforementioned French and Spanish make the list, a listing of eight avoids clutter. No POV is apparent in the copyedit here. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:51, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Chinese, Tagalog, Korean and German all have more than a million speakers over age five in the United States, according to the ACS survey. Each of those languages has more speakers, and "higher percentages," than all the Native languages, and Chinese has more speakers than French. The other problem is the template "Regional languages", with its automatic key word "recognized". These languages are not recognized in any regional sense of "the South," "the Northeast", etc., but are sometimes accommodated by local governments. In the past, small charts in the info box have covered minority languages far better than this; they were deleted because they were bulky. This chart is not only bulky but based on a tendentious premise of a nation of "regional languages". The "Regional languages" chart does not apply to the United States and must be challenged.Mason.Jones (talk) 14:00, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

The section is titled, “Language” in the United States, not “native American dialects”, or “Official regional languages”. The chart is not of “regional languages”, but of “Languages spoken at home” in the US. The Chinese Exclusion Act is appealed. There is no national problem with more persons speaking Chinese at home than French. Louisiana is mostly uneffected, most of its immigrants are Latinos (4.7%) and Asians (1.6%) with a notable Vietnamese community (though Vietnamese immigrants total 1.2 million nationwide [1]).
Please, What is the “problem" with the Chinese language spoken at home in the United States? If you would like to see more French-speakers at home in the US, invite more French to Louisiana, Haitians to Florida and Congolese to Illinois. It seems there may be a personal concern in this request unrelated to the article describing the US as it currently exists. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:59, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Mason Jones is not talking about that list, which does not contain the word 'regional'; they're talking about the 'recognised regional languages' list that lately existed in the infobox until Mason Jones removed it. A list, incidentally, that included French and omitted Chinese. So, pro job accusing someone of racism for a completely wrong argument. Way to really miss the mark. --Golbez (talk) 13:40, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
I have not accused Mason.Jones of racism, I have not accused you of racism as you have previously misconstrued. Everyone who differs has not engaged in your name calling "vitriol" and "damn aggressive". You should stop obsessing on me and look to your own practice. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 17:44, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
You accused him of having a 'problem' with the Chinese language spoken at home in the US, and that there may be a 'personal concern' in his issue with the language table. How not racism then what exactly were you accusing him of? Nationalism? Languagism? Just like how you accuse people of wanting to disenfranchise "islanders" as if we have something against them. But by all means, hold your ground, you can't possibly be wrong. --Golbez (talk) 17:58, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
I just happened to be driving by and couldn't help but notice this last exchange. It strikes me that VGH and Golbez are both intelligent and articulate. I enjoy reading most of what you two write. However I note statements such as these: "you should stop obsessing..." and "...by all means hold your ground, you can't possibly be wrong." In my view, these statements are directed at the person rather than the content. Would you be willing try to omit such statements in future? Sunray (talk) 21:53, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I should work to avoid personal statements such as "i loathe you" [2]. I object to native-born American islanders being omitted from the lede US country article; I do not ascribe motives to opponents, but I attack the racist Insular Cases for what they are, --- Congress has since overcome them by enfranchising islanders with elective self-governance within the US constitutional system.
I missed the bold revert of an info box chart which perhaps deserved repositioning to Languages of the United States and mistook the Talk page critique to be of the language chart remaining. My mistake, only the defense of the “Languages spoken” chart stands, I agree with Mason.Jones and Golbez on the removal of the info box “Regional languages" chart. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:10, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
For you, Sunray? Yes. --Golbez (talk) 22:40, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
With regard to the concern I expressed, I'm more interested in the present onwards, than the past :) Sunray (talk) 22:35, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

RFC on Wall Street Journal inequality graphic

There is consensus against including the graphic in this article as it has been deemed to have too narrow a focus for this broad article. It may be suitable in another, more focused, article. Sam Walton (talk) 17:43, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should the Wall Street Journal graphic at [3] be adapted for inclusion in the article? 02:57, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

