This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 85 | ← | Archive 90 | Archive 91 | Archive 92 | Archive 93 | Archive 94 | Archive 95 |
The United States should be accepted as the Wealthiest country in the world, the links given provide evidence for this. Redom115 ( talk) 03:48, 28 August 2017 (UTC)Redom 115 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Redom115 ( talk • contribs) 03:21, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
I think it provides additional information and extra emphasis because possessing the most wealth does indeed indicate the country is the wealthiest. Also the links state that it is the richest nation. Redom115 ( talk) 16:10, 29 August 2017 (UTC) I agree. As a Greek immigrant in Turkey who admires America, I can say that along with Turkey, America can put its place as the most wealthy nation on earth. Turkey was in the 1600s and now America is. Two Great Nations. I hope Turkey is secular again to regain Americas friendship. Its bad enough Turkey is involving itself in american politics like america did in the 80s to us. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Georgepodros ( talk • contribs) 11:17, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
What on earth are you talking about Mason.Jones, the links themselves state what I edited? Are you just blind or stubborn. Wikipedia is supposed to be about accuracy but instead all you want to do is to make as inaccurate as possible. How is it nonsense when it is true? Perhaps you are the one that is spouting nonsense. Redom115 ( talk) 09:14, 30 August 2017
First of all, back then I was new to Wikipedia. Second of all, what does that have to do with anything. I simply edited something that links themselves already told. Do you even read what I am saying? Redom115 ( talk) 11:15, 30 August 2017
The United States has the most wealth in the world, not to mention if you look at its financial position, it should be regarded as such. Also if you look at economy subcategory, it uses the same link that says the US is the Wealthiest Country in the world Redom115 ( talk • contribs) 3:31, 09 September 2017 (UTC)
If you look at the wikipedia page of National Wealth it is the value of all natural resources, corporations, total stock market value etc. it is exactly all those things you just mentioned, so the US should be recognised as the wealthiest country in the world. It is the value of all types of assets and capital. It is not off-topic, it is entirely true. Redom115 ( talk • contribs) 09:15, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
How did I repeat what you said, the wealth held by private citizens is the national wealth, it is sum of all assets minus all the banalities. What's unfortunate is that you cannot see to understand what National Wealth actually means? Redom115 ( talk • contribs) 01:14, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
How is it biased when it is true, and the links themselves support this? Wikipedia is supposed to be all about accuracy. Redom115 ( talk • contribs) 01:14, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
Mason Jones: Don't mean to get off topic here but was the cultural prominence removed from the article? Certainly our cultural influence is not declining and has nothing to do with the economic aspect. And I'm aware that our foot print on the world is shrinking, and that Trump is doing everything in his power to hasten our decline... but officially it hasn't ended yet. So what's your hurry to insinuate that aspect? Aren't you being just as irrational as remdom115? NocturnalDef ( talk) 17:18, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
But the USD is still the world's reverse currency? If we no longer support the world's economic backbone, then wouldn't we have lost that currency status unequivocally? NocturnalDef ( talk) 21:24, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
And I believe your assessment on removing our cultural prominence is relevant as you agreed in solidarity with the other qualified editors. Is that not a contribution in itself to that particular edit? Seems to me that the lot of you have personal feelings towards America's role in the world to downplay it so prematurely, not to say that my personal feelings aren't the contrary because I would rather admit to having felt pride in global leadership than pretend not to in order to appear unbiased. NocturnalDef ( talk) 21:33, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
Well in that case Mason, how would one get access to edit this article? Because personally, I feel the need to fill in the void if that would be applicable? NocturnalDef ( talk) 21:23, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
The "last polity admitted" should be Hawaii. Northern Mariana Islands, as an "unincorporated territory," is not legally part of the U.S. -- SchutteGod (not logged in) 70.181.168.53 ( talk) 20:12, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
Among editors of these pages, some assert a flawed understanding of the requirements of U.S. citizenship which is based on the proposition that all men created equal, whether you like its embracing nationalism or not, whether you concede the desirability of that nation state's existence or not. There are those who do not.
A corollary is the position that islanders cannot allowed to be U.S. citizens and included in the geographical extent of that nation for the purposes of this article, even when they have been so included for half a century in the United States by law, customary practice and rulings by the highest courts of the land. This is bad research methodology, denying developments of the United States government among its inhabitants over the last century.
Editors here spent two years asserting the POV denying inclusion of brown and black skinned U.S. citizens and their territories within the geographical extent of the United States. Without any relevant scholarship to support their point of view, they failed to exclude them from this article on the United States. TheVirginiaHistorian ( talk) 07:57, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
There is no "blatant synthesis and original research" to say that the U.S. Government is competent to specify its geographical extent as sourced, that its territorial inhabitants can be U.S. citizens, with human rights and self determination within republican forms of government under the U.S. Constitution. It has prevailed — now for fifty years, as reliably sourced. Deniers are not racists, but they do not recognize that a nation state can evolve in its conception and implementation of citizenship over the course of a century — to tend towards greater human rights and self determination for minority populations within its geographic extent.
I will not retract my statement that those are not racist who merely adopt a flawed methodology ignoring fifty years of political practice in the U.S. territories. The methodology is not racist, they are not racist. Though there may be editors who are misguided in a bad methodology, it takes more to be a racist than merely ignoring a century of continuing progress among minority populations towards increasing human rights and self determination in U.S. political history. Passively recounting racist judgments of 1917 without taking into account conditions in 2017 is not racism in 2017, it is bad methodology.
For racism to be apparent, there must be an active assertion of racial superiority or inferiority. The one hundred year-old Supreme Court cases asserted an inferiority among islanders — and that was tentatively put forward as U.S. Government policy only until Congress might determine otherwise. And the U.S. Congress has now since mid-20th century, determined otherwise in sustained legislation for half a century, a determination of islander native and naturalized U.S. citizenship along with their own elective governors and legislatures, now upheld by the federal courts — as reliably sourced.
Golbez and TFD have not asserted racial superiority nor inferiority for anyone, so they have not been racist. There is no cause for them to take offense to civil discussion of misguided methodology ignoring a century of political evolution and fifty years of political practice increasing human rights and self determination for islanders in territories within the existing U.S. geographic extent. Unsourced characterizations of reasoned arguments supported with reliable sources as "blatant synthesis and original research" or "inflammatory" is not conducive to civil discussion of the geographical extent of the United States. TheVirginiaHistorian ( talk) 07:45, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
I would challenge the consensus, but not before issues with certain editors, vis a vis bad faith, morally shaming other editors, etc., are resolved. Can we please do something about this distraction? -- SchutteGod ( talk) 20:18, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
I am accused of calling some unnamed individual a racist, at the time and subsequently I have explained that I did not intend that construction of my characterization of some opponents of the past three years to be deniers of U.S. citizenship among the inhabitants of all five major territories that are in the geographical extent of the United States. I have repeatedly posted how bad methodology ignoring fifty years of U.S. history with the five major territories is not racist, --- and reading or sourcing racist Supreme Court cases of one hundred years ago does not make one a racist.
