Talk:Territories of the United States

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Jpears21.

Merger proposal (merge from Territories of the United States to U.S. territory

Notice of a person's merge proposal with Pro/Con Positions:

Formal request has been received to merge: Territories of the United States into U.S. territory; dated: February 10, 2020. Proposer's rationale: I'm not sure if these articles should be merged, but the article's descriptions seem to overlap. Pinging proposer @Interstellarity: discuss below. Richard3120 (talk) 15:43, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

@Richard3120: Thank you for creating the discussion. Interstellarity (talk) 16:26, 26 March 2020 (UTC)"

Oppose and Remedy Problem

Territories of the United States are one of a few sub-national administrative divisions within the United States then same way states and a federal district are, while the concept of U.S. territory on the other hand, outlines what the United States legally holds under its sovereign jurisdiction. For example, The State of Maryland is a state and is thus part of U.S. territorial sovereignty but it is not a Territory of the United States while the United States Virgin Islands is a Territory of the United States which automatically makes it part of U.S. territor(ial sovereignty). In the same way U.S. navel ship are part of U.S. territory but are not Territories of the United States. The Best way to remedy this confusing ambiguous problem is to rename the page U.S. territory to the new name "U.S. territorial sovereignty," but keep in mind that Territories of the United States and U.S. territory are two different things. Llakew18 (talk) 20:57, 7 April 2020 (UTC) Llakew18

This is taken from the Talk:U.S. territory Merger proposal Discuss. (talk) 04:12, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Strange/inaccurate language in lede

The following language in the lede strikes me as very strange and almost certainly inaccurate: Each state has individual sovereignty by which it delegates powers to the federal government. Neither under the constitution or any founding era political theory I am aware of (Declaration of Independence, Federalist Papers, Antifederalist Papers, etc.) are the powers of the federal government delegated by the states. On the contrary, the federal and state governments possess separate powers which cannot constitutionally be delegated to the other. Ergo Sum 01:28, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Unnecessary comparison in the introduction

The 2nd to last sentence includes the phrase "some territories' Internet speed was found to be slower than the least developed countries in Eastern Europe", and cites a respective article. The problem lies in both the comparison itself (Why is there a need to compare it to Eastern Europe? Just because that article did it?), and more importantly the cited article only mentions one true Eastern European nation, Belarus, with the other two being Mediterranean rim countries. A change of this part might be advisable. Dracona94 (talk) 14:25, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

It's provided as an example of how the territories are at a low level of development compared with the United States itself. I don't know if it is the best comparison though. TFD (talk) 16:31, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Disputed territories and potential pseudo territory

In the information bar on the top right it states that there are only 2 disputed territories. Wake Island is claimed by the Marshall Islands and Navassa Island is claimed by Haiti. It should be 4. Plus I would consider Guantanamo bay to be a pseudo territory even if not legally so because it is treated as one in practice. Possibly a 3rd category should be created. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.118.98.179 (talk) 09:10, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Bare URLs

I note that many items in the References sectionare formatted similarly to the following:

https://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/cph-2-1.pdf United States Summary: 2010. Population and Housing Unit Counts. Issued September 2012. Page 1 (Page 49 of PDF). Retrieved July 4, 2019.

This is ugly. WP:MOS/Linking#Link titles says, "Embedded HTML links within an article are a now-deprecated way to supply a bare URL as a source within an article, ...". I'll mention here that if the concern is making URLs visible in pronted copies of an article, that is covered in Help:Print. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 21:15, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Unpopulated Territories Flags

While considered unofficial, there are WP:RS documenting at least some of the flags for unpopulated island territories:

• Midway Island: Klimeš, Roman (July–September 2010). "Lesser-Known Symbols of Minor U.S. Possessions: Part 2. Pacific Ocean—Midway" (PDF). NAVA News (207): 8. Retrieved March 15, 2021.
• Navassa Island: Klimeš, Roman (April–June 2010). "Lesser-Known Symbols of Minor U.S. Possessions: Part 1. Caribbean Sea" (PDF). NAVA News (206): 8. Retrieved March 15, 2021.
• Palmyra: Wheeler, Skip (October–December 2010). "Flags for U.S. Island Territories—a Vexillonnaire's Tale" (PDF). NAVA News (208): 10–11. Retrieved March 15, 2021.

I've restored those three and am looking to verify the others. —Carter (talk) 18:10, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

In general, we should not be displaying unofficial flags anywhere but in the actual article on those territories, with sufficient reliable sources to verify their notability. BilCat (talk) 18:20, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

No. These were just made up by people who wanted every island to have a flag. They are 100% unofficial and are not used by any government or even non-goverment bodies. They are not flown on these islands, they are not exhibited by those with authority of these islands, and we should not be falsely portraying them as having been adopted. The Johnston Island one at least has a degree of unofficial use, having won a contest among those actually living there, but it's still questionable whether it should be used in wider contexts. Reywas92^Talk 19:11, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

That's not accurate. The source notes that these three flags at least were accepted by the agencies that oversee the respective islands. The Midway and Palmyra flags are noted as having been flown on the islands, and they along with the Navassa Island one were flown in an exhibit at the USS Arizona Memorial that included all the other states, territories, and microterritories. Just because it's a small detail about small places doesn't make it not notable in context and they certainly aren't WP:MADEUP. —Carter (talk) 19:27, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

"having been flown" is not the same as "actually adopted and should be used as official signifiers without context in infoboxes". You're missing that the Navassa Island one was invented for this one event! That doesn't make it official, that doesn't make recognized. One flag enthusiast made it up for this memorial, never known to be used by anyone else. This Palmyra flag is not noted as having been flown on Palmyra; rather this says a similar design may have unofficially been for Palmyra in WWII, and then this Skip Wheeler, who was involved in all of these, decided to make his own revisions and The Nature Conservancy (not FWS, not DOI) said "sure, what the hell, use it as your event". No proof it's actually flown there by TNC, nothing suggesting we should give it status on this page. Similarly, one FWS employee creating a Midway flag upon Wheeler's suggestion is not adoption by FWS or DOI, especially not seeing any sources or photographs on their website or other indication it's been used since this one event 20 years ago. Should that be in the bulk of the Midway article as an unofficial design? Sure. Should it be used in the infobox here or there suggesting offical use? No. Reywas92^Talk 20:06, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

"This Skip Wheeler" was a DoI employee working on a NPS project. He's not some random person as you keep insinuating. The Nature Conservancy owns Palmyra Atoll, which it manages alongside FWS. I can't prove they are not used, but the NAVA News articles are WP:RS that they have been used. I think that they should be included per MOS:FLAGRELEVANCE; clearly you disagree. —Carter (talk) 01:34, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

The context of MOS:RELEVANCE is of official flags, as is made clear at WP:ICON#Entities without flags until after a certain point in time in another section of that page. You've already conceded that the flags are considered unofficial. Therefore they should not be used here as if they were official in this time period. BilCat (talk) 01:43, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

As these flags are unofficial they should not be used on this page. We do not have the authority to grant them official recognition here on Wikipedia, nor is it proper for us to misrepresent them as having some official status. Drdpw (talk) 02:25, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Agree with removal from most pages. They can be included in the articles with appropriate context within the article body, but Wikipedia should not be giving these flags any more prominence than the United States Government does. CMD (talk) 09:26, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Why doesn't DC get it's own map colour?

Why are "The 50 states and the District of Columbia" all the same colour on the map? Shouldn't DC be the same colour as Peurto Rico, or get it's own colour? I'm just a baffled Australian, so i won't change it myself in case there's some good reason for it to be that way), but if there's not a good reason, could you update the map please? The map doesn't show states, but possibly DC could just be a yellow dot? A U.S.American will likely be more accurate at yellow dot placement than i am, i'd probably end up dotting Boston. Irtapil (talk) 05:59, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

The map seems to be made by @Pharexia and Grundafjarðarkirkja: ping @Reywas92, PyroFloe, Paploo, HMSLavender, and Tcr25: recent contributers to the page. Irtapil (talk) 05:59, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

D.C. is not a territory, it's a federal district. Sort of like a distinction between Australian Capital Territory and the Ashmore & Cartier Islands? So, no, it's not the same as Puerto Rico. Reywas92^Talk 06:09, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

ACT of course is considered a territory under Australian law, while D.C. is considered a district under U.S. law. There is no difference in U.S. law between the treatment of D.C. and territories that have been incorporated into the U.S., except that D.C. is allowed electoral votes for U.S. president. At present however, only the tiny uninhabited territory of Palmyra is an incorporated territory, while Australia includes the substantial Northern Territory. So it comes down to a matter of semantics. Since D.C. is called a district rather than a territory, it is excluded. TFD (talk) 22:42, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

The map is secondary to the article, the article does not cover DC so the map shouldn't either. If the article changes in this regard, I expect it's a simple assumption that the map will follow. CMD (talk) 01:38, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Merger proposal

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.

---

I propose to merge Insular area into Territories of the United States. I think that the content in the Insular area article can easily be explained in the context of Territories of the United States. All current territories of the United States are insular areas. Historically many non insular territories were created, but most of them eventually attained statehood, others, such as the Philippines, the Federated States of Micronesia, the Marshall Islands and Palau, later became independent. Delasse (talk) 13:59, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

• (support) I am inclined to support, given the overlap. However, the term insular area often includes the Freely Associated States, and so it would probably need its own section here explaining the term and its usage. CMD (talk) 14:19, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

• (support) I agree. I would point out too that "insular" means island. Although the territories today are islands, that has not always been true. TFD (talk) 16:05, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

• (oppose) I disagree with the merge. See here for the differences. --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 00:26, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

• The Eloquent Peasant, the only difference I see is that "insular areas" includes the three independent states that are in free association with the U.S. I question whether they are really insular areas of the United States, but regardless a brief mention in this article would be preferable to having two articles about substantially the same places. TFD (talk) 01:24, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose - As The Eloquent Peasant points out, while the terms do overlap, they aren't equal at all, and thus are better covered separately. BilCat (talk) 01:03, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
  • I did mention there is some difference in usage, but I am not seeing how the doi page supports anything other than a WP:DICDEF page. The current Insular area article is just information about current US territories, which is part of the topic of this article. CMD (talk) 01:27, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
    • The freely associated states are included i. the list od the page. What this means is that the article lead need to be corrected so that in includes them. BilCat (talk) 01:45, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
      • They are, but I don't see how that affects the DICDEF issue or the content duplication issue. (The confusion on Insular area is also not just in the lead, two of the four prose sections are territory-only.) The term and its definition is addressable by a sentence or two in a section, as I suggested above. CMD (talk) 01:58, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
        • Thanks for pointing out more areas in that article which need improvement, and would further distance the two topics. Now stop WP:BADGERING. BilCat (talk) 02:03, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
          • Hey, discussion of the rationale for not merging is helpful, so let's focus on the merits and not on other editors. -- Beland (talk) 19:15, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
            • Hey, that was 5 days ago. We've moved on. BilCat (talk) 00:31, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
              • Glad to hear. -- Beland (talk) 00:39, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
                • Now stop badgering me, and focus on the merits amd not other editors. BilCat (talk) 00:45, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose merge. Nebraska, New York, Florida, and Wyoming, to name a few, are all territories of the US. It is, thus, not true that "All current territories of the United States are insular areas" because "insular area" (by definition) refers to islands and none of those four are islands. In essense, the US has two types of territories, incorporated territories and unincorporated territories. The 50 states and DC are incorporated, while the rest of the US territories, namely, those that are possessions (i.e., not part of) of the US, are defined as unincoporated. As such, the two subjects deserve separate coverage, which is the way they currently stand and which is why they should stay that way. Mercy11 (talk) 01:22, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

  Mercy11, Nebraska etc. are not included in this article, since they are classified as states, not territories. TFD (talk) 01:45, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

