Talk:List of states and territories of the United States/Archive 1

Would it be possible to create a column displaying the numbers 1 - 50 which would not sort so that when the states were sorted by any of the sortable parameters, the ordinal number of each state would be available in that column? I know this is possible in a spreadsheet, I have high hopes for Wikipedia. Anewcharliega (talk) 23:11, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A little while ago, I came across this page and decided that I needed to separate the list itself from the description of the content. I called the section, "How to Use this List." Sometime later, somebody changed it to, "Key." I find the term, "key," a little misleading. That being said, "How to Use this List" doesn't sound like the best title in the word. Does anybody have a better title than either of those? LM103 (talk) 23:53, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was reading another Wikipedia article and the term, "Legend," was used. Because I feel that is clearer than key, I have used that. LM103 (talk) 02:07, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Legend is fine with me. I was very welcoming of a better title. :) --Izno (talk) 03:22, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I was a little concerned myself. LM103 (talk) 04:54, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was reading this page when I noticed that in the table of “Territories of the United States of America”, total area for “Northern Mariana Islands” the area mentioned is 52,897 sq mi (137,002 km2) but in the page of “Northern Mariana Islands” the area mentioned is 463.63 km2 / 179.01 sq mi. Pleas correct the error. Many thanks for this incredible encyclopedia.

Yours sincerely Njdeh Andjergholi. --37.32.28.220 (talk) 06:32, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the link in the table for Georgia because it is erroneously pointing to the Wiki page for the country of Georgia, not the US State. I cannot figure out how to complete the edit and insert the new link to the proper Wiki page. Offeiriad (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:53, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The proper name of the District of Columbia is not Washington, D.C. According to the US Census Bureau (Page 31). "The District of Columbia has one city, Washington, which is coextensive with the District of Columbia. Washington city governmentally consolidated with the District of Columbia in 1874, which is a functioning government at the equivalent of the state level". In other words, it is the rough equivalent of a

Washington, D.C., is certainly a proper name for Washington, D.C. Your source from the Census Bureau is selective quoting. It says, "Congress has treated the District of Columbia as coextensive with Washington city since 1895" (emphasis mine). There is no actual law that makes the boundaries of the defunct city of Washington "coextensive" with the District. In any event, portraying the idea that "Washington" is a separate city within the District is factually wrong at worst and needlessly confusing at best. -

epicAdam^(talk) 22:56, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

It is not factually wrong. If you require further proof, look here, where the Census Bureau lists 'Washington' as the largest city in DC. If that still isn't good enough for you, look at this one (page 45 in a PDF document), which lists "Washington City, DC". It is very clear here what the census department says, and it flies very contrary to what you say. Toa Nidhiki05 23:40, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Census Bureau is a good source for population data, but not history. The Census Bureau treats Washington as a city, as is customary, but you can still not provide the law that made the city of Washington coextensive with the District because it does not exist. Claiming that Washington still exists as a separate city does a disservice to the reader and perpetuates a common, but mistaken, belief. Best,

epicAdam^(talk) 23:50, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

There is no incorporated city known as Washington. The United States Census Bureau has treated Washington as a city for general statistical purposes, but under law, there is no such place coextensive with the District of Columbia. In a causal sense, Washington is a community located outside of all U.S. states and serving as the

T • C • B) 04:09, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

The City of Washington is legally defined by District of Columbia Official Code § 1-107:

That portion of the District included within the limits of the City of Washington, as the same existed on the 21st day of February, 1871, and all that part of the District of Columbia embraced within the bounds and constituting on February 11, 1895, the City of Georgetown (as referred to in the Acts of Congress approved February 21, 1871, 16 Stat. 419, ch. 62, and June 20, 1874, 18 Stat. 116, ch. 337) shall be known as and shall constitute the City of Washington, the federal capital; and all general laws, ordinances, and regulations of the City of Washington are extended and made applicable to that part of the District of Columbia formerly known as the City of Georgetown....

It has legal and official existence, incorporated status aside. That the city is defined by statute rather than by the usual means of incorporation and charter is not really material. the point is that "Washington" is not merely an informal way of referring to D.C.; it has legal existence. To me, it makes sense to include it in the table, to keep the parallel construction with the state/territory tables; and to also make clear that it is now the only city within the District. A non-USAian not familiar with D.C.'s unique status may wonder what the largest city in the district is; keeping Washington in there addresses this. TJRC (talk) 23:06, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Washington does informally refer to the District of Columbia. If not, why is it not mentioned within the Washington, D.C. article. It is not the only city in the District of Columbia, there are no cities within the area. It is a federal district located outside of any U.S. state that is similar to that of a city. Legally, it does not exist and must be incorporated for it to be existent. Adding the largest city parameter provides readers with the incorrect idea—that Washington is legally its own city covering all of the District of Columbia. It is a common belief, and what makes that a

T • C • B) 00:43, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Surely you're not saying that the official code of DC is not a reliable source? What reliable source are you referring to that says it's not a city? What are you referring to that trumps a statute?

BTW, digging a bit deeper, the city of Washington was indeed incorporated, in 1802, by an act of Congress. "There is no incorporated city known as Washington" is not correct. The citation is 2 Stat. 195, May 3, 1802. You can find the volume here (volume 2, page 195 on the printed page numbers; page 231 of the PDF file, assuming its the same copy I have). The pertinent language is:

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the inhabitants of the city of Washington be constituted a body politic and corporate, by the name of a mayor and council of the city of Washington, and by their corporate name, may sue and be sued, implead and be impleaded, grant, receive, and do all other acts as natural persons, and may purchase and hold real, personal and mixed property, or dispose of the same for the benefit of the said city ; and may have and use a city seal, which may be broken or altered at pleasure....

So you have not only the statutes of the District saying it's a city, but an actual Act of Congress saying so as well. TJRC (talk) 01:16, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Washington was incorporated as a city in 1802 by the

T • C • B) 07:39, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

TBrandley has this correct. The "City of Washington" did exist but has not since 1871 when it lost its charter and governmental functions were applied to the District as a whole. The place named "Washington" did continue to exist, but it has no present legal status. An imperfect but analogous example to this situation can be found right across the river in

epicAdam^(talk) 12:57, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Contrary to what you are saying, this was passed in 1895 - well after you say the city ceased to exist. Toa Nidhiki05 14:04, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So far, I see a lot of reliable sources indicating that Washington is a city; and that today its borders are coextensive with the district. Reliable sources cited so far include (1) the U.S. Census bureau; (2) the statute of the District of Columbia; and (3) an act of Congress. Here are a few more:

• (4) "The Charter granted by Congress made Washington an incorporated city." Council of the District of Columbia, DC Home Rule ([1])
• (5) "Federal district of the U.S. Coextensive with the city of Washington, it is bounded by Maryland and Virginia." Definition of "District of Columbia", Merriam-Webster Concise Encyclopedia ([2])
• (6) "Washington, in full Washington, D.C. (“District of Columbia”), city and capital of the United States of America. It is coextensive with the District of Columbia (the city is often referred to as simply D.C.)" Encyclopedia Brittanica, "Washington" ([3])

No one has cited any reliable sources to the contrary. The positions to the contrary are assertions, backed with no reliable sources: "There is no incorporated city known as Washington"; "Washington does informally refer to the District of Columbia"; "Legally, it does not exist"; "The place named 'Washington' did continue to exist, but it has no present legal status", etc.

The few attempts to go to any source at all are simply referring to other Wikipedia articles: "If not, why is it not mentioned within the Washington, D.C. article"; "See

In sum, the sources, including the authoritative primary source, the statutes of the District of Columbia, are overwhelmingly that Washington is a city with actual legal status. Not a single source has been cited for the contrary, and I cannot find any myself. Absent some actual reliable sources for the claim that Washington is not actually a city, it seems pretty clear that the article should include it as such. TJRC (talk) 17:37, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Those arguments that you are providing are ridiculous. The first of those sources come from 1802 when it was first incorporated and is historical as I already pointed out above, while the second of which is simply a dictionary with no interest of legal entity or official terminology. Meanwhile, the source from

Encyclopedia Brittanica

may be usually considered reliable, but let's not forget that is also the article stating that Washington, D.C. is an occupied territory of the United States, when it actually exists as a federal district. You cannot believe everything those people claim, but it is the same thing: the United States Census Bureau treats Washington as a city for statistical purposes and Encyclopedia Brittanica is following on those documents. I still respectfully oppose this proposal.