The discussion of the Constitutional status of the territories is always fraught because the territories that are within the geographical extent of the United States are not judicially "incorporated" for limited purposes of domestic U.S. law, and that doctrine was promulgated in decisions that scholars such as Sanford Levinson have determined to be racist. TFD in this Talk section misrepresented the consensus as reversing Supreme Court doctrine, assuming domestically "unincorporated" territories were held at WP as "incorporated". They are not, the evidence adopted by the consensus showed something else again, that the geographic extent of the United States internationally included the five major territories and their populations, see Common Core Document of the United States of America, Report to the UN Committee on Human Rights, December 30, 2011, sec. 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87. The territories are "foreign in a domestic sense" and "domestic in a foreign sense".
As I understand editors now confronting me, since my explanation that I had no intent of calling anyone a racist was not accepted by editors, I was asked to apologize. I apologized for any statement that might be taken as shaming any editor as racist. That apology was not found sufficient, so now at the request of TFD and Mark Miller, the identified passage is removed here at Talk. Again, I am sorry if I have made any mischaracterization of any editors over the past three years, and I deeply regret causing any disruption to these pages at the present time. TheVirginiaHistorian ( talk) 05:03, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
So now all can agree, The Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI) should be characterized in the United States article info box as the “Last polity admitted”, given the sources available at Common Core Document of the United States of America, Report to the UN Committee on Human Rights, December 30, 2011, sec. 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87; and p. 8, U.S. Insular Areas, Application of the U.S. Constitution, November 1997 -- and given there are no applicable counter sources obtained to support any question of the legitimacy of the covenant of political union between CNMI and the US making natives of the CNMI "citizens of the soil" within the United States geographical extent. TheVirginiaHistorian ( talk) 16:16, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
@ The Four Deuces: Be so kind as to point editors to the page in the GAO report, U.S. Insular Areas, Application of the U.S. Constitution, where they can read where it — referring to the U.S. territories — "specifically excludes them from being part of the United States” as you posted. I have conducted a term search, and so far, I cannot find the term “part of” used there in such a way.
Rather on page 24, it says "The Insular Cases use the term 'incorporated' to distinguish ... from 'unincorporated' territories” as a judicial distinction regarding constitutional rights --- not geographical extent --- And on page 45, we have "The Court held that the Uniformity Clause of the Constitution, at Article I, § 8, did not apply to unincorporated territories and, therefore, that different duties [taxes on their sugar, etc.] could be applied.”
"Different duties" under U.S. jurisdiction is not the same as geographical extent of the United States. If you cannot find where there is an explicit denial that U.S. territories are "a part of the United States” in its geographical extent on some referenced page, please remove your post that otherwise misrepresents the source, as a matter of wp: good faith on your part. Thank you in advance for your attention to this matter. TheVirginiaHistorian ( talk) 08:45, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
You would overthrow a WP consensus built over three years with a fabrication that one of twenty sources supporting U.S. territory inclusion within the geographical extent of the United States, does “specifically" deny that the U.S. territories are "a part" of the U.S. But it does not, and you cannot show where it does, though you have been challenged to do so. U.S. territories are self-governing within U.S. territory under the federal U.S. Constitution by U.S. citizens, as reliably sourced.
As you have read before in the GAO report, U.S. Insular Areas, Application of the U.S. Constitution, p. 1: The Insular areas of the five Major Territories or the nine Minor territories are "the Territory or other Property” of the United States as are the states of the United States. page 29: Unincorporated territories of the United States have no more power “over commerce than states [of the United States] possess.” page 35: an unincorporated territory “has no inherit or independent sovereign power.”
It is uncollegial to accuse an editor of original research who uses direct quotes from sources. Besides unsourced assertions, fabrications, and ad hominem attacks, what would @ The Four Deuces: like to contribute to this talk page? Source something verifiable for discussion, as your unsourced remarks have proven unreliable on this topic. TheVirginiaHistorian ( talk) 10:03, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
The “territory of the United States” encompassing the U.S. Insular Areas in the GAO Report on page 1 means they are included within the geographic extent of the United States. We can quote without ellipses, “The Insular Areas are territory of the United States.” In the Common Core Report to the United Nations by the USG, it says on page 8 that the legal structure of the U.S. is "a federal republic of 50 states, together with a number of commonwealths, territories and possessions.” The District of Columbia is constitutionally a U.S. territory as are five others self-governing commonwealths and territories in the Common Core report. That is what the article intro says, as sourced.
There is no "conclusion" required by the reader in consulting either reliable source to recognize that U.S. Insular areas are constitutionally within the territory and legal structure of the modern United States. Nowhere does any reliable source claim that DC and the five Major Territories are not a part of the United States geographical extent. TheVirginiaHistorian ( talk) 20:34, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
Again, you can offer nothing but personal attack, misrepresentation, fabrication and unsourced assertion to deny U.S. insular areas are in the U.S. geographical extent. Here are two more direct quotes from U.S.G. and scholarly sources that also do not require editor personal interpretation and are also not original research:
“Parts of the United States [include] Guam, Puerto Rico, U.S. Virgin Islands, American Samoa, Swains Island and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI)” as defined by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection Information Center, updated 02/24/2017.
The geographic extent of the U.S. federal republic is found in United States Practice in International Law, Volume 1, 1999-2001, page 163, in a Presidential Proclamation that the contiguous zone of the United States of America “in accordance with international law”, includes “the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, the United States Virgin Islands, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands . . .” TheVirginiaHistorian ( talk) 03:32, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
The U.S. Customs source that names the “parts of the United States” does support the WP consensus including U.S. insular areas as "parts of the United States", which you deny without supporting sources. You make no reasoning explanation you merely make unsupported claims. You mislead when you say you concede that U.S. insular areas are “U.S. territories” when you continue to deny that U.S. territories are U.S. territory within its geographic extent — as I have verifiably sourced in the GAO Report and in the USG Common Core Report to the U.N.