I suggest adding "purported" to the RfC sentence above. I.E.: "Should the purported Wall Street Journal graphic..." Capitalismojo (talk) 15:43, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
From the wikipeida article on Zerohedge: "The site was described by CNNMoney as offering a "deeply conspiratorial, anti-establishment and pessimistic view of the world".[6]" Addition of material from this source would move us to a standard of editing that impressively bad. Capitalismojo (talk) 15:51, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
It is not a Zerohedge graphic, I just linked to their copy of it. Wall Street Journal original; Google the title to get past the paywall. EllenCT (talk) 15:43, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes Important an very unique aspect of the U.S. From the WSJ, clearly WP:RS.Casprings (talk) 06:21, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Pretty much yes. I'm wondering. If it can be verified, then certainly yes. But can it be verified? The graphic is certainly popular, being multiply tweeted. You'll see it for example here, within the (non-Twitter) website of Dean Karlan (Yale) and Jonathan Morduch (NYU), two distinctly non-negligible bloggers (see this page for detail). The caption to it there reads in parts: The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development released a new report on income inequality on [sic] today (what's the title of the report?), and See the figure below from the WSJ (where in the WSJ?). -- Hoary (talk) 00:22, 7 July 2015 (UTC) ....PS I didn't read the 2 July message above by EllenCT. Quote: Wall Street Journal original; Google the title to get past the paywall. Yes, this works. The only minor quibble is the dependence on WSJ for material that should anyway be in the OECD report. Although of course it might be an "original synthesis" by the WSJ: we can't synthesize, but we can cite others who do. And certainly the graphic says something important about the US, and in a striking way. -- Hoary (talk) 01:04, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Absolutely not. This is a niche topic that should be covered in detail in other, more appropriate articles. Elevating this cherry-picked factoid to the status of a visual image in this one would violate WP:NOTSOAPBOX policy. As the article states, income inequality is a matter of ongoing dispute, with plenty of notable experts on the other side, and selecting one narrow talking point (sans context) from one side of the debate to be the section's image is blatant POV pushing. On another article we might have room for that chart, along with ones showing both extremely high US mean and median incomes versus other developed nations, and charts on other topics, but here there isn't room, especially with widespread complaints from editors that we already have way too many pictures. I'll add that starting RFCs along the lines of "should x be added?", devoid of any context or discussion on page layout, article scope, or other concerns, with the effect of roping well meaning editors, who may not have edited the article before or be familiar with the issues involved, into popping in and saying "yes" because they don't immediately see anything wrong with the sources and/or don't feel strongly about it one way or the other is a terrible way to build an article. VictorD7 (talk) 22:58, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
  • No First, it's a poor choice for a graphic and second, income inequality along with other social and political commentary are out of proportion here already. I'm thinking we need to have another article call Social issues in the U.S. to handle all of this.Phmoreno (talk) 23:14, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes, include it I'm not sure why anyone would even be asking this question. It's obvious that the graph should be included, there are no good reasons not to. Remember: Wikipedia is supposed to be encyclopedic, more information is better provided it is well sourced and referenced. People seeking research materials for school projects and such expect to find information on Wikipedia, they should be afforded as much information as is serious and legitimate. Damotclese (talk) 15:40, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Good reasons have been provided by multiple editors. Do you realize that there are factors other than simply being "sourced" when deciding whether something is appropriate for a particular article? Would you also support the inclusion of charts showing median income relative to those four selected nations (plus the OECD or EU average)? And average income? And per capita GDP? How about a graphic showing all the amenities American "poor" people have that typical readers wouldn't associate with being poor (talk about educational)? How about a comparative graphic of the huge home size disparity, visually capturing how much larger Americans' houses are than Europeans'? There are countless potential images available, but they won't fit. Have you taken time to look at the section in question? The discussion isn't merely whether something is "sourced", but whether it's the best choice to represent the section, and a one sided niche topic talking point being selected is blatant POV soapboxing and a violation of policy. That's a very good reason not to use the image here. Now on another article more focused on this topic it might be a different story. VictorD7 (talk) 18:48, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I realize that there are factors other than simply being "sourced" when deciding whether something is appropriate for a particular article. Income is of interest, but has to be seen in terms of expenses. If a one sided niche topic talking point were selected, this might indeed be blatant POV soapboxing and a violation of policy. This particular "niche topic talking point" is attributed to the OECD and comes to us via the Wall Street Journal; is the latter notorious for attacks on inequality, the US, or inequality in the US? -- Hoary (talk) 10:24, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
  • How is this not a one sided niche topic talking point? You fell back to talking about sourcing. Both the OECD and WSJ (whose news section actually leans slightly left, not that its pertinent here) cover all sorts of facts and different points of view. Most or all of the things I listed in my last post could also be sourced to one or both of them. And income in particular (which the OECD adjusts for factors like expenses) is far more relevant than equality. If we only look at equality countries like North Korea and Poland are "better" off than Americans, which no honest person believes. What matters most are how people are doing in absolute, not relative terms. Better to avoid this political dispute here because there isn't room to do it justice. There is room on other, more topically dedicated articles. VictorD7 (talk) 00:07, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

