Talk:Territories of the United States


Guantanamo Bay Naval Base

And Guantanamo Bay Naval Base?--139.47.45.89 (talk) 21:39, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Ducie Island Guano claim

Does the United States still claim Ducie Island? MTG 152 (talk) 04:26, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Status of the Indian Territory before it became part of the State of Oklahoma

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Navassa Island = Disputed? (in Infobox, elsewhere)

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]
Sorry for the late reply—thanks for taking action on that.
Hermes Thrice Great (talk) 01:15, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cuba, Philippines, Puerto Rico and Guam

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)[reply]

According to Military Government of the Philippine Islands, military rule lasted until 1902, overlapping with US civilian rule starting in 1901. I have updated the "Former U.S.-administered areas" section. The "Former U.S. military occupations" sections now says military occupation started in 1898, and ended when the Treaty of Paris ceded the territories to the United States. (So I think that's all accurate now, correct me if I'm wrong.) -- Beland (talk) 10:57, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed between Columbia, the US, and...?

Looks like our various articles are, in grand Wikipedia tradition, both internally and externally inconsistent as to who the disputants currently are. Has 'Jamaica's claim has been resolved since entering into several bilateral agreements with Colombia'? Similarly with by Honduras's claims, I think. And Nicaragua apparently does formally accept having lost an ICJ case, so that's now historical -- right? Can we safely omit all of these, or note they're now historical? 109.255.211.6 (talk) 23:36, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I updated the articles to note the Jamaica claim went dormant in 1994 due to a treaty with Colombia. The Honduras and Nicaragua claims are also dropped, so I think all three articles (Territories of the United States, Serranilla Bank, and Bajo Nuevo Bank) are in sync now. Thanks for noticing the mismatch. -- Beland (talk) 10:45, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Territory vs territory

FYI: they're not the same. Territory, with a capital T, is defined by the U.S. Dept of the Interior as, "an incorporated United States insular area." Territory with a lower-case t is defined as, "an unincorporated United States insular area." (This capitalization convention must be used when the word is being used on its own. Otherwise, use "incorporated territory" and "unincorporated territory", respectively.) Ghost writer's cat (talk) 06:33, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We're under no obligation to follow whatever style guidance the DOI uses. For example, they also capitalize State and Federal, which we would not in most circumstances. older ≠ wiser 11:24, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Bkonrad Why would you be intentionally obtuse when you need to be clear? If "State" and "state" had entirely different definitions, then yes, you would be required to use them appropriately. The DOI is defining terms; it's not a style manual. Ghost writer's cat (talk) 17:46, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Except they are not using State vs state or Federal vs Federal in any meaningful way. I repeat that we are under no obligation to follow whatever stylization the DOI might use. older ≠ wiser 18:41, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How are these not "colonies"?

These territories belong to the USA and are subjected to its rules, yet their peoples don't have the same rights as the general US population (ex: vote on elections). How are these not "colonies", then?

The article needs to either describe the territories as "colonies", even if some countries call them some other term of less negative connotation, or else explain how they are different, like a section titled "'Territories' vs 'colonies'". 109.49.135.165 (talk) 09:26, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There would be cross-article consistency issues here, and disconnects may now exist between articles. The main article about this would be the WP article on Colony, and other articles should not deviate from that without pointing out strong justification explicitly supported locally. Some years back, I had the notion that a colonized territory necessarily must have an influx of a large colonizing population and that the territory should be referred to as "colonialized" and not "colonized" if lacking this large colonizing population. I found scant support for that and eventually gave it up. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:18, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have added to the article a note that some of these territories are still on the United Nations list of non-self-governing territories, which is a sort of list of modern-day colonies. This debate is also discussed in the rest of the "Public image" section. -- Beland (talk) 10:31, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
allikas: Https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Territories_of_the_United_States