Here are the reliable sources pointing to the contrary that you requested:

1. Kalorama Triangle: The History of a Capital Neighborhood. The History Press. 2011. p. 36. The District of Columbia Organic Act of 1871 revoked the Organic Act of 1801 and merged the City of Washington, Georgetown and Washington County into the single entity of the District of Columbia.
2. Origin and government of the District of Columbia. United States House of Representatives. 1909. pp. 9–10. The act of Congress of February 21, 1871, which revoked the charters of the corporations of the City of Washington, Georgetown and the lavy court of the County of Washington, established a single municipal government officially known as the District of Columbia", and later, "The present local government of the District of Columbia, like its two immediate predecessors, is a municipal corporation having jurisdiction over the entire territory.

My previous quotation of place named 'Washington' did continue to exist, but it has no present legal status is correct. The

T • C • B) 19:57, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Of course, you conveniently neglect to mention the bit in the the Charter of the District of Columbia that specifically states the 'city of Washington' exists, with borders co-extensive with the District itself. That piece was added in 1895 - well after the 1871 date you put. Toa Nidhiki05 20:35, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have just read the document you presume provides evidence of Washington's official existence, but have not found anything there that states it was actually reincorporated as a city since its last merger. A code is not going to help prove your case. There has been no legal agency for the United States claiming the borders are "coextensive" with the District of Columbia, or that it even exists, while the "official code" that you pointed out states past tense terms. The United States Census Bureau is only a general statistical agency!

T • C • B) 22:11, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

So the city exists, but it doesn't exist? I'm a bit confused here. The code of the District of Columbia in theory should prove my case, because the DC code contains all the laws of the District of Columbia. Toa Nidhiki05 20:32, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It would be great if the tables had the traditional abbreviations for the relevant entries because a lot of people still refer to a particular state by a traditional abbreviation and it's still widely used in the newspapers, legal citations, etc. Jay (talk) 19:49, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The two-letter postal codes, which are identical to the

List of U.S. state abbreviations. SiBr₄ (talk) 20:11, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

As of now, if you sort the table by Date of Statehood, it gets sorted in alphabetical order, starting with all states that were accepted into the Union in April, no matter which year, followed by those accepted in August and so on. I understand that the dates should be displayed that way, but shouldn't that column have invisible sort criteria, so that they are sorted in chronological order? /Ludde23 ^{Talk Contrib} 11:39, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Does it work now? I've added data-sort-type="date" to the "Statehood" column, which should force the column to read its contents as dates rather than text. SiBr₄ (talk) 12:03, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I wish I could do this, but don't know how. I do know that there should be a column that does not sort, just numbers 01 to 50, likely at the left. Thus the user would know at a glance, 15th state admitted, 28th largest state in area, and so forth. Please somebody who knows how to do this, fix it up? Anewcharliega (talk) 08:43, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@NewYorkActuary: the question: do these articles as:আমেৰিকা যুক্তৰাষ্ট্ৰৰ ৰাজ্যসমূহ, bs:Savezne države Sjedinjenih Američkih Država, fr:États des États-Unis belongs to List of states and territories of the United States or to U.S. state? --Yelysavet (talk) 14:03, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Yelysavet: Thanks for engaging in discussion. To me, the real question is -- if a person is reading this article and wants to see a French-language (or Bosnian-language, etc.) version of the list, will the side column provide a link to the list in that other-language Wikipedia? By removing the in-article inter-wiki links, you are telling the reader that there is no such list in that other-language Wikipedia. But there is a list -- it's just not in a stand-alone article. And so, the only way to get to that other-language list is by manually adding the link to this article's code. To say this another way -- the French-language fr:États des États-Unis "belongs" to both the English-language articles List of states and territories of the United States and U.S. state. And because we can use the automatic Wiki-data system to link only one of these two articles, we need to use a manually-inserted link for the other one. I hope that makes sense and I'll be happy to hear your comments on it. NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:26, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@NewYorkActuary: Ok, I'll do it via {{Interwiki extra}} --Yelysavet (talk) 20:30, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

