Talk:51st state

Statehood for global US citizens

When you move out of your current state, you acquire new representatives (2 Senators and 1 House Rep.) This is always true until you move out of the country. Then you keep your past state Representatives.

If we live in Wisconsin, then we follow Wisconsin laws. California, California Laws. But South Korea? We don't follow some global standard. we follow a hodgepodge of different state laws. You can't even talk to your friends for advice because they live in different states and follow different laws.

There should be a lot more talk of standardizing registration, voting, and basic needs of American citizens from distinct representatives rather than from my old local representatives that don't think about my needs on a daily or weekly basis. This could be a "virtual" State that has 2 Senators and any number of representatives appropriate

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_diaspora Ciscorucinski (talk) 19:24, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Puerto Rico section proposed merge

Given that we have two articles, Statehood movement in Puerto Rico and Proposed political status for Puerto Rico (which probably should be merged), I propose we move the entire Puerto Rico section out of this article; it is or should be completely duplicated by Statehood movement in Puerto Rico, and it's hard to envision anything that should be in this section that would not duplicated. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 22:41, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

I tend to agree but you should leave a summary under a section for Puerto Rico, in this article. --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 13:24, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

@Jpgordon: Pinging jpgordon. --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 13:28, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

I like The Eloquent Peasant's approach: leave a summary, with a single {{main}} template pointing to the article on the PR statehood effort. It would be strange indeed to completely cut any mention of one of the the most prominent proposals for statehood completely from this article.

I think the DC statehood discussion should be treated in the same manner, by the way. TJRC (talk) 18:24, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

I would disagree with the idea of merging Proposed political status for Puerto Rico and Statehood movement in Puerto Rico. We shouldn't assume that the concept (as opposed to the article per se) of a proposed political status for Puerto Rico automatically implies statehood, it doesn't at all. What is talked about when the subject of proposed (or 'future') political status of Puerto Rico is discussed are the various political options that have been the subject of discussion for decades, namely, (1)independence, (2)continuance of the current commonwealth state, (3)the so-called enhance commonwealth state, (4)the associated free state in the fashion of the Northern Mariana Islands and, yes, (5)statehood. Statehood movement in Puerto Rico, imo, is the counterpart of the current Independence movement in Puerto Rico article, and should stay that way. Plebiscites haven't been one of the proposed future statsu of Puerto Rico; they have been one of the tools, together with other tools such as bills in Congress, votes at the UN, etc., that have been used to gauge how a group of people feel about the options on the table. My point is that the subject of plebiscites comes up naturally when a discussion of proposed political status for Puerto Rico comes up, but not becuase it's anoe of them but rather becuase it's one of the tools used, and this is not always made clear in the articles.

As for abstracting the Puerto Rico section out of the 51st state article, if we do that, leaving just, say, a one-liner (or link via the Main template), and then we do the same, as it has already surfaced, with DC, we would have removed pretty much the 2 longest "51st-state" candidate states out of this article. In fact, to stay consistent, we would also have to remove Guam, and, then, why not do the same with the rest of everything there as well? Of course, I am only trying to drive home a point, but a valid one nevertheless.

Having established that Statehood movement in Puerto Rico and Proposed political status of Puerto Rico are two totally different --and to an extent, mutually-exclusive -- subjects and that, statehood (nor any other form) should be allowed to dominate, or worse, monopolize, the Proposed political status of Puerto Rico article, the real problem I see relative to making an argument about abstracting PR info from this 51st state article is that the PR info has grown beyond WP:UNDUE relative to the other potential 51st state candidates listed in this article. The problem is that there is just too much infomation on PR plebiscites. That is, imo, information that should removed from this article for it is a duplicate of information already found (and chances are, was taken from) Puerto Rico political status plebiscites. In would thus, support the idea that the long sections of PR plebiscites here become a template directing readers to Puerto Rico political status plebiscites and perhaps an additional one-liner summarizing the plebiscites history, but no more prose than that. That way PR, a main candidate for 51st state, stays in this article with an amount of text proportional to the other candidate body politics of DC, Guam, etc., but at the same time we do not duplicate information that is already found (pretty much verbatim), elsewhere. Mercy11 (talk) 01:13, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

@Jpgordon:I agree. This article should be much shorter.—Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 01:42, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

In the event of statehood

I am seeing it as possible that after the election there may be a possibility that a 51st state could become a reality. We need to start discussing what to do with this page in that event. There appears to be a precedent on Wikipedia that "#th state" redirects to whichever state--for example 50th state redirects to Hawaii; 49th state redirects to Alaska; 2nd state redirects to Pennsylvania; etc. If it were to so happen that DC becomes the 51st state that 51st state would redirect to Washington, D.C. or possibly renamed to the State of Washington, D.C.. I think that should only become official when it officially is proclaimed a state/admitted into the union. Between the time of statehood approval and the admission of the state, perhaps we could create a disambiguation page on whether to link to "this" page or to go to the Washington, D.C. page. We will have to figure out what to do with the information of the superficial/tongue-in-cheek '51st state candidates'---whether that gets transferred to a 52nd state page (possibly with a note) or if a new page is created to document these as 51st state stuff linked to from the disambiguation page. I have noticed on the page there is a segment on the National Movement for the Establishment of a 49th State and it is regarded with its historical state aspiration number within its time. I don't know if this would serve as precedent or not for other content on this page in the event of statehood. The lead paragraphs also reference how "the 49th state" was the historically equivalent phrase before Alaska and Hawaii became states. Perhaps the page could be renamed something like "Statehood candidates for the United States" or something like that (just floating the option--I like the number option, though redirects are always possible). When Macedonia changed its name to North Macedonia there was an entire Wikipedia clearinghouse page for debates on what is called what, how things would change, