I started researching this and making the maps back in May, and after two months of work, I finally popped it up. Everything is either referenced in the articles linked, or in external links, but I can add other extlinks if needed. I don't really know what else to say here, except I think it might be ready for nomination, so here I am. :) --
Golbez05:49, 4 August 2006 (UTC)reply
Object. Provide a general source of all items; otherwise you have to source each item individually. Additionally, the sources you already have are not properly formatted with {{cite web}}. The irregular intercalations of text make the whole article look ugly. --
RuneWelsh |
ταλκ09:37, 4 August 2006 (UTC)reply
Hehe, thank you. You could use two columns for each decade, but the cost would be making the maps smaller. Or maybe you could alternate the side on which the maps are (say 1880s left, 1890s right) Try experimenting a little, if you've got the time. --
RuneWelsh |
ταλκ16:11, 9 August 2006 (UTC)reply
I believe in part it could be addressed to putting on more text explaining the territorial change. There would be less white space and therefor not that ugly & more informative.
Renata04:42, 6 August 2006 (UTC)reply
I've guffed out a lot of the entries, adding the present-day states and such. A little more might be able to be done, but in many areas, I'm not sure what I could add. I suppose I could add all the capitals. ;) --
Golbez07:41, 6 August 2006 (UTC)reply
Oppose because it has no lead (1 sentence, does not qualify as such), but I have to admit that is one interesting & good list.
Renata04:42, 6 August 2006 (UTC)reply
Gosh, I want to support it :) But you could say in the intro why the territory changed, were those peaceful changes or not. You know some sort of very general overview what happened.
Renata00:15, 8 August 2006 (UTC)reply
Support - Could use a bit more work on the introduction, and a picture at the very beginning of the list (by the introduction) would be nice. But an excellent list overall. --
Tim4christ1719:03, 7 August 2006 (UTC)reply
Oppose Sorry but calling the article Territorial evolution of the United States and failing to include the United States territories is not acceptable.
Joelito (
talk)
17:19, 9 August 2006 (UTC)reply
I'm working on them, but technically, they are no more part of the United States than the Isle of Man is part of the United Kingdom. Perhaps I'm wrong. --
Golbez17:44, 9 August 2006 (UTC)reply
Actually, U.S. territories are still very much a part of the United States. I note that several territories are already listed - the Louisiana Purchase, the Alaska Territory, etc. It's just common sense that its other terroritories - including the current Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and past holdings such as Cuba - be included. --
Tim4christ1721:46, 9 August 2006 (UTC)reply
Alaska, Louisiana, etc. Territories were incorporated territories, incorporated into the borders of the United States. Puerto Rico, Cuba, etc. are unincorporated territories, possessions of the US government but not part of the country. A prime example: A war about 140 years ago told us that incorporated parts of the country do not have the right to leave, but I do believe Puerto Rico would have the ability to leave, were certain conditions met. --
Golbez01:46, 10 August 2006 (UTC)reply
I've added a full list of unincorporated territories to the Notes, and there's a possible draft of a list on the talk page, but I am still very much against including them in the main timeline. No one challenges one whit that
Arizona Territory was part of the United States; however, you might annoy some people if you call the CNMI or Puerto Rico part of the United States. (And you might annoy some people if you don't - there's no winning). --
Golbez07:03, 10 August 2006 (UTC)reply
If you're born in Puerto Rico, you're automatically a U.S. citizen. I guess I've always figured that meant it was part of the United States.... --
Tim4christ1708:03, 10 August 2006 (UTC)reply
According to
United States nationality law: "Children born in the United States (including not only the 50 states and the District of Columbia, but also, in most cases, Puerto Rico, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and the Panama Canal Zone before it was returned to Panama), are U.S. citizens at birth" In other words, the unincorporated territories aren't quite equal to the states, whereas I don't think there has ever been any difference between the incorporated territories and states as far as citizenship is concerned. Also, people from American Samoa, while U.S. nationals, aren't U.S. citizens, possibly because the territory is unorganized. And finally, Puerto Ricans have representation in neither congress nor the electoral college. It seems to me to be the difference between "part of the United States" and "a possession of the United States". --
Golbez08:23, 10 August 2006 (UTC)reply
You have gone on a different direction. The article is talking about land and you are talking about people. The article is concerned with the United States territories. Territories includes incorporated and unincorporated territories. Wikipieda does not care if it annoys some people we are here to present verifiable facts.
Joelito (
talk)
13:06, 10 August 2006 (UTC)reply
The verifiable fact is, unincorporated territories are not part of the nation, and incorporated territories are. --
Golbez19:01, 10 August 2006 (UTC)reply
Support - Excellent list. Top class. Rmhermen- probably not stable? I'm not seeing too many questions, I'm seeing editors discussing how to address comments here- perfectly valid. If you weren't allowed to change anything during FLC or FAC, nothing would ever pass. --
PresN21:02, 11 August 2006 (UTC)reply