where is it — Preceding unsigned comment added by I dont have a username for this (talk • contribs) 20:34, July 25, 2017 (UTC)

If you mean Guantanamo Bay Naval Base it's right where it always has been, in Cuba. It's not a US state or territory, it's just a military base on foreign, leased soil, and so it does not belong in this article. Meters (talk) 20:47, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have given some thought to Station1's comments during the earlier requested move discussion,
"... delete the 5-paragraph lead, merging anything non-duplicative into U.S. state if that is meant to be the descriptive article."
"Possibly excepting the first sentence, I don't see any narrative above the first header that needs to be in a list article rather than at U.S. state."
I concur that much of what's in the lead of this list article doesn't need to be there, as it's included in the more in-depth, descriptive U.S. state article. So, I've been bold, and have trimmed the lead down to 1 paragraph. I also updated some of the population figures, replaced some depreciated templates, tweaked the wording of several notes, and sought out a few additional references, in addition to removing the no-longer germane congressional representation column. Cheers. Drdpw (talk) 02:02, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've boldly reverted. This is a featured list and passed an extensive peer review for a version substantially similar to the current one. Such a major edit like this - one that was generally rejected by the previous discussion - needs to be decided upon by consensus, and I firmly oppose. This action doesn't make the article better - it removed 4/5s of the content, making it worse, and would almost certainly fail

WP:FLCR. Toa Nidhiki05 02:44, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Fair enough; however, by looking only at what was removed, you missed what was added, such as updated population figures, additional citations, a few additional in-table footnotes. I've gone ahead and made these (hopefully) non-controversial enhancements. Please, if you don't like the way I've worded something, go ahead and tweak what doesn't set well with you. Cheers. Drdpw (talk) 02:08, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My bad on that. All of those look good. I'm open to reducing the size of the lede (five is a lot), but dropping to one is really radical and I think a FL deserves a bit more input that that. Three or even two paragraphs at least like a decent size if it can be dropped down. If there's a way to shrink it down without risking the FL rating I'm all for it. We should decide what's really important there and drop off some of the stuff that isn't needed. Toa Nidhiki05 03:03, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Quote from page: "Each state has its own constitution, grounded in republican principles, and government"

False on fact and personal political party preference motivated wording.

Each state is not "grounded in republican principles, and government"

Replace "grounded in republican principles, and government" with something more representative of the fact that there are 2 political parties. ie: Each state has its own constitution and a government elected by the people.

Appears to have been added here: (cur | prev) 00:07, 29 December 2015‎ Drdpw (talk | contribs)‎ . . (42,961 bytes) (+2,289)‎ . . (refined intro + citations)

174.21.175.138 (talk) 16:54, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request to List of states and territories of the United States has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Replace "grounded in republican principles, and government" with something more representative of the fact that there are 2 political parties. ie: Each state has its own constitution and a government elected by the people.

