Talk:Territories of the United States
This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
This level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 365 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 8 sections are present. |
Guantanamo Bay Naval Base
[edit]And Guantanamo Bay Naval Base?--139.47.45.89 (talk) 21:39, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
- No. It is not a sub-national administrative division of the U.S., it is a U.S. military base located on land leased from the Cuban government. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:01, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Ducie Island Guano claim
[edit]Does the United States still claim Ducie Island? MTG 152 (talk) 04:26, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
- According to The Sovereignty of Guano Islands in the Pacific Ocean (a 1933 review of Guano Act claims by the U.S. State Department), the claim on Ducie Island was never bonded or accepted by the U.S. government. (p. 235). —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 15:02, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
Status of the Indian Territory before it became part of the State of Oklahoma
[edit]Was the Indian Territory an unincorporated territory like American Samoa and the United States Virgin Islands? 2001:1308:27C2:DD00:996:1525:7AB4:8CA3 (talk) 22:29, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
- The distinction of incorporated / unincorporated didn't arise until far-off island territories were acquired. As such I don't think the question ever arose with regards to the continental Indian Territory. older ≠ wiser 01:59, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
- The Indian Territory was part of the Louisiana Purchase, which the Supreme Court determined had been incorporated into the United States. TFD (talk) 12:48, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
- That is an interesting unsupported assertion. It's approximately true, geographically speaking (see [1], [2], [3], etc.). I'm no historian but, offhand, I doubt that it is true in the sense of incorporation being discussed here. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 13:31, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
- Indian Territory was a descriptive term in law for an area of land within the Louisiana Purchase, an integral/incorporated part of the USA, whose boundaries changed over a period of decades. There never was an Indian Territory established through an organic act. Therefore, Indian Territory was neither an incorporated or unincorporated territory; the land considered Indian Territory was, however, incorporated. Drdpw (talk) 15:03, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
- Continental territories acquired from European nations were considered as part of the US, although it was recognized that native peoples had rights to the land that were not extinguished except by treaties by the federal government with tribes. Although the concept of incorporated territory was not explicitly articulated until later, there was certainly the concept of manifest destiny with the expectation that US would expand across the North American continent. older ≠ wiser 15:10, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
- That is an interesting unsupported assertion. It's approximately true, geographically speaking (see [1], [2], [3], etc.). I'm no historian but, offhand, I doubt that it is true in the sense of incorporation being discussed here. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 13:31, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
Navassa Island = Disputed? (in Infobox, elsewhere)
[edit]In the Infobox, Navassa Island is listed under “uninhabited” territories, and not under “disputed”, yet its article mentions that it is part of an ongoing territorial dispute with Haiti.
This fact is also not mentioned in the lead, although the disputed circumstances of the two US-claimed territories administered by Colombia are.
Hermes Thrice Great (talk) 16:36, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
- "disputed" is poor word choice, it refers to the two territories the US does not actually administer rather than all with a dispute. That is also why they are mentioned in the lead. I've changed it to "claimed" in the infobox for clarity on this. CMD (talk) 01:55, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
- Sorry for the late reply—thanks for taking action on that.
- Hermes Thrice Great (talk) 01:15, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
Cuba, Philippines, Puerto Rico and Guam
[edit]Cuba, Philippines, Puerto Rico and Guam are listed in the Former U.S. military occupations section as having come under military occupation "when the Treaty of Paris took effect." (the treaty was signed in 1898 and ratified in 1899, taking effect upon ratification or shortly thereafter). My understanding re the Philippines, for example, gleaned from other WP articles related to this and from discussion on their talk pages (see e.g., Talk:Insular Government of the Philippine Islands § Insular Government succeeded First Philippine Republic), is that the U.S. military government of the Philippines came into effect on August 14, 1898 upon the surrender of its capital, Manila, to U.S. forces by the Spanish Governor General, and was supplanted by U.S. civil administration on July 4, 1899, shortly after the exchange of ratifications of the Treaty of Paris (1898). Discussion? Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:48, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
- Wikipedia articles that use American English
- C-Class level-5 vital articles
- Wikipedia level-5 vital articles in Geography
- C-Class vital articles in Geography
- C-Class United States articles
- High-importance United States articles
- C-Class United States articles of High-importance
- WikiProject United States articles
- C-Class United States Territories articles
- Top-importance United States Territories articles
- WikiProject United States Territories articles
- C-Class Puerto Rico articles
- High-importance Puerto Rico articles
- C-Class Puerto Rico articles of High-importance