WP isn't a reliable source; we don't make merge decisions based on WP article contents. Mercy11 (talk) 02:00, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Of course we make merge decisions based on Wikipedia article contents. We take into account length, overlap and ease of navigation between articles. I'm sure you can find external sources if you'd like to verify that Nebraska is a U.S. state and not a territory in the sense of Congress having direct federal control with no local sovereignty. That's what Territories of the United States is currently scoped to cover, and I think we're arguing that's what it should continue to be scoped to. Nebraska is a territory of the United States in the sense that it's a tract of land under U.S. jurisdiction, but "territory" in that sense is covered under U.S. territory. -- Beland (talk) 19:19, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

• Support - I think it makes sense to merge, given the overlap in content and the difficulty of navigating caused by an excessive number of articles covering U.S. territories. A small section explaining that these are also known as "insular areas" and a list of the Freely Associated States that explains they are not territories would be helpful additions to this article even if also mentioned elsewhere. That would make 100% overlap with Insular area. I agree that it is dubious to claim that the Freely Associated States are "insular areas of the United States", though federal programs there are administered through the Office of Insular Affairs. The territories (in the legal sense of direct federal control) that have since been chopped up or converted to states are cross-referenced here but covered in detail under Organized incorporated territories of the United States, so the fact that these were mostly not insular areas does not seem to be an impediment to merging. If the terminology really is the only sticking point, it would be worthwhile to me to rename this article Territories and insular areas of the United States just to avoid having overwhelmingly overlapping articles. -- Beland (talk) 19:37, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

If the articles were merged it could be renamed to Territories and insular posessions of the United States as seen here in the 48 U.S.C. United States Code, 2009 Edition, Title 48 - TERRITORIES AND INSULAR POSSESSIONS document published by U.S. Government Publishing Office. --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 19:47, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

and the same document (Territories and Insular Possessions) can be found elsewhere: [1] and in the Library of Congress here [2].--The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 00:25, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

I would guess "insular area" is the common name because that's the current title of the Wikipedia article, but either title would be fine by me. -- Beland (talk) 00:39, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

The U.S. Code defines insular areas differently from the Wikipedia article. It includes American Samoa, Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and the Northern Mariana Islands, but excludes Puerto Rico, Palymyra, uninhabited islands and associated states, which are included in the Insular area article. TFD (talk) 00:56, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

P.R. is a territory of the US and geographically, the closest US insular area to the U.S. mainland. An insular area is defined as “a jurisdiction that is neither a part of one of the several States nor a Federal district.” --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 02:08, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

I didn't see that definition in either one of those two linked sources (maybe I didn't look hard enough). I did see it here. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 12:22, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Here you will see "A jurisdiction that is neither a part of one of the several States nor a Federal district." --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 12:33, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Also here "Despite being the insular area that is closest to the U.S. mainland geographically, Congress and the courts have been hesitant to recognize Puerto Ricans’ constitutional protections." --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 13:15, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

PR is a commonwealth, an unincorporated territory, an insular area, etc. Why merge the articles?. There is a lot that can be added to the "insular areas" wikipedia article. Maybe the insular areas article just needs to be beefed up. I'm not concerned about "overlap". I'd rather keep an article that gives more detail about the different insular areas. --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 13:00, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

The article that gives more detail about the different insular areas is this one. "Insular areas" is a vague term of convenience, as indicated in the GAO source you note above, allowing for flexible usage (illustrated by the different definitions in sources you've found). Currently, the Insular areas article has picked a broad definition which is territories plus Associated States, so writing more about it would duplicate content from here or from Compact of Free Association. CMD (talk) 13:25, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Overlap is one of the official reasons to consider merging. Anything that can be said about the territories as a group can also be said about the insular areas. Freely Associated States already have a dedicated article to describe common aspects, so that specific content doesn't need to be more than a summary. Most of the detail about the individual areas is included on articles like Puerto Rico; the articles to be merged only talk about the commonalities. However, if there is so much content to add that subarticles are needed, then it would be better to have a single parent article. For example, it would be a bit maddening for readers to have two nearly identical parent articles for "Taxes in U.S. territories". -- Beland (talk) 17:57, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

References

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.

