Template talk:Territories of the United States

This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

United States This template is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles

The Republic of Madawaska is not within the contemporary boundary of the United States. It is in New Brunswick, Canada. Jeff in CA (talk) 23:53, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

While I think this template is a great addition to Wikipedia, I think there's way too many links in it, and that many of them don't belong in a single template. In particular, the stuff in the "Former sovereign or unrecognized states within the contemporary United States" section is a jumble of disparate entities, none of which constitutes a "territory" in the sense meant by the parent article of this template.

I also think the distinction between the main block of territories at the top and the "unincorporated territories" section isn't consistent. The idea that some territory might be fully incorported into the U.S. and some not only entered US constitutional law with the Insular Cases in the aftermath of the Spanish-American War, so it isn't correct to put territories from before that time into that category. I also think uninhabited islets should probably not be grouped together with populated territories, just for readability/navigation purposes.

Finally, I don't think it makes sense to separate separate phases in one territory's development (i.e., District vs. Territory of Alaska) far apart from each other in the template by date.

Here's my recommended version of this template in my sandbox. I've combined different phases the same territory with links and dates noted (e.g. different govt's of Alaska; I also combined Louisiana and Missouri territory because this was a single territory that just changed its name). I eliminated "former sovereign or unrecognized states" section entirely. And I broke out the Guano Island stuff from the rest. Let me know what you think. --Jfruh (talk) 19:24, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Jfruh: I'm the creator of the template. Thanks for removing the unnecessary links I had previously included. I wasn't sure what the legal status (in either international or domestic U.S. law) of what those occupations were and I'd just rather there be some sort of explanation within the collection of edit summaries of the template in case someone else tries to add them back. I think your template is mostly fine minus the omission of the Restored Government of Virginia and the Oklahoma Panhandle. Abraham Lincoln recognized the Restored Government of Virginia following the first Wheeling Convention in May 1861, and so while West Virginia was not readmitted to the Union until two years later, the counties under the control of the Restored Government were organized (though not by an organic act) and incorporated as they were part of the U.S. proper (even though this occurred before the Insular Cases). The Oklahoma Panhandle was not organized, but I think that what you've done for Alaska in your version of the template (organizing the same territories that ultimately formed the same U.S. state) can and should be done for the Indian Territory, the Oklahoma Territory, and the Panhandle. I completely agree that regrouping the Guano Islands Act claims and minor outlying islands is an improvement if for no other reason than readability and navigation.

However, I disagree with your characterization of the group of entities under the header of "Former sovereign and unrecognized states within the contemporary United States" as a "jumble of disparate entities". They are former states (not U.S. states, but states in the political science understanding of the term) whose histories are part of the territorial evolution of the United States (particularly the Republic of Texas, the Vermont Republic, and the Confederate States of America because of its relationship with the territorial evolution of West Virginia). However, I completely acknowledge that they are not territories in the same legal sense that either organized incorporated territories or unincorporated territories are. I'll just split it off into a separate template. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 16:40, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@CommonKnowledgeCreator: A couple points! First, sorry if I sounded cranky. I really do like this template and I'm glad you made it!

re: the "Former sovereign and unrecognized states within the contemporary United States." I guess my beef with it is that it contains a very disaparate group of entities, including de facto and de jure independent states (Texas, Hawaii), ephemeral microstates (Muskogee), secessionaist governments (the CSA), parts of other sovereign states (the various Mexican states/provinces), provisional governments, etc., etc., that other than being "governments that exist on current US territory" don't have much to do with one another. If they are going to end up in another template I think creating subcategories there would help a lot in making it parseable.

re: the Restored Government of Virginia. I feel strongly that it doesn't belong here because, again, it isn't a territory in the sense of the parent article of the template. As far the U.S. Government was concerned, it wasn't a territory; it was the state of Virginia, and its senators and representatives sat in the U.S. Congress. That's why the creation of West Virginia was constitutional: the Restored Government consented to the creation of a new state out of Virginia's territory. But even after 1863, a small portion of Virginia remained under the control of the Restored Government and, again, continued to elect representatives and appoint senators until Reconstruction began.

re: Oklahoma: the Indian Territory/Oklahoma/Panhandle situation is complex and any way to render it on this template is going to leave some stuff out. However, I would hesitate to lump them together, not least because Indian Territory was initially much larger than just modern-day Oklahoma; the Oklahoma territory was, like many other territories on this list, carved out of it. But I don't feel that strongly about it. As for the Panhandle, though: unlike the other entities on this list, it never had any sort of government or separate identity officially recognized by the U.S. federal government; it just happened to be a piece of unorganized territory, not unlike, e.g., the Mexican Cession.

Anyway, I haven't made any of these changes but would like to put them out there for discussion. I also think the readability of the template would really benefit from putting the items into columns within each section. I just did a test and learned that I have a lot to learn about how columns on wikipedia work, but I'm going to try to figure that out in the next couple of days. --Jfruh (talk) 18:56, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The phrase "territories of the United States" has a specific meaning in U.S. constitutional law, as described in the linked parent article to this template. It does not refer to all territories which the U.S. has ever governed or administered de facto. For instance, Cuba was never a territory, nor was the UN Trust Territory of the Pacific or the areas of Japan that were occupied after the war.

I think a lot of this material (most of the stuff under the "United Nations trust territories and other inhabited territories governed by the United States" heading) should be pruned, and intend to do so in the near future. Putting this section here on the talk page if people want to talk about it. --Jfruh (talk) 01:54, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]