There are five main articles dealing with income under the section header. That means there is too much content in this section already.Phmoreno (talk) 21:33, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Query about sources for United States RfC

[With respect to the above reference to Verifiability]

It is true, at wp:psts, tertiary sources are discouraged, primary sources are cautioned, and secondary sources are preferred. Should scholars be mentioned in the note? There are six reliable sources in US and Canadian publications supporting territories as “included”, “officially a part of”, in the “US federal system”, “encompasses”, “composed of”, and “a part of” the US.

We avoided use of misleading tertiary sources (almanacs, encyclopedias) discouraged as a matter of policy at wp:psts. I thought that the style manual suggested 1-3 references, and the consensus had agreed to three USG sources. Can USG primary sources be misread as original research? I thought a legitimate government recognized in the family of nations might be allowed to speak to its geographic extent on its own behalf in the country article. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 06:37, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't think that we can make the blanket assumption that USG sources are not to be used. As you say, secondary sources are preferred. However, in some cases, secondary sources may not be available. Primary sources are acceptable in these situations, provided that original research is not used to interpret those sources. Sunray (talk) 16:08, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
More to the point, the Government reports (as opposed to the statutes) are not primary, they are based on other sources - with the authors making evaluative statements. Alanscottwalker (talk) 02:53, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Generally one would accept a country's statement about its geography, although even then there is a hierarchy of reliability. A report to the UN about the territories under U.S. administration for example would be more reliable than a report to the UN about human rights in the U.S. But generally these are primary or tertiary sources and should only be used for non-controversial information. If we were to follow the principle that each country can speak for its own boundaries, then we would create inconsistencies. Both North and South Korea for example claim the entire peninsula. In this article, Navassa and Wake islands are disputed. There are also minor boundary disputes with Canada. TFD (talk) 16:43, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Er, yes, every country can speak to its own boundaries. That doesn't mean they are legitimate or controlled, but yes, the only entity that can define what the United States thinks the United States is is the United States. (best. sentence. ever.) We simply have to remark when those boundaries conflict with someone else's. --Golbez (talk) 17:24, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
This is a minor consideration for limited areas without population that can be addressed in the body of the article. For the introduction, if we avoid issues of international territorial law altogether using United States Minor Outlying Islands#Islands, we get the two alternate notes above; I can live with either of them dropping the enumeration of the eleven Minor Outlying Islands, preferring Alternate A enumeration of DC and five major territories over Alternate B with no enumeration at all.
As in the South Korea article treatment of both Koreas claim over the entire peninsula, in the Foreign relations section of the United States article, we can mention the disputed areas with Canada, Columbia, Jamaica, Marshall Islands. etc. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 18:46, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Of course we can report what nations claim, just as we can confirm what any person claims, but if there is conflict between what a nation claims and what reliable secondary sources say, then we report the consensus in reliable secondary sources as factual. Generally however when there are boundary disputes, there is no consensus favoring one side. The U.S. boundary disputes however are so trivial that omitting them would not harm the article. TFD (talk) 19:34, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

I just came here to object to the thinly-veiled argument here that American Jurisprudence is both misleading and a tertiary source. It is a secondary source for this purpose (the entry is based entirely on primary sources). It is also not misleading. It is actually quite clear, and encompasses the legal position of the territories within US law: That it depends upon context. We can do all the argument we want by digging through the US Code to find answers that illustrate either side: That's still original research, and claiming that those individual instances mean anything for the US as a whole constitutes unpublished synthesis. American Jurisprudence answers the question. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 22:59, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