You have made no explanation of how “part of” as a direct source quote does not support “part of” in the article narrative, or that “U.S. contiguous zone” does not mean “U.S. geographic area” or “territory of the U.S." does not mean "U.S. geographical extent”. These are not synthesis, you are simply asserting another unsourced fabricated claim. TheVirginiaHistorian ( talk) 10:07, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
Fascinating. Question: if I wanted to seek consensus on TFD's suggestion that the field in question be changed to "last state admitted," how would I go about doing so? Is there a specific template I need to use, or can I just ask that users start posting their votes? -- SchutteGod {not logged in} 70.181.168.53 ( talk) 19:14, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
"When agreement cannot be reached through editing alone, the consensus-forming process becomes more explicit: editors open a section on the talk page and try to work out the dispute through discussion. Here editors try to persuade others, using reasons based in policy, sources, and common sense; they can also suggest alternative solutions or compromises that may satisfy all concerns. The result might be an agreement that does not satisfy anyone completely, but that all recognize as a reasonable solution."
It is a clever post to assert — without sources — that the sourced position including territories is made up of straw men. But there are still no reliable sources offered to exclude U.S. territories from U.S. geographical extent by international law.
There is only an archive of tortured misapplications of one hundred year old rulings about internal tariffs domestic within the United States — claiming that they have external application in international law in a way so as to prevent the United States from acquiring territory to add to its geographical extent. That is a leap found in no mainstream U. S. scholarship. Those Insular Case rulings do not prohibit U.S. territorial expansion, as sourced here in this Talk section and in the archives, — and opponents have no counter-source on the subject of geographical extent of the modern U.S., either here or in the archives. The WP standard is "preponderance of sources", yet there is not yet one to exclude territories from modern U.S. geographical extent.
Internationally as sourced, the U.S. territories are considered a part of the geographical extent of the modern United States. They have no international sovereignty themselves as ruled by the U.S. Supreme Court. They are not recognized in the international community as belonging to any other nation. The question is What do sources and common sense say -- within an international context -- is the U.S. geographical extent for use in an internationally read encyclopedia. The answer does not lie in parsing domestic U.S. internal tariff regulation from a century ago. TheVirginiaHistorian ( talk) 09:27, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
There are sources that modern U.S. territories are judicially "unincorportated" as a matter of constitutional law for the purposes of domestic internal tariffs, and the Supreme Court once characterized them one hundred years ago as "savages" who were at that time deemed "dangerous to Anglo-Saxon institutions" --- but now after fifty years of post-WWII custom and law in American self government, U.S. territories are treated as a part of the geographical extent of the United States for the common sense purposes of international law, as sourced in this discussion. That is, as a generally accepted matter, Puerto Rico is not Cuba's and Guam is not China's, despite fringe scholarship outside the U.S. mainstream.Golbez and TFD seem to agree with at least part of my Friday’s post — which is progress instead of unsourced posts denying every point made.
User:Golbez Thank you for stipulating with me that the Chinese have no legitimate claim on U.S. territories. I would be interested in your sources to that effect, as you seem to have some reservations about my most recent first page Google search, and I admire your extensive geographic knowledge as a mapper. TheVirginiaHistorian ( talk) 08:29, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
User: The Four Deuces Yes, to the best of my knowledge, all participating editors in this string have stipulated that a) No other nation claims CNMI Northern Marianas other than the U.S. in the modern era; b) In the modern era, the native population of CNMI Northern Marianas is competent to act in its own self governance, and under U.N. auspices, they have mutually entered into a permanent political union with the U.S., as sourced in the archives; and c) The U.S. is competent to accept and has accepted the CNMI Northern Marianas into its U.S. geographical extent by Congressional statute, and as sourced in this string, and that geographical extent is confirmed by U.S. Presidential proclamation in the modern era, as sourced in this string.
That is all I meant so say. Indeed, with your direct encouragement, I have apologized for asserting anything otherwise might have occurred in these pages by any editor over the past three years. We are agreed, you make no argument and present no evidence to the contrary, I have apologized for asserting otherwise. The CNMI Northern Marianas is the last polity to enter the U.S. geographical extent for the purposes of this article on the modern era U.S., because we have discussed it in good faith with sources and applied common sense to reach a consensus. TheVirginiaHistorian ( talk) 08:29, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
I use the term "geographical extent" of the U.S. in the modern post WWII era, to distinguish the subject under discussion from the judicial use of "unincorporated" taken from the one hundred year old Insular Cases which now apply to domestic U.S. internal tariffs. Without this judicial fiat, internal tariffs placed on U.S. territory goods would otherwise be prohibited by the Uniformity Clause of the Constitution. However, in the modern U.S. all fundamental rights of the Constitution have been extended in the U.S. territories and they are self-governing Constitutional U.S. territory as reported in the GAO Report on Insular Areas. Three reliable sources may suffice to illustrate "geographical extent" from 1999, 2012 and 2017:
In United States Practice in International Law, vol. 1, page 163,
Presidential Proclamation of September 2, 1999, in accordance with international law . . . the extension of the contiguous zone of the United States of America, including the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, the United States Virgin Islands, the Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas Islands ...
At
U.S. Common Core report to the U.N., September 12, 2012, under section B. Constitutional, political and legal structure of the [nation-] State, 1. (a) Type of government, page 10, paragraph 27. A significant number of United States citizens and/or nationals live in areas outside the 50 states and yet within the political framework of the United States. These include persons living in the District of Columbia, American Samoa, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands ...
From the
U.S. Customs and Border Protection Information Center, updated February 24, 2017, Parts of the United States [include] Guam, Puerto Rico, U.S. Virgin Islands, American Samoa, Swains Island and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI).
TheVirginiaHistorian (
talk) 17:21, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
Three sourced definitions of “geographical extent” may suffice --- note that there is no distinction in this usage between the District of Columbia and CNMI Northern Marianas as they are both within the U.S. "geographical extent".
Scholars also use other terms to include the five major U.S. territories as within the United States, such as the U.S. “encompasses” them (G. Alan Tarr, 2005), the U.S. is “composed of” them (Ellis Katz, 2006), and they are “a part of” the U.S. (Jon M Van Dyke, 1992). TheVirginiaHistorian ( talk) 05:53, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
In the modern international system of nation states, a populated area may be sovereign, under U.N. trusteeship, or territory of a nation-state (logically, U.S. or non-U.S). You have stipulated with me that there is no foreign claim to U.S. territories on the basis of our common sense discussion. That does not mean there there is no logical possibility of such a claim, there are some counter claims to unorganized U.S. territory.--- so that is a good starting point of agreement to discuss, that from an international perspective, U.S. territories are within the geographical extent of the U.S.}} TheVirginiaHistorian ( talk) 15:25, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
TVH, the thing is, if I'm understanding it correctly, that Wordpress blog doesn't say China claims Guam. It mentions Guam being part of a Chinese defense perimeter, which is perfectly logical - the United States had the same feeling about western Europe during the Cold War, and Canada now, and the allies about the GIUK gap in World War 2, or the U.S. with Japan wrt the Soviets and China, or even the Cuban blockade line during the missile crisis. So again, this isn't about "mapping," this is about you making up something to bolster your position. Why you simply don't discard it from your suite of copying and pasting, I do not know.
