Talk:Commonwealth (U.S. insular area)

message: What exactly does "organized but unincorporated dependent territory." mean?  Could someone elaborate?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.105.167.39 (talk) 20:46, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It sounds like it.  I think that the Philippines was not an insular area when it was a Commonwealth but happened to use the same term.  But I'm not sure so I don't want to change the article myself.  --JGGardiner 04:35, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Definition

message: The entire section is a quote from the reference article. I'm not really sure what to do with this... I've put it in block quotes and added on attribution line, but it still seems wrong. Maybe no section heading at all, or maybe this doesn't belong in the article at all? Washod 11:46, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Commonwealth of Puerto Rico

message: *I suggest we merge Commonwealth and State naming debate and Commonwealth (U.S. insular area) into a new article called Commonwealth (United States), or something like that.  That would be more logical, and would simplify links to these now separate pages in articles like Commonwealth,  --JW1805 (Talk) 19:04, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggested merge

message: "Roughly 3%"? I suggest that the independence movement be measured by Referendum results, rather than electoral ones (where it is to elect officers of the Government, rather than to choose the status).
::I agree that referendum results are a better gage, but according to the most recent one (in 1998), only 2.5% favor independence. Notably, this figure is from the Puerto Rican status referenda page, which is un-cited. Whatever goes in the article, it needs a source. Washod 11:46, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Popularity of Independence

message: Part of this "transitional period" was occupation by the Japanese in WWII.  That was not part of any U.S. design.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.183.171.30 (talk) 19:56, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Phillipines 

message: I just woke up to this article apparently contradicting other articles because it relies on a seemingly reliable source which contradicts other seemingly equally reliable source. In a situation like this, I would normally make a WP:BOLD edit inserting information about the alternative viewpoint found in that other source. In this case, however, the difference is so fundamental that I think this needs discussion here first.
Specifically, the lead section this article says that the term Commonwealth "... broadly describes an area that is self-governing under a constitution of its adoption and whose right of self-government will not be unilaterally withdrawn by Congress", citing and quoting from this U.S. State department source. This implies that a guarantee that a right of self-government will not be withdrawn was made in those cases by some governmental authority empowered to make such a guarantee (presumably empowered by some executive branch pronouncement allowable under U.S. law and/or by some provision of a law enacted by Congress).
However, the Puerto Rican status referendum, 2012 article makes the point that a promise not to alter the status of a territory "would not be enforceable because a future Congress 'could choose to alter that relationship unilaterally., citing this 2011 Congressional Research Service report (see the paragraph on pp.10-11, and footnote 33 there). I think that I have seen that same point made in other articles.
As I read it, this is a contradiction between these articles and between the sources on which they rely. It seems to me that WP:DUE requires that information about this contradiction be added to this article. Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:24, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Apparent contradiction