The context is the geographic sense of the term "United States", as explained in scholarly sources and by the US government itself in direct quotes, without any original research on the part of WP editors. The context is an online encyclopedia for the general reader in an international setting. Narrow case law related to Commerce Clause context, etc., is irrelevant.
The legal specialty encyclopedia "American Jurisprudence Encyclopedia" apparently does not address the "geographical sense" of the term, "United States". The Mediation note reflects four uses of geographic scope in the term "United States" in various US regulation and law contexts; does American Jurisprudence offer others? It may be too obscure for the purpose of a country article lede sentence. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:43, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Am Jur., answers what question? - Moreover, just pointing to multi-entry, 140 volume, Am Jur. as if to say, 'look, somewhere there' is not actually useful. And as others have noted, directly quoting 4 statutes is definitely not synthesis - it's the opposite of synthesis. There is simply no use in using any description that does not encompass the whole subject. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:34, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
It is OR to quote 4 definitional sections of U.S. statutes, meanwhile ignoring many others, and deciding which of these conflicting definitions should be used. These sections also define D.C. and other places as "states", yet no one advocates we claim there are more than 50 states. TFD (talk) 02:34, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Concur with Mendaliv and TFD as having the better argument. As TFD points out, such selective quoting is clearly synthesis and a violation of WP:NOR. It is one thing to say statute X says A, or even that court opinion Y has interpreted text A from statute X as implying rule B. It is another thing altogether to say statute X says A, statute Y says B, and statute Z says C, and therefore, D is true. That last jump from A, B, and C to D is OR.
I also concur with Mendaliv on the position that quoting random statutes from different contexts within the U.S. Code makes no sense. It takes three years of law school, the study of thousands of published cases interpreting federal statutory provisions, and actual real-world experience litigating cases that turn on federal statutes, to begin to get a grip on how to properly read the U.S. Code. --Coolcaesar (talk) 06:39, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
1) There is nothing random in four definitions of “United States” using Homeland Security, FEMA, Immigration and IRS. References cited encompass national jurisdiction, homeland security, environment, energy and transportation, education, social security, F.I.C.A., customs and immigration.
2) Are there any others than the four variations provided among the thousands of federal statutes? Apparently not, or those consulting the American Jurisprudence Encyclopedia would share them as additional sources and they would be added to the note. That there may be more than four does not mean that four should not be represented as examples demonstrating that there is more than one.
3) There is no “jump" to a conclusion D including territories. Including native-born Americans in the insular territories is sourced to scholarly reliable publications in the US and Canada, and direct quotes from the US government. There are over thirty direct quotes including the territories. If there were other reliable sources bearing on the US geographic extent, editors would share them, and we might weigh the preponderance of evidence differently than the Mediation has done. The subject is geographic extent. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 10:12, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
What "D is true" are talking about? The jurisdiction of statutes and regs vary, that's factually the way it is - If your argument is that we must choose the narrow jurisdiction, or even the narrowest, over the broad jurisdiction, than apparently it is your contention that choosing the narrow/narrowest is synthesis - so we cannot do that either, according to your argument. To the extent the statutes and regs establish narrower jurisdiction, they also establish broader jurisdiction. But choosing the narrow does not cover the entire encyclopedic subject. That's the context we are in. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:29, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Just to recap, in the context of the “constitutional structure and the political and legal framework” of the United States, the direct quote sourced from the USG to the United Nations in the Core Report is, "The United States of America is a federal republic of 50 states, together with a number of commonwealths, territories and possessions.” (22) [4]. @Coolcaesar: State Department lawyers have “actual real-world experience" in the geographic extent of the US, don’t they? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 04:07, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

U.S, lawyers argued in the Court of Appeal that the territories are not "in the United States" and won the decision last month.[5] TFD (talk) 11:42, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