I wonder if this is far too trivial an issue to focus on, but then again, it's costing you far more effort than it does me, so it's up to you. -- Golbez ( talk) 23:45, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
The U.S. Constitution has never applied in totality to its territories as it does to states. TFD has no source to substantial his claim that they should. It does not do so now in the U.S. territory of the District of Columbia. DC and the five major territories have Article II federal courts; states have Article III federal courts. In the U.S.G. Common Core Report to the U.N., there is no distinction made between DC and the five Major Territories enumerated as a part of the constitutional make up of the U.S. as a nation State in the international community --- in a "geographical sense", as sourced with direct quotes and linked citations from U.S.G. and scholars.
Even the Constitutional Amendment to allow DC presidential electors limits it to three — the smallest number of electors allowed to states — even though DC is larger in population than the smallest states and might proportionately qualify for four electors in the future — and two representatives rather than one territorial delegate — were it a state. TheVirginiaHistorian ( talk) 07:38, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
This is off topic in your POV effort to artificially truncate the extent of the U.S. in a “geographic sense" internationally — Palmyra is not under discussion. But it does seem somehow related to your argument based on American judicial assessments in the 1900s one-hundred years ago. They characterized distinctions in self governing capacity among ruling elites and natives in Hawaii (then including Palmyra) and Cuba, versus those of Guam, Puerto Rico and the Philippines. The latter were initially denied protections of federal courts, self-governance or U.S. citizenship. In the modern era, those Constitutional elements are all Congressionally extended to the populations of U.S. territory. What is your point in recalling superseded judicial rulings?
Modern U.S. territories including DC and the five Major territories are specifically enumerated and reported by the U.S.G. as within the constitutional “structure” of the United States in the international community, as sourced. What is curious in this thread, is your reluctance to assert any support from scholars of international affairs for your separatist doctrine based on a domestic U.S. judicial doctrine. You have only unsourced assertions on your own authority concerning the modern extent of the U.S. in a “geographical sense” internationally. TheVirginiaHistorian ( talk) 19:06, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
I think you were confusing the Commerce Clause with the Uniformity Clause, which does not apply and therefore Congress provides different tax and minimum wages to the external territories. It does not apply because it requires uniformity only "throughout the United States." But why in your own words would there be any difference at all between the treatment of incorporated and unincorporated territories? TFD ( talk) 10:26, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
This is an amusing perpetual motion machine you two have discovered, but seeing as how 1) neither of you will deign to let the other have the last word, 2) neither of you appear willing to be convinced, and 3) no one else is involved in this discussion about settled law, perhaps you could take this elsewhere instead of filling up the talk page with repeated statements? I'd apologize for getting this ball rolling but, nah. -- Golbez ( talk) 13:39, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
Should we discuss American Imperialism in the context the American form of government? (As a significant minority view) There are many sources for adding this: [3] [4] [5]
Currently, imperialism is not mentioned once, and the quantity and quality of academic secondary sources available do seem to justify inclusion. Seraphim System ( talk) 00:40, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
Imperialism is merely a description of foreign politics. And since the specifics of foreign politics are not defined and limited by US Constitution nor even major Acts of Congress...one must assume that such politics vary across changes in POTUS and members of Congress as a reflection of American voters and business dynamics. Just like every other country (e.g. in the age of Viking raids and invasion the Scandinavian countries obvious had imperialist policies as well -- but that is irrelevant to their governments in the current century.)
Note also that technically the US Constitution was designed as an elected oligarchy, not a Democracy. Only since the advent of telegraph, radio, telephones and modern media has the national government become a true Democracy where the voters can assess the full range of issues and truly influence their Congressional representatives (and senatorial representatives) in a timely manner.
The original expectation was that voters simply trusted Congressional members to be of similar mind when new pressing issues or legislative proposals came up during Congressional session. There was some expectations by a few that all issues actually addressed would be old issues already debated for 20 years. But in fact no provision ever existed that required Congress to set up and limit its agenda months in advance of the next session so that the public could express itself to its representatives or make elections based on specific bills. Overall while some issues were known the actual agenda and debate of Congress has always been determined durng actual session. When Congress met not that many voters would be informed of all aspects of current issues and new legislative debate, let alone able to communicate in a timely manner to influence such debate.
And even today most communication and influence is NOT from individual voters or ad hoc voter petitions of the district -- but instead businesses and special interest groups who lobby ALL of US Congress even though their demographics are often concentrated in small areas. Not really very strong on the idea of X number of voters in a district having the exclusive attention of one House member or half of each state having the attention of one Senator...except at election time. Still slanted toward a federal oligarchy representing intermediate oligarchy committees formed around special interests either financial, political or ethno-political...with real individual voter opinions buried somewhere fairly distant if not actually on such a committee.