Merge after discussion closed with no consensus

Everyone, I am inclined to support the merge after all. User: Delasse renamed this article (a first step to merging) and I think this is the correct and good name for it. Can we change the NO CONSENSUS, NO ACTION to CONENSUS TO MERGE? @The Four Deuces:, @Mercy:, @Chipmunkdavis: @Beland:--The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 12:44, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces:, @Yarfpr: would it be possible to change the previous close decision from No Consensus to Consensus. My comments further into the discussion were inclined to merging with "if we do merge.. the article name should be changed to "Territories and insular posessions of the United States". The originator did go ahead and change this article name already so now it only makes sense to move forward, despite you know.. Delasse having done that without conesnsus.. I think.we should merge the two and maybe it was my Oppose vote that led to No Consensus. --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 12:49, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

@Beland: Please forgive the three posts with 1 message. I haven't even had my coffee yet this morning. I'm hoping the subsequent pinging works.--The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 12:50, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, that's not how that works. You don't circumvent a merge proposal by unilaterally moving the article. As such I have reverted the move.

@Delasse and The Eloquent Peasant: If you want the article moved, then please create a request for move discussion. SkyWarrior 17:27, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Maybe we could re-open the discussion because I don't think everyone is clear on the distinctions between the two concepts. A territory of the United States is an area that is neither a state nor D.C. Territories that were outside the mainland were referred to as insular areas because they were mostly islands. Today, all territories of the United States are insular areas. In addition, the federal government operates in three independent states that are in free association with the U.S. Although they are not insular areas, they are treated as such by the federal government.

So even though the two terms do not have the exact same meaning there is considerable overlap. First, all existing territories are insular areas. Secondly both articles explain the laws governing territories, for example, incorporated vs. unincorporated and organized vs. unorganized, which are defined under the Territorial Clause of the U.S. Constitution and decided by the Insular Cases by the U.S. Supreme Court. All this article has to do is to say that island territories are also called insular territories and the federal bureaucracy also sometimes uses the term to include the three associated states.

TFD (talk) 20:21, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

I agree that this matter could benefit from further discussion. I see the admin above, SkyWarrior, left a note (here) to the editor who proposed the original merge (i.e., Delasse) as to how he needs to go about moving this article (WP:RM). The "procedural close" doesn't mean Delasse was wrong in his merge proposal, what it means is that Delasse was wrong in how he was going about it. At least that's what I understand. Note I said "moving" the article, for that's what the admin says and the admin makes no mention of merging articles. Maybe is because this needs to be taken in 2 steps, first move and then merge, but I could be wrong. @The Four Deuces: I believe what the admin above wants is that for such discussion that you are suggesting be reopened, that such discussion should not be about any merge for now, but about a move, and that such discussion should take place at WP's RM page, not here. That's how I understand it. Mercy11 (talk) 21:48, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Mercy11 is pretty much correct in my reasoning: move first then merge. I closed the second merge proposal was closed on procedural grounds because it depended on the article being at Territories and insular possessions of the United States, which it is no longer.

In any case, the first merge proposal was just closed as no consensus, so I recommend waiting a little bit (say a month or so) before attempting to move/merge the article again.

(By the way, I'm not actually an admin, but I do have page mover rights). SkyWarrior 01:48, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Merger proposal 2

Procedural close. I have reverted the move; you don't get to circumvent a no consensus merge proposal by moving the article to include the merge proposal in the title. If you would like the article moved, then please create a request for move discussion. SkyWarrior 17:31, 28 August 2021 (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.

---

I changed the article title (using the RS) and now again propose to merge Insular area into Territories and insular posessions of the United States. I do not know what is the right wikipedia policy Delasse (talk) 13:08, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

• Support - because that is what they are called in the 48 U.S.C. (United States Code), 2009 Edition. --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 13:52, 28 August 2021 (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.

• Support as a reasonable compromise given the opinions in the earlier discussion, though the correct spelling is "possessions". -- Beland (talk) 19:52, 28 August 2021 (UTC)