This ambiguity is conceded before by scholar Haider-Markel [6]. While "officially a part of the US territory", insular territories are judicially "unincorporated" constitutionally. In this case, the Citizenship Clause for the limited purpose of case law related to "imposing citizenship by judicial fiat” for American Samoa. Insular citizenship is to be conferred by Congress. As in the Mediation discussion, this line of sourcing is irrelevant.
The discussion here is on the geographic extent of the US for the general reader in an international context. American Samoans (1% of the insular population) are native-born Americans, US nationals of the soil, with permanent allegiance to the United States in self-governance as a part of the US "constitutional structure and the political and legal framework” of the United States. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 15:43, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Right. Most scholars think the territories are not part of the U.S., some scholars think they are, others that it is ambiguous, i.e., open to both interpretations. In an international context of course American Samoa is administered by the U.S. Also, international law recognizes only nationality, not citizenship, and therefore there is no distinction between a citizen national or non-citizen national. TFD (talk) 16:21, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Right. That is the main point of the Mediation proposal, there is no practical difference between citizen national or non-citizen national, whether constitutionally derived or whether legislated by Congress, as the insular populations status is. Both are “supreme law of the land” as provided in the Supremacy Clause. Arcane considerations of narrow constitutional case law aside, all “native-born” Americans of the insular territories [7] should be included in the United States "geographical sense” (Executive Order p.39 [8]. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 18:41, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
The executive order, "Strengthening Federal Environmental, Energy, and Transportation Management," does not say the five inhabited territories are part of the U.S. but that they are included in the definition "as used in this order." Ironically the order excludes the uninhabited territories which you claim are also part of the U.S. Your point was that the application of the constitution to income tax, citizenship law and jury trials was too trivial to determine whether a territory is part of the U.S., but an order to civil servants to go green is decisive. TFD (talk) 21:06, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
What is decisive is the purpose of the narrative under discussion, which is for a country article lede sentence aimed at the general reader in an international context which includes the geographic extent; the purpose is not for an abstruse constitutional treatise of internal political arrangements.
Wow. You already know that in the civil code of Louisiana and the territories jury trial does not apply, but jury trial does obtain under their criminal codes. It does not matter from an international perspective whether the internal federal arrangement of the US is based on supreme law of the land by Constitution or by Congress.
Most scholars concerned with internal US tariffs as a constitutional matter irrelevant to geographic extent say the territories are not a part of the US for their limited purpose. Most scholars concerned with the geographic extent of the US in an international context include the territories and possessions as claimed by the USG for itself. The context is definitive. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 05:41, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
The right to a jury trial in Louisiana was confirmed by the Supreme Court in Duncan v. Louisiana (1968). The absence of the right in territories that are not part of the U.S. was confirmed in Balzac v. Porto Rico (1922). "In a geographic sense" merely means that the defintion is limited to a specific act or agreement. The U.S. code is inconsistent in its definition of the U.S., which is why every law has its own definitions section. So American Samoa for example is part of the U.S. "in a geographic sense" in the Homeland Security Act, but not the Immigration and Naturalization Act. Puerto Rico is part of the U.S, in the INA, but not the tax law. Canal Zone was part of the U.S. for Veterans' affairs but not INA. The source you use (Sparrow) says that the government is mistaken and all the territories are part of the U.S. regardless of what the code says. TFD (talk) 06:05, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
So, when we look at over thirty reliable sources in a Mediation for six months, the preponderance of evidence and scholarship in US and Canadian publications shows that the modern territories and possessions are included in the geographic extent of the US, regardless of internal constitutional considerations which effectively provide for citizenship or criminal case jury trials in the territories. No one denies there are jury trials in the territories [9]. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 15:45, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Off topic: Need to focus on content, not the contributor
Your understanding of American law is so incoherent that I do not have time to fully unpack the five to seven ways it does not make sense. For example, it's clear that you've never performed a moderately complex research task involving judicial interpretation of multiple related sections of the United States Code and the Code of Federal Regulations in hard copy only with a mix of primary and secondary sources, a standard first-year exercise at most top-tier law schools. That is how most attorneys learn to distinguish between the unique quirks of CJS, Am Jur, and the various specialized state-specific treatises like Rutter Group for California.
Another issue is that you are overly reliant on online sources on the public Web, which as any competent practicing attorney knows, are severely incomplete because the vast majority of high-quality research sources for American law are protected under copyright by publishers who are aggressive in defending copyrights. Those sources can only be accessed online via LexisNexis, Westlaw, or Wolters Kluwer IntelliConnect. Please visit a law library and read some basic textbooks on American law to understand the big picture. ---Coolcaesar (talk) 19:56, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
@Coolcaesar: You state: "Your understanding of American law is so incoherent..." Comments about VGH's understanding or competence are not useful here. I see this as a violation of WP:NPA. I'm putting it into a collapse box for now. Would you be willing to a) withdraw the comment, b) provide examples of where the references are, in your opinion, inadequate, and c) make some concrete suggestions for improvement? Sunray (talk) 01:47, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
It has been repeatedly pointed out to TheVirginiaHistorian by TFD and Mendaliv that cherrypicking sections in isolation is inappropriate. It also amounts to synthesis in violation of WP:NOR. The only way to explain why TheVirginiaHistorian's understanding is wrong is to write a 35-page essay on how to read the United States Code and I don't have eight hours to play private tutor to a stranger. Or TheVirginiaHistorian can go to a law library and read some basic textbooks on statutory interpretation. --Coolcaesar (talk) 07:33, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