Overall I am saying the issue is way too complex to be accurately described in such simple polarizing terms as Democracy and Imperialism. Nice for academic foundation categories but fitting nothing in the real world. But since the article is primarily about describing the internal aspects of the US -- I suggest that foreign policies of the US be a very small sidebar. That sidebar should clearly divide into comments on current foreign policies and a very compressed and broad description of past foreign policies eras...with the normal references to a separate article for more detailed discussions of US foreign policy history. 70.114.136.69 ( talk) 16:49, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
70.114.136.69 ( talk) 17:43, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
Fear not, according to the editors here, the empire is kaput. We no longer have international influence - so these guys say. But Trump is rather convincing evidence to their argument, his whole isolationist policy standard. Embarrassing. NocturnalDef ( talk) 14:02, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 03:20, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 17:02, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
Nothing came up on any of the links you've provided. What were you editing? NocturnalDef ( talk) 12:12, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
This
edit request to
United States has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
209.129.208.101 ( talk) 22:11, 15 November 2017 (UTC) Incorrect Date in Reconstruction Era April 14th 1965 needs to be changed to April 14th 1865
This
edit request to
United States has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change "The latter lead to emergence" to "The latter led to emergence" Latitude42 ( talk) 22:16, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 11:30, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 85 | ← | Archive 90 | Archive 91 | Archive 92 | Archive 93 | Archive 94 | Archive 95 |
The United States should be accepted as the Wealthiest country in the world, the links given provide evidence for this. Redom115 ( talk) 03:48, 28 August 2017 (UTC)Redom 115 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Redom115 ( talk • contribs) 03:21, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
I think it provides additional information and extra emphasis because possessing the most wealth does indeed indicate the country is the wealthiest. Also the links state that it is the richest nation. Redom115 ( talk) 16:10, 29 August 2017 (UTC) I agree. As a Greek immigrant in Turkey who admires America, I can say that along with Turkey, America can put its place as the most wealthy nation on earth. Turkey was in the 1600s and now America is. Two Great Nations. I hope Turkey is secular again to regain Americas friendship. Its bad enough Turkey is involving itself in american politics like america did in the 80s to us. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Georgepodros ( talk • contribs) 11:17, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
What on earth are you talking about Mason.Jones, the links themselves state what I edited? Are you just blind or stubborn. Wikipedia is supposed to be about accuracy but instead all you want to do is to make as inaccurate as possible. How is it nonsense when it is true? Perhaps you are the one that is spouting nonsense. Redom115 ( talk) 09:14, 30 August 2017
First of all, back then I was new to Wikipedia. Second of all, what does that have to do with anything. I simply edited something that links themselves already told. Do you even read what I am saying? Redom115 ( talk) 11:15, 30 August 2017
The United States has the most wealth in the world, not to mention if you look at its financial position, it should be regarded as such. Also if you look at economy subcategory, it uses the same link that says the US is the Wealthiest Country in the world Redom115 ( talk • contribs) 3:31, 09 September 2017 (UTC)
If you look at the wikipedia page of National Wealth it is the value of all natural resources, corporations, total stock market value etc. it is exactly all those things you just mentioned, so the US should be recognised as the wealthiest country in the world. It is the value of all types of assets and capital. It is not off-topic, it is entirely true. Redom115 ( talk • contribs) 09:15, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
How did I repeat what you said, the wealth held by private citizens is the national wealth, it is sum of all assets minus all the banalities. What's unfortunate is that you cannot see to understand what National Wealth actually means? Redom115 ( talk • contribs) 01:14, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
How is it biased when it is true, and the links themselves support this? Wikipedia is supposed to be all about accuracy. Redom115 ( talk • contribs) 01:14, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
Mason Jones: Don't mean to get off topic here but was the cultural prominence removed from the article? Certainly our cultural influence is not declining and has nothing to do with the economic aspect. And I'm aware that our foot print on the world is shrinking, and that Trump is doing everything in his power to hasten our decline... but officially it hasn't ended yet. So what's your hurry to insinuate that aspect? Aren't you being just as irrational as remdom115? NocturnalDef ( talk) 17:18, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
But the USD is still the world's reverse currency? If we no longer support the world's economic backbone, then wouldn't we have lost that currency status unequivocally? NocturnalDef ( talk) 21:24, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
And I believe your assessment on removing our cultural prominence is relevant as you agreed in solidarity with the other qualified editors. Is that not a contribution in itself to that particular edit? Seems to me that the lot of you have personal feelings towards America's role in the world to downplay it so prematurely, not to say that my personal feelings aren't the contrary because I would rather admit to having felt pride in global leadership than pretend not to in order to appear unbiased. NocturnalDef ( talk) 21:33, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
Well in that case Mason, how would one get access to edit this article? Because personally, I feel the need to fill in the void if that would be applicable? NocturnalDef ( talk) 21:23, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
The "last polity admitted" should be Hawaii. Northern Mariana Islands, as an "unincorporated territory," is not legally part of the U.S. -- SchutteGod (not logged in) 70.181.168.53 ( talk) 20:12, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
Among editors of these pages, some assert a flawed understanding of the requirements of U.S. citizenship which is based on the proposition that all men created equal, whether you like its embracing nationalism or not, whether you concede the desirability of that nation state's existence or not. There are those who do not.
A corollary is the position that islanders cannot allowed to be U.S. citizens and included in the geographical extent of that nation for the purposes of this article, even when they have been so included for half a century in the United States by law, customary practice and rulings by the highest courts of the land. This is bad research methodology, denying developments of the United States government among its inhabitants over the last century.
Editors here spent two years asserting the POV denying inclusion of brown and black skinned U.S. citizens and their territories within the geographical extent of the United States. Without any relevant scholarship to support their point of view, they failed to exclude them from this article on the United States. TheVirginiaHistorian ( talk) 07:57, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
There is no "blatant synthesis and original research" to say that the U.S. Government is competent to specify its geographical extent as sourced, that its territorial inhabitants can be U.S. citizens, with human rights and self determination within republican forms of government under the U.S. Constitution. It has prevailed — now for fifty years, as reliably sourced. Deniers are not racists, but they do not recognize that a nation state can evolve in its conception and implementation of citizenship over the course of a century — to tend towards greater human rights and self determination for minority populations within its geographic extent.
I will not retract my statement that those are not racist who merely adopt a flawed methodology ignoring fifty years of political practice in the U.S. territories. The methodology is not racist, they are not racist. Though there may be editors who are misguided in a bad methodology, it takes more to be a racist than merely ignoring a century of continuing progress among minority populations towards increasing human rights and self determination in U.S. political history. Passively recounting racist judgments of 1917 without taking into account conditions in 2017 is not racism in 2017, it is bad methodology.
For racism to be apparent, there must be an active assertion of racial superiority or inferiority. The one hundred year-old Supreme Court cases asserted an inferiority among islanders — and that was tentatively put forward as U.S. Government policy only until Congress might determine otherwise. And the U.S. Congress has now since mid-20th century, determined otherwise in sustained legislation for half a century, a determination of islander native and naturalized U.S. citizenship along with their own elective governors and legislatures, now upheld by the federal courts — as reliably sourced.
Golbez and TFD have not asserted racial superiority nor inferiority for anyone, so they have not been racist. There is no cause for them to take offense to civil discussion of misguided methodology ignoring a century of political evolution and fifty years of political practice increasing human rights and self determination for islanders in territories within the existing U.S. geographic extent. Unsourced characterizations of reasoned arguments supported with reliable sources as "blatant synthesis and original research" or "inflammatory" is not conducive to civil discussion of the geographical extent of the United States. TheVirginiaHistorian ( talk) 07:45, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
I would challenge the consensus, but not before issues with certain editors, vis a vis bad faith, morally shaming other editors, etc., are resolved. Can we please do something about this distraction? -- SchutteGod ( talk) 20:18, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
I am accused of calling some unnamed individual a racist, at the time and subsequently I have explained that I did not intend that construction of my characterization of some opponents of the past three years to be deniers of U.S. citizenship among the inhabitants of all five major territories that are in the geographical extent of the United States. I have repeatedly posted how bad methodology ignoring fifty years of U.S. history with the five major territories is not racist, --- and reading or sourcing racist Supreme Court cases of one hundred years ago does not make one a racist.