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_states_and_territories_of_the_United_States#Political_party_preference_for_republican_motivated_wording. 174.21.175.138 (talk) 17:15, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. There might be a misunderstanding here. In the context of that sentence, "republican" does not refer to the Republican Party, but rather to the philosophical concept of republicanism. Article IV, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution provides that "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government...". - Station1 (talk) 02:19, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for correctly responding to the request above. The Constitution does indeed guarantee that every state has a "Republican Form of Government," and the term does not apply to a political party. You are correct that it applied to a philosophical concept dating back to Roman times. 2601:283:8300:C03D:4AC:95CF:964F:11F9 (talk) 17:58, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Should there be a short section at the end of the article mentioning Native American reservations? While U.S. territories do not have sovereignty (according to the Supreme Court), Native American reservations do have sovereignty (in same way that U.S. states have sovereignty). Because Native American reservations are sovereign entities, should they be mentioned in the article? There would not be a list (there are too many reservations to list), but their existence could at least be mentioned in a few sentences. Native American reservations can be viewed as pseudo-territories, given that they are managed by the federal government in the same way that territories are. LumaP15 (talk) 02:20, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone please take out the words "became sovereign in July 1776 upon agreeing joined the first Union of states between 1777 and 1781, The original 13 states became sovereign in July 1776 upon agreeing to the United States Declaration of Independence, and each" in first sentence of Footnote C, which would change the sentence to "The original 13 states joined the first Union of states between 1777 and 1781..."? The issue of sovereignty was hotly debated in the colonies in the 1760s and 1770s. (See three different colonial pamphlets from 1764: "The Rights of the British Colonies Asserted and Proved" by James Otis, "Reasons Why the British Colonies in America, Should Not be Charged with Internal Taxes" a.k.a. "The Book of Reasons" by Thomas Fitch, and "The Rights of the Colonies Examined" by Stephen Hopkins). With the colonists in disagreement, we are not going to be able to resolve this issue in a wikipedia footnote. And there is no need to try to resolve it in a list of the dates the original states ratified the U.S. Constitution. 2601:283:8300:C03D:4AC:95CF:964F:11F9 (talk) 17:54, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request to List of states and territories of the United States has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please explain on the article what Reps means. Thank you.194.193.152.27 (talk) 09:14, 3 April 2019 (UTC) 194.193.152.27 (talk) 09:14, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Prior to the first table in the article, the introduction says that the "number of representative(s) in the U.S. House of Representatives" is included in the table, along with an explanatory footnote, and the column header in each table links to either List of United States congressional districts or Non-voting members of the United States House of Representatives. What further explanation would you like to see? ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 14:00, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is a section about Native American reservations (see above) which has been on this talk page for nearly a year, and no one raised any objections to it during that time. Yet when I added content about it recently (to the main article), it was reverted within one day. So I will raise the question again: should this article include a brief section about Native American reservations? While they are not "territories" in the semantic sense (like Guam for example), they are entities that are administered directly by the federal government (like territories) — and, like U.S. states, Native American tribes possess limited sovereignty (tribal sovereignty). Also, Native American reservations are considered first-level administrative divisions — see for example the template Template:United States political divisions, which lists an article for Native American reservations alongside the states and territories. LumaP15 (talk) 15:12, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about states, territories, and DC, which are the principal administrative units of the United States with federal representation in Congress. In theory, every territory can become a state, and most territories have become states. In contrast, reservations are semi-sovereign entities with no federal representation and no constitutional role. They fall outside the scope of this article and are thus not included and are instead covered in List of Indian reservations in the United States. This is a featured list, and because of this major structural changes should be discussed and agreed upon before they are made. Toa Nidhiki05 15:25, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I propose adding this map to the article:

It includes the 56 main jurisdictions already covered in the article: the 50 states, District of Columbia, and 5 inhabited territories. LumaP15 (talk) 15:29, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This map makes no distinguishment between state and territory, and it does not include every territory. The current map, which includes all the states as well as DC, is sufficient, with the territory map being located in the lower section as territories are far less important to the scope of this article. Toa Nidhiki05 15:55, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The

Exclusive Economic Zone

map of the United States should be included because it accurately depicts the location of each territory, and is centered on the Pacific Ocean (which is where most territories are located). The world map showing the locations of the territories shows the traditional map centered on the prime meridian, meaning the territories are at the far left / right rather than in the center. Also, on the world map image, the locations of Kingman Reef, Palmyra Atoll and Jarvis islands are inaccurate — they are shown as being southeast of Hawaii, when in reality they are south-southwest of Hawaii.

Also, I would argue that the territories are not less important than the states. The article should neutrally discuss both states and territories as U.S. subdivisions. LumaP15 (talk) 16:17, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]