1) Let’s write for the general reader in an international context using direct quotes from wp:reliable sources, rather than generating abstruse legal treatises derived off-handedly from casual nods to tertiary Am Jur without citations. As we learn in the CJS article, "rather than being used as sources of authoritative statements of law, legal encyclopedias will be more often used as tools for finding relevant case law.” We address the geographic extent of the US here, where do CJS and Am Jur point us?

2) But look, legal scholars have done legal research besides the point on constitutional grounds. By your argument, if both professors Lawson and Sloane can agree in the Boston College Law Review that Puerto Rico is politically “incorporated” into the United States "as modern jurisprudence understands that term of art" (p.1175 [10]), how are we to quarrel with them without first achieving the same eminence in the published world of constitutional scholarship? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:45, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Again, this makes no sense. To paraphrase Marbury v. Madison, we must never forget that we are expounding an encyclopedia. The issue is that you are engaging in improper synthesis in violation of WP:NOR. You are improperly synthesizing assertions from primary sources for which secondary or tertiary sources are more appropriate.
The word "abstruse" is a very poor word choice for describing Am Jur and CJS and raises the question of whether you have actually read them. Most attorneys consult those works because of their lucidity and reliability which makes it easier, not harder, to understand the law. Egregious mischaracterizations of the nature of reliable sources do not improve the persuasiveness of your position.
Finally, as has been pointed out to you before, you keep engaging in selective cherrypicking of sources. What is available on the public Web is only a fraction of the copyrighted content available only on the deep Web. There are thousands of articles under copyright that have not been released to the public Web. --Coolcaesar (talk) 07:33, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Exactly, the deep web is abstruse, that is, obscure, arcane, esoteric. Esoteric is intended by only a small number of people with a specialized knowledge. Let’s keep in mind we are writing for an encyclopedia for the general reader. There is no selective cherry picking of sources by the Mediation consensus, unless it is the lone misconstruing case law with narrow application byTFD as though it applied to the geographic extent of the US as reported by the USG to the UN in its Core Report. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 18:37, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

1) What to think of the casual unsourced references to CJS and Am Jur? As we learn in the CJS article, "rather than being used as sources of authoritative statements of law, legal encyclopedias will be more often used as tools for finding relevant case law.”

2) The Am Jur article sends us to Secondary authority, where we learn, "Although secondary authorities are sometimes used in legal research ..., secondary authorities are generally afforded less weight than the actual texts of primary authority.”