The discussion of the Constitutional status of the territories is always fraught because the territories that are within the geographical extent of the United States are not judicially "incorporated" for limited purposes of domestic U.S. law, and that doctrine was promulgated in decisions that scholars such as Sanford Levinson have determined to be racist. TFD in this Talk section misrepresented the consensus as reversing Supreme Court doctrine, assuming domestically "unincorporated" territories were held at WP as "incorporated". They are not, the evidence adopted by the consensus showed something else again, that the geographic extent of the United States internationally included the five major territories and their populations, see Common Core Document of the United States of America, Report to the UN Committee on Human Rights, December 30, 2011, sec. 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87. The territories are "foreign in a domestic sense" and "domestic in a foreign sense".
As I understand editors now confronting me, since my explanation that I had no intent of calling anyone a racist was not accepted by editors, I was asked to apologize. I apologized for any statement that might be taken as shaming any editor as racist. That apology was not found sufficient, so now at the request of TFD and Mark Miller, the identified passage is removed here at Talk. Again, I am sorry if I have made any mischaracterization of any editors over the past three years, and I deeply regret causing any disruption to these pages at the present time. TheVirginiaHistorian ( talk) 05:03, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
So now all can agree, The Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI) should be characterized in the United States article info box as the “Last polity admitted”, given the sources available at Common Core Document of the United States of America, Report to the UN Committee on Human Rights, December 30, 2011, sec. 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87; and p. 8, U.S. Insular Areas, Application of the U.S. Constitution, November 1997 -- and given there are no applicable counter sources obtained to support any question of the legitimacy of the covenant of political union between CNMI and the US making natives of the CNMI "citizens of the soil" within the United States geographical extent. TheVirginiaHistorian ( talk) 16:16, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
@ The Four Deuces: Be so kind as to point editors to the page in the GAO report, U.S. Insular Areas, Application of the U.S. Constitution, where they can read where it — referring to the U.S. territories — "specifically excludes them from being part of the United States” as you posted. I have conducted a term search, and so far, I cannot find the term “part of” used there in such a way.
Rather on page 24, it says "The Insular Cases use the term 'incorporated' to distinguish ... from 'unincorporated' territories” as a judicial distinction regarding constitutional rights --- not geographical extent --- And on page 45, we have "The Court held that the Uniformity Clause of the Constitution, at Article I, § 8, did not apply to unincorporated territories and, therefore, that different duties [taxes on their sugar, etc.] could be applied.”
"Different duties" under U.S. jurisdiction is not the same as geographical extent of the United States. If you cannot find where there is an explicit denial that U.S. territories are "a part of the United States” in its geographical extent on some referenced page, please remove your post that otherwise misrepresents the source, as a matter of wp: good faith on your part. Thank you in advance for your attention to this matter. TheVirginiaHistorian ( talk) 08:45, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
You would overthrow a WP consensus built over three years with a fabrication that one of twenty sources supporting U.S. territory inclusion within the geographical extent of the United States, does “specifically" deny that the U.S. territories are "a part" of the U.S. But it does not, and you cannot show where it does, though you have been challenged to do so. U.S. territories are self-governing within U.S. territory under the federal U.S. Constitution by U.S. citizens, as reliably sourced.
As you have read before in the GAO report, U.S. Insular Areas, Application of the U.S. Constitution, p. 1: The Insular areas of the five Major Territories or the nine Minor territories are "the Territory or other Property” of the United States as are the states of the United States. page 29: Unincorporated territories of the United States have no more power “over commerce than states [of the United States] possess.” page 35: an unincorporated territory “has no inherit or independent sovereign power.”
It is uncollegial to accuse an editor of original research who uses direct quotes from sources. Besides unsourced assertions, fabrications, and ad hominem attacks, what would @ The Four Deuces: like to contribute to this talk page? Source something verifiable for discussion, as your unsourced remarks have proven unreliable on this topic. TheVirginiaHistorian ( talk) 10:03, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
The “territory of the United States” encompassing the U.S. Insular Areas in the GAO Report on page 1 means they are included within the geographic extent of the United States. We can quote without ellipses, “The Insular Areas are territory of the United States.” In the Common Core Report to the United Nations by the USG, it says on page 8 that the legal structure of the U.S. is "a federal republic of 50 states, together with a number of commonwealths, territories and possessions.” The District of Columbia is constitutionally a U.S. territory as are five others self-governing commonwealths and territories in the Common Core report. That is what the article intro says, as sourced.
There is no "conclusion" required by the reader in consulting either reliable source to recognize that U.S. Insular areas are constitutionally within the territory and legal structure of the modern United States. Nowhere does any reliable source claim that DC and the five Major Territories are not a part of the United States geographical extent. TheVirginiaHistorian ( talk) 20:34, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
Again, you can offer nothing but personal attack, misrepresentation, fabrication and unsourced assertion to deny U.S. insular areas are in the U.S. geographical extent. Here are two more direct quotes from U.S.G. and scholarly sources that also do not require editor personal interpretation and are also not original research:
“Parts of the United States [include] Guam, Puerto Rico, U.S. Virgin Islands, American Samoa, Swains Island and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI)” as defined by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection Information Center, updated 02/24/2017.
The geographic extent of the U.S. federal republic is found in United States Practice in International Law, Volume 1, 1999-2001, page 163, in a Presidential Proclamation that the contiguous zone of the United States of America “in accordance with international law”, includes “the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, the United States Virgin Islands, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands . . .” TheVirginiaHistorian ( talk) 03:32, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
The U.S. Customs source that names the “parts of the United States” does support the WP consensus including U.S. insular areas as "parts of the United States", which you deny without supporting sources. You make no reasoning explanation you merely make unsupported claims. You mislead when you say you concede that U.S. insular areas are “U.S. territories” when you continue to deny that U.S. territories are U.S. territory within its geographic extent — as I have verifiably sourced in the GAO Report and in the USG Common Core Report to the U.N.
