Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Peer review/Territorial evolution of the United States/archive3

< Wikipedia:Peer review‎ | Territorial evolution of the United States
(Redirected from Wikipedia:Peer review/Territorial evolution of the United States)

Territorial evolution of the United States edit

Previous peer review page

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

Yesterday I added the following items to the to do list. I suppose I should have posted them here for comment first. Sorry.

  • If decide to show Line of Proclamation in 3-1-1781 map, consider changes made to it by Treaty of Fort Stanwix and Treaty of Lochaber.
    • Agreed, this should be discussed and researched before any changes made, it can be a complex subject. --Golbez (talk) 05:52, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • maps for 8-16-1812 and 9-29-1813 say "administered by West Florida"; should be "by U.S."
    • Should it? West Florida appears to have maybe been in charge during that short time, if it was administered by the U.S. then there would have been no need for military action. --Golbez (talk) 05:52, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Republic of West Florida ceased on 12/10/1810, so that entity was not in charge of anything after that. And any areas to its east that remained in the control of the Spanish Province of West Florida would be said to be administered by Spain.
  • The U.S. military occupied several parts of West Florida at different times beginning in 1810. An occupying force, in my opinion, administers the area it occupies.
  • Spain never relinquished any claim to any part of West Florida until the 1819 treaty ratification in 1821.
  • Status as of 8-16-1812: Spain claimed and the U.S. administered Areas II and III, while the U.S. claimed and Spain administered Area IV.
  • Status as of 9-29-1813: Spain claimed and the U.S. administered all of Areas II, III and IV.
  • Area II was the land of the Republic of West Florida, which was occupied and annexed by the U.S. on December 10, 1810. From then on, Area II was administered by the U.S. After Spain was militarily defeated by the rebels (admittedly, a very short battle) in September 1810, Spain still considered Area II as part of its Province of West Florida continuously until 1821. So while Spain claimed Area II, the U.S. occupied it and administered it.
  • Areas III and IV, the lands between the Pearl and Perdido Rivers, were also part of the Spanish Province of West Florida and were also claimed by the U.S. from 1803 on. Area III was occupied by the U.S. military in 1811 and thus annexed de facto. In 1811 and again in 1812 the Americans proclaimed jurisdiction over Area IV while Spain still held it; however, the U.S. did not occupy and annex it de facto until April 1813.
  • So at the date of admission of the state of Louisiana on April 30, 1812, in the unorganized territory (Areas II, III and IV), the U.S. controlled Areas II and III but not Area IV.
  • Likewise, two weeks later, when West Florida between the Pearl and Perdido Rivers was assigned to Mississippi Territory, Area IV (but not Area III) remained under the control of Spanish Florida. In other words, only part of the U.S.-claimed portion of West Florida east of the Pearl River remained under the control of Spanish Florida.
  • From April 1813 and later, none of U.S.-occupied West Florida west of the Perdido was administered by Spain, although Spain certainly claimed it.
Thanks; I don't know how I did it but I seem to have completely missed that, yeah, these frames are long after the Republic of West Florida ceased to be. Fixed. --Golbez (talk) 03:10, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • change May 1, 1915 map to show Punta Paitilla in Panama
    • But when did Punta Paitilla become part of Canal Zone? --Golbez (talk) 05:52, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • The peninsula that contains Punta Paitilla (except for a tiny piece of the tip of the point) was part of Canal Zone from inception until May 1, 1915, when Panama City was de-enclaved. The whole peninsula then became part of Panama. In the months after July 12, 1918, the U.S. took back all of the peninsula again.
        • I see... But, when should I show it as part of Canal Zone? "in the months after..." is not the best description. ... You know, stuff like this really makes me lean toward taking out Canal Zone, except the broad strokes, and leaving the specifics to another article, like with the bancos. It may require more detail than this article is designed to give. --Golbez (talk) 03:10, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
          • I advise to show it on 7-12-1918, because on that day the U.S. expropriated 2.6 of the 50 hectares of Punta Paitilla; that area was quickly increased to the full 50 hectares after the U.S. surveyed it in 1918 (unfortunately, I haven't been able to determine the exact date of that next 1918 letter to the Government of Panama). This particular entry is already in the table with no map and could stay the way it is, in my opinion. In fact, as the table stands right now, there are entries for all the changes involving the Canal Zone. The only necessary modification for Punta Paitilla is on the map for 5-1-1915. I do not think it's necessarily required to introduce new additional maps for Canal Zone. The only new map I would highly recommend is for the case immediately below. Jeff in CA (talk) 06:59, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The area of 3168 acres annexed west of Rio Chagres mouth should appear as CZ territory in the 4 maps of the Canal Zone following August 21, 1918.
    • What would it look like? Do you have an image? Is this the culmination of the several 'too small to map' entries, or are those placeholders until a map can be made? (And, to be honest, this could probably warrant a separate "Territorial evolution of the Panama Canal Zone", with all of the changes and annotated details that are much too fine for this map) --Golbez (talk) 05:52, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Here is an image. The area is the northwestern part of the Zone extending to Piña. It is one "big enough to map" area added to the Zone on August 21, 1918, combined with a "too-small" triangle area added on December 8, 1915.

Jeff in CA (talk) 16:05, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some further comments/questions:

  • 1784-5-12 (on the change map) There is no pointer from the words "border disagreement" to Indian Stream territory.
  • 1848-7-4 Should the borders of Mexico's ceded departments of Nuevo Mexico and Texas be shown from Mexico's perspective, rather than showing Texas to the full extent of its U.S.-claimed area? That is, Nuevo Mexico was larger than is shown because it included much of the land that Texas had claimed.
    • There are two bits to look at: What the U.S. claimed before the cession, and what they had after. Before, they claimed Texas and bits of three other states; after, they had Texas, the bits of three other states, Alta California, and Nuevo Mexico. So the cession map is accurate, as it only included the territories, but the Texas maps could maybe get a little more exposition. Any suggestions?
      • I was thinking that, from Mexico's point-of-view, their cession of Nuevo Mexico looked like it does in this map. Mexico no doubt considered none of its department of Santa Fe de Nuevo México as being part of the U.S. state of Texas. With the Texas annexation in 1845, the United States inherited Texas' unenforced claim to the east bank of the Rio Grande (which was successfully resisted by Mexican forces in 1841), a claim disputed by Mexico until the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo.
        • I'm still not clear on the issue; all that matters is that land was claimed by the U.S. and Mexico, and now is no longer claimed by Mexico. The map appears, in that regard, to be accurate? --Golbez (talk) 03:10, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
          • Yes, you are correct. Ok, I've thought about this. When the Republic of Texas became a state, the U.S. inherited its claim to all land east of the Rio Grande. As stated later in the article, "Texas had little to no control over the area outside of its eastern quarter."
I'd like to see a modification to the international maps of 12-29-1845 and 6-15-1846. It would be to show on those two maps the divide between the areas controlled by the Texas (i.e., U.S.) and by Mexico. I think you could show this the same on the maps for both days (for as you said, we do not track day-by-day gains in war).
The area controlled by Mexico would be noted as, "Claimed by Texas (U.S.); administered by Mexico." What do you think? Jeff in CA (talk) 07:00, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1858-12-3 The Howland Island maps' subtitles show the later date of 1859-9-6.
  • 1859-7-6 Kentucky/Tennessee - Question: I would imagine this is the date that the change was given effect by law. Did the surveying team's result have the force of law? Was this the date it was ratified by both states?
    • Unknown when it was ratified; my best source ([1]) references a book I don't have access to. --Golbez (talk) 05:52, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1861-1-26 change map (Louisiana) - says "Unionst" area
  • 1861-4-17 change map (Virginia) - says "Unionst" area twice
  • 1867-8-28 - Question: Had Midway Atoll been previously claimed by the Kingdom of Hawaii?
    • I'm guessing not; it had no inhabitants until it was claimed as a guano island. --Golbez (talk) 05:52, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1870-7-15 The words "disputed border with United Kingdom" (i.e., British Columbia) are confusing without indicating the border endpoint for Canada and the U.K. Aha! Is that what the thin solid red line is for? (If so, that line does not appear to be perpendicular to the 141st meridian, as I believe the current border is.) Is there a way to make this clearer?
    • Yep, that's the red line. I can add a line pointing to the areas, and making it the right angle is difficult due to, well, the angle. I've made a fix. --Golbez (talk) 05:52, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • I like this better. Thanks.
  • 1901-3-23 Could there be pointers to the islands of Cagayan de Sulu and Sibutu? The article at Sibutu mentions also Cagayán de Jolo as the last Spanish possession.
    • Don't know about Jolo, maybe it's a typo for Sulu in that article. Please check the new version of the map; when going through and redoing the Pacific ones, that one was particularly nasty. I tried shading in the ceded area, but as you can see, it's difficult to snake an indicator line over into that corner. --Golbez (talk) 05:52, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think the shaded areas make it very clear now. Thank you for all! Jeff in CA (talk) 09:25, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1924-6-5 - s/b 1924-2-1; According to the 1924 Annual Report of the Panama Canal Governor (https://ia601406.us.archive.org/3/items/annualreportofgo1924cana/annualreportofgo1924cana.pdf , original page 13) the basin for Madden Lake "was transferred from Panama to the United States as provided in Article II of the HayBunau-Varilla treaty and incorporated with the Canal Zone, effective February 1, 1924."
    • Added to to do.
  • 1946-7-4 s/b Commonwealth "becomes" or "became" on the change map

Jeff in CA (talk) 16:50, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Comment: Mississippi-Alabama border between March 3, 1817 and July 19, 1820:

When Congress created the new state of Mississippi and the Alabama Territory in 1817, the northwest corner of Washington County was used as the primary reference point for setting Mississippi's eastern boundary. South from the point, the bottom leg initially ran due south (at about 88.4575°W longitude) to the Gulf of Mexico and very close to the east side of Pascagoula Bay. The maps show the boundary at the angle that went into effect in 1820. Here is an image. Jeff in CA (talk) 00:38, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on 4-11-1955 map text:

Instead of stating, "Corridor ceded to Panama" on the map, it should say, "Panama's corridor re-aligned." Jeff in CA (talk) 00:43, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Iazyges
  • "Unorganized territory" is not a name; it simply means Congress has not passed an organic act" Should explain what an organic act is.
  • "While the U.S. exerted some military control over Cuba," Wouldn't occupation work better?
    • Probably. Modified.
  • "Wartime and post-war occupations by the United States of foreign territory are not noted unless they involved formal annexation. For example, the U.S. military occupied several countries in Central America and the Caribbean for many years during the Banana Wars, but as there was no annexation, this is not noted. Furthermore, while there was a civil government created for some areas after World War II, like the United States Civil Administration of the Ryukyu Islands from 1953 to 1972 and the American zones of occupation in southwest Germany, West Berlin, and Austria, these were never considered part of the United States and are omitted." Perhaps another list of all lands occupied by the USA should be made?
    • Perhaps, but that's well beyond the scope of this article.
  • "April 4, 1781 The Vermont Republic claimed what was called the "East Union," consisting of some towns in New Hampshire. They never gained control over the area.[6][7][8][9] & "June 16, 1781 The Vermont Republic claimed what was called the "West Union," consisting of some additional towns in New York. They never gained control over the area.[7][8][10][11] The specific date this occurred is unclear; sources suggest June 16, June 26, and July 18." Did anyone ever recognize vermonts claim to them or was it only ever them?
    • So far as I know, Vermont was never recognized by anyone.
  • "The Congress of the Confederation declared that the land that Connecticut has claimed in northeast Pennsylvania (and, unknown at the time, a small sliver of New York) was part of Pennsylvania, thus attempting to end the Pennamite–Yankee War.[16] While conflict would continue for some time, this was the end of formal claims by a state government." Perhaps a link to the continued conflict if it is a different article from the war?
    • It's not; the Pennamite-Yankee War was the whole thing.
  • "The government of Franklin held some control over the area, and even petitioned for statehood, but would only last a few years." Perhaps mention how the potential state ended?
    • It does, in the section about the end of Franklin on February 1789.
  • "At the time, it was simply referred to as the federal district." This isn't at all related but i find this hilarious.
  • "The Kingdom of Great Britain united with the Kingdom of Ireland, renaming itself the United Kingdom.[61]" Why is this here?
    • Because it changes the international dispute map, which previously said "Disputed with Great Britain", but "Great Britain" is no longer the name of a country.
  • "The garrison at Fort Detroit surrenders, leading to the United Kingdom occupying Michigan Territory.[88]" All of michigan fell because of that fort? it could be better phrased.
    • Pretty much, yeah; Michigan Territory was very sparsely populated, and the UK appears to have claimed the whole of Michigan Territory after the fall so it wouldn't necessarily matter if they held control over it.
  • "The region of northern New Hampshire disputed with the United Kingdom declared independence as the Republic of Indian Stream.[119] While tiny, it does appear to have maintained some control over its territory." Better wording as declared ITS independence perhaps.
    • I disagree but I'll add commas.
  • "Spain recognized the independence of Mexico, thus ending their involvement in the dispute over Miller County, Arkansas.[127]" was spain active in attempting to get miller county after they lost mexico?
    • Probably not.
  • "With this decision, Miller County was no longer disputed with Mexico and Texas." & "Proper surveying was conducted along the border between Arkansas and Texas, and the area claimed by Arkansas for Miller County was held to not belong Arkansas.[133]" What?
    • Can you elaborate on your concern?
      • It is phrased weirdly, perhaps held before the law to not belong to arkansas, because held to not belong sounds weird.
        • I didn't want to say "held to belong to Texas" because it was disputed with Texas and Mexico, so I simply wanted to say "wasn't part of Arkansas". --Golbez (talk) 17:17, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
          • Perhaps "it was decided that the areas was not a part of arizona, but texas and mexico still disputed it" @Golbez:. Iazyges (talk) 17:23, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
            • But it says that in the international dispute line for that day, 'no longer disputed with Mexico and Texas' --Golbez (talk) 22:03, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The State of Deseret dissolved itself, its functions and territory largely having been superseded by Utah Territory.[168]" was the state of deseret ever recognized as a state of the US by anyone?
    • Nope.
  • End of constructive criticism. Iazyges (talk) 04:46, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks; hope you don't mind that I bulleted your remarks. I've responded to each one in turn. --Golbez (talk) 13:56, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's cool, thans for replying. Iazyges (talk) 16:24, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Jeff in CA

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/Territorial_evolution_of_the_United_States/archive3&oldid=759424075"