3) It seems that the consensus of editors at WP is to use the CJS and Am Jur to point to relevant case law, in this instance, the geographic extent of the US. The four statutes cited are “the actual primary authority” for US extent to show four iterations. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:09, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Whether or not individual territories choose to allow jury trials, there is no constitutionally protected right, according to reliable sources. In King v. Morton (1976) for example the U.S. Court of Appeal decided that the 6th amendment does not apply to American Samoa because it is not part of the U.S. I appreciate that Lawson and others have argued that the courts are wrong, but I see no reason to ignore the consensus of legal experts. TFD (talk) 16:34, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
1) Lawson and Sloane do not say courts are wrong, they explain the statutory progression of Congressional action which is a paradigm for territorial “incorporation” of the territories, a view of the Federal District Court unchallenged for seven years, Puerto Rico is “in fact” politically incorporated (p.26 [11]). No legal experts claims the US territories are external to the US, only that there are some limited cases where few provisions of the Constitution for states do not apply to territories.
2) The case you cite from 1977 brought about federally mandated jury trials [12], though the jurist declared in his opinion, “I express no opinion as to the specific type of jury trial required." William O. Jenkins in a GAO 2009 report on "American Samoa: Issues associated with some court opinions” (p.22 [13]) notes “American Samoa code provides that a person charged with an offense carrying a maximum punishment of over 6 months of imprisonment shall be tried by a jury … the petit jury shall be comprised of six persons, the jury must be unanimous …"
3) It is bad research practice to cherry pick from conditions which arose in case law, now superseded, regarding 1% of US insular population in 1977 and draw general conclusions for the modern territories. In this case, original research has led to a conclusion which is at variance with the law and legal practice in American Samoa and the territories today.
Your expressed concern about the variability of the US federal system is addressed in the Mediation note for the IRS noting that “United States” is for that limited venue, 50 states and DC. “United States” is also defined variously including 50 states, DC, territories and possessions as specifically cited in original sources from direct quotes, supported by experts published in the US and Canada. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 06:49, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
Lawson and Sloane quote the United States-Puerto Rico Political Status Act, H.R. 856, 105th Cong. § 2(4)(1998), "The Commonwealth [of Puerto Rico] remains an unincorporated territory...." They also mention case law that determines PR is unincorporated. TFD (talk) 14:43, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
1) Very well, Lawson and Sloane note the judicial “unincorporation” of territories which prohibits certain provisions of the Constitution for the states to the territories, such as Presidential Electors and the Commerce Clause,— UNTIL Congress extends them in the case of citizenship and elective self-governance, or the Courts extend them in the case of jury trial (and once the Constitution is switched on it cannot be switched off).
2) Their point is that the political branch of Congress has politically “incorporated” Puerto Rico as referenced in a direct quote, — and Federal District Court has noted Congress sequentially “in fact” politically incorporated the territory, despite the “unincorporated” status assigned by judicial fiat. So insular populations now have a right to vote and a right to jury trial within the US federal system that the Court once withheld a century ago.
3) But otherwise you agree the WP articles related to Am Jur and CJS are good, so you agree with the reliance in the Mediation note using primary documents to explain the various usage of "United States" geographic extent for the general reader, right? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:00, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
No, they claim that the entire constitution, including the Commerce Clause, applies to the territories, all of them, including Guantanamo Bay. Obviously the presidential electors does not apply because it only applies to states and has never applied to incorporated territories of the U.S. The only exception is that Congress gave D.C. three electoral votes. But the official position is that the territories are not part of the U.S. and therefore the full constitution does not apply.
Why do you think the Commerce Clause does not apply to the entire U.S.?
TFD (talk) 07:16, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

1) I see no substantive objection on the merits to the Mediation proposal footnote. The Commerce Clause does not apply by the Insular Cases a hundred years ago for the purpose of instituting an internal tariff on sugar against insular territory sources. That is the express and limited purpose that the territories are not “a part of the United States” in case law. Scholars note that the racist Court of Jim Crow invented the term “unincorporated” by judicial fiat to allow imperial governance of indigenous peoples without the protections of the Constitution except as future Congresses might allow.

2) Over the most recent fifty years, that administration of military governors, presidentially appointed territorial legislators and military courts has been superseded by Congress and the Courts, to include self-determination citizenship, elective self-governance, federal courts, jury trial, etc. The Commerce Clause has not been extended.

3) But the extensions that have been made place the insular territories “within” the constitutional and political framework of the US federal system according to experts in the geographic extent of the US. Both the Constitution and Acts of Congress are Article V “supreme law of the land” establishing rights of citizenship, jury trial, etc. beyond the Constitution’s “fundamental rights” applicable to US administration anywhere in the world, including Guantanamo, Cuba. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 22:06, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm not a legal or constitutional scholar, nor do I have any particular desire to be, and I suspect the same could be said of the overwhelming majority of our readers. As others rightly noted earlier, we should approach things in way that's consistent with an encyclopedia intended for general readership rather than one intended for specialists, and I'm afraid I just don't see that the increasing detailed wrangling and analyses of legal interpretations of constitutional clauses and case law – which is what debate seems to be veering toward, and where some objections seem to be rooted – is the best way to advance that purpose. ╠╣uw [talk] 13:43, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:United_States/Archive_73&oldid=1137286076"