You have made no explanation of how “part of” as a direct source quote does not support “part of” in the article narrative, or that “U.S. contiguous zone” does not mean “U.S. geographic area” or “territory of the U.S." does not mean "U.S. geographical extent”. These are not synthesis, you are simply asserting another unsourced fabricated claim. TheVirginiaHistorian ( talk) 10:07, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
Fascinating. Question: if I wanted to seek consensus on TFD's suggestion that the field in question be changed to "last state admitted," how would I go about doing so? Is there a specific template I need to use, or can I just ask that users start posting their votes? -- SchutteGod {not logged in} 70.181.168.53 ( talk) 19:14, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
"When agreement cannot be reached through editing alone, the consensus-forming process becomes more explicit: editors open a section on the talk page and try to work out the dispute through discussion. Here editors try to persuade others, using reasons based in policy, sources, and common sense; they can also suggest alternative solutions or compromises that may satisfy all concerns. The result might be an agreement that does not satisfy anyone completely, but that all recognize as a reasonable solution."
It is a clever post to assert — without sources — that the sourced position including territories is made up of straw men. But there are still no reliable sources offered to exclude U.S. territories from U.S. geographical extent by international law.
There is only an archive of tortured misapplications of one hundred year old rulings about internal tariffs domestic within the United States — claiming that they have external application in international law in a way so as to prevent the United States from acquiring territory to add to its geographical extent. That is a leap found in no mainstream U. S. scholarship. Those Insular Case rulings do not prohibit U.S. territorial expansion, as sourced here in this Talk section and in the archives, — and opponents have no counter-source on the subject of geographical extent of the modern U.S., either here or in the archives. The WP standard is "preponderance of sources", yet there is not yet one to exclude territories from modern U.S. geographical extent.
Internationally as sourced, the U.S. territories are considered a part of the geographical extent of the modern United States. They have no international sovereignty themselves as ruled by the U.S. Supreme Court. They are not recognized in the international community as belonging to any other nation. The question is What do sources and common sense say -- within an international context -- is the U.S. geographical extent for use in an internationally read encyclopedia. The answer does not lie in parsing domestic U.S. internal tariff regulation from a century ago. TheVirginiaHistorian ( talk) 09:27, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
There are sources that modern U.S. territories are judicially "unincorportated" as a matter of constitutional law for the purposes of domestic internal tariffs, and the Supreme Court once characterized them one hundred years ago as "savages" who were at that time deemed "dangerous to Anglo-Saxon institutions" --- but now after fifty years of post-WWII custom and law in American self government, U.S. territories are treated as a part of the geographical extent of the United States for the common sense purposes of international law, as sourced in this discussion. That is, as a generally accepted matter, Puerto Rico is not Cuba's and Guam is not China's, despite fringe scholarship outside the U.S. mainstream.Golbez and TFD seem to agree with at least part of my Friday’s post — which is progress instead of unsourced posts denying every point made.
User:Golbez Thank you for stipulating with me that the Chinese have no legitimate claim on U.S. territories. I would be interested in your sources to that effect, as you seem to have some reservations about my most recent first page Google search, and I admire your extensive geographic knowledge as a mapper. TheVirginiaHistorian ( talk) 08:29, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
User: The Four Deuces Yes, to the best of my knowledge, all participating editors in this string have stipulated that a) No other nation claims CNMI Northern Marianas other than the U.S. in the modern era; b) In the modern era, the native population of CNMI Northern Marianas is competent to act in its own self governance, and under U.N. auspices, they have mutually entered into a permanent political union with the U.S., as sourced in the archives; and c) The U.S. is competent to accept and has accepted the CNMI Northern Marianas into its U.S. geographical extent by Congressional statute, and as sourced in this string, and that geographical extent is confirmed by U.S. Presidential proclamation in the modern era, as sourced in this string.
That is all I meant so say. Indeed, with your direct encouragement, I have apologized for asserting anything otherwise might have occurred in these pages by any editor over the past three years. We are agreed, you make no argument and present no evidence to the contrary, I have apologized for asserting otherwise. The CNMI Northern Marianas is the last polity to enter the U.S. geographical extent for the purposes of this article on the modern era U.S., because we have discussed it in good faith with sources and applied common sense to reach a consensus. TheVirginiaHistorian ( talk) 08:29, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
I use the term "geographical extent" of the U.S. in the modern post WWII era, to distinguish the subject under discussion from the judicial use of "unincorporated" taken from the one hundred year old Insular Cases which now apply to domestic U.S. internal tariffs. Without this judicial fiat, internal tariffs placed on U.S. territory goods would otherwise be prohibited by the Uniformity Clause of the Constitution. However, in the modern U.S. all fundamental rights of the Constitution have been extended in the U.S. territories and they are self-governing Constitutional U.S. territory as reported in the GAO Report on Insular Areas. Three reliable sources may suffice to illustrate "geographical extent" from 1999, 2012 and 2017:
In United States Practice in International Law, vol. 1, page 163,
Presidential Proclamation of September 2, 1999, in accordance with international law . . . the extension of the contiguous zone of the United States of America, including the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, the United States Virgin Islands, the Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas Islands ...
At
U.S. Common Core report to the U.N., September 12, 2012, under section B. Constitutional, political and legal structure of the [nation-] State, 1. (a) Type of government, page 10, paragraph 27. A significant number of United States citizens and/or nationals live in areas outside the 50 states and yet within the political framework of the United States. These include persons living in the District of Columbia, American Samoa, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands ...
From the
U.S. Customs and Border Protection Information Center, updated February 24, 2017, Parts of the United States [include] Guam, Puerto Rico, U.S. Virgin Islands, American Samoa, Swains Island and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI).
TheVirginiaHistorian (
talk) 17:21, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
Three sourced definitions of “geographical extent” may suffice --- note that there is no distinction in this usage between the District of Columbia and CNMI Northern Marianas as they are both within the U.S. "geographical extent".
Scholars also use other terms to include the five major U.S. territories as within the United States, such as the U.S. “encompasses” them (G. Alan Tarr, 2005), the U.S. is “composed of” them (Ellis Katz, 2006), and they are “a part of” the U.S. (Jon M Van Dyke, 1992). TheVirginiaHistorian ( talk) 05:53, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
In the modern international system of nation states, a populated area may be sovereign, under U.N. trusteeship, or territory of a nation-state (logically, U.S. or non-U.S). You have stipulated with me that there is no foreign claim to U.S. territories on the basis of our common sense discussion. That does not mean there there is no logical possibility of such a claim, there are some counter claims to unorganized U.S. territory.--- so that is a good starting point of agreement to discuss, that from an international perspective, U.S. territories are within the geographical extent of the U.S.}} TheVirginiaHistorian ( talk) 15:25, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
TVH, the thing is, if I'm understanding it correctly, that Wordpress blog doesn't say China claims Guam. It mentions Guam being part of a Chinese defense perimeter, which is perfectly logical - the United States had the same feeling about western Europe during the Cold War, and Canada now, and the allies about the GIUK gap in World War 2, or the U.S. with Japan wrt the Soviets and China, or even the Cuban blockade line during the missile crisis. So again, this isn't about "mapping," this is about you making up something to bolster your position. Why you simply don't discard it from your suite of copying and pasting, I do not know.
I wonder if this is far too trivial an issue to focus on, but then again, it's costing you far more effort than it does me, so it's up to you. -- Golbez ( talk) 23:45, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
The U.S. Constitution has never applied in totality to its territories as it does to states. TFD has no source to substantial his claim that they should. It does not do so now in the U.S. territory of the District of Columbia. DC and the five major territories have Article II federal courts; states have Article III federal courts. In the U.S.G. Common Core Report to the U.N., there is no distinction made between DC and the five Major Territories enumerated as a part of the constitutional make up of the U.S. as a nation State in the international community --- in a "geographical sense", as sourced with direct quotes and linked citations from U.S.G. and scholars.
Even the Constitutional Amendment to allow DC presidential electors limits it to three — the smallest number of electors allowed to states — even though DC is larger in population than the smallest states and might proportionately qualify for four electors in the future — and two representatives rather than one territorial delegate — were it a state. TheVirginiaHistorian ( talk) 07:38, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
This is off topic in your POV effort to artificially truncate the extent of the U.S. in a “geographic sense" internationally — Palmyra is not under discussion. But it does seem somehow related to your argument based on American judicial assessments in the 1900s one-hundred years ago. They characterized distinctions in self governing capacity among ruling elites and natives in Hawaii (then including Palmyra) and Cuba, versus those of Guam, Puerto Rico and the Philippines. The latter were initially denied protections of federal courts, self-governance or U.S. citizenship. In the modern era, those Constitutional elements are all Congressionally extended to the populations of U.S. territory. What is your point in recalling superseded judicial rulings?
Modern U.S. territories including DC and the five Major territories are specifically enumerated and reported by the U.S.G. as within the constitutional “structure” of the United States in the international community, as sourced. What is curious in this thread, is your reluctance to assert any support from scholars of international affairs for your separatist doctrine based on a domestic U.S. judicial doctrine. You have only unsourced assertions on your own authority concerning the modern extent of the U.S. in a “geographical sense” internationally. TheVirginiaHistorian ( talk) 19:06, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
I think you were confusing the Commerce Clause with the Uniformity Clause, which does not apply and therefore Congress provides different tax and minimum wages to the external territories. It does not apply because it requires uniformity only "throughout the United States." But why in your own words would there be any difference at all between the treatment of incorporated and unincorporated territories? TFD ( talk) 10:26, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
This is an amusing perpetual motion machine you two have discovered, but seeing as how 1) neither of you will deign to let the other have the last word, 2) neither of you appear willing to be convinced, and 3) no one else is involved in this discussion about settled law, perhaps you could take this elsewhere instead of filling up the talk page with repeated statements? I'd apologize for getting this ball rolling but, nah. -- Golbez ( talk) 13:39, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
Should we discuss American Imperialism in the context the American form of government? (As a significant minority view) There are many sources for adding this: [3] [4] [5]
Currently, imperialism is not mentioned once, and the quantity and quality of academic secondary sources available do seem to justify inclusion. Seraphim System ( talk) 00:40, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
Imperialism is merely a description of foreign politics. And since the specifics of foreign politics are not defined and limited by US Constitution nor even major Acts of Congress...one must assume that such politics vary across changes in POTUS and members of Congress as a reflection of American voters and business dynamics. Just like every other country (e.g. in the age of Viking raids and invasion the Scandinavian countries obvious had imperialist policies as well -- but that is irrelevant to their governments in the current century.)
Note also that technically the US Constitution was designed as an elected oligarchy, not a Democracy. Only since the advent of telegraph, radio, telephones and modern media has the national government become a true Democracy where the voters can assess the full range of issues and truly influence their Congressional representatives (and senatorial representatives) in a timely manner.
The original expectation was that voters simply trusted Congressional members to be of similar mind when new pressing issues or legislative proposals came up during Congressional session. There was some expectations by a few that all issues actually addressed would be old issues already debated for 20 years. But in fact no provision ever existed that required Congress to set up and limit its agenda months in advance of the next session so that the public could express itself to its representatives or make elections based on specific bills. Overall while some issues were known the actual agenda and debate of Congress has always been determined durng actual session. When Congress met not that many voters would be informed of all aspects of current issues and new legislative debate, let alone able to communicate in a timely manner to influence such debate.
And even today most communication and influence is NOT from individual voters or ad hoc voter petitions of the district -- but instead businesses and special interest groups who lobby ALL of US Congress even though their demographics are often concentrated in small areas. Not really very strong on the idea of X number of voters in a district having the exclusive attention of one House member or half of each state having the attention of one Senator...except at election time. Still slanted toward a federal oligarchy representing intermediate oligarchy committees formed around special interests either financial, political or ethno-political...with real individual voter opinions buried somewhere fairly distant if not actually on such a committee.
Overall I am saying the issue is way too complex to be accurately described in such simple polarizing terms as Democracy and Imperialism. Nice for academic foundation categories but fitting nothing in the real world. But since the article is primarily about describing the internal aspects of the US -- I suggest that foreign policies of the US be a very small sidebar. That sidebar should clearly divide into comments on current foreign policies and a very compressed and broad description of past foreign policies eras...with the normal references to a separate article for more detailed discussions of US foreign policy history. 70.114.136.69 ( talk) 16:49, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
70.114.136.69 ( talk) 17:43, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
Fear not, according to the editors here, the empire is kaput. We no longer have international influence - so these guys say. But Trump is rather convincing evidence to their argument, his whole isolationist policy standard. Embarrassing. NocturnalDef ( talk) 14:02, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 03:20, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 17:02, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
Nothing came up on any of the links you've provided. What were you editing? NocturnalDef ( talk) 12:12, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
This
edit request to
United States has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
209.129.208.101 ( talk) 22:11, 15 November 2017 (UTC) Incorrect Date in Reconstruction Era April 14th 1965 needs to be changed to April 14th 1865
This
edit request to
United States has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change "The latter lead to emergence" to "The latter led to emergence" Latitude42 ( talk) 22:16, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 11:30, 10 December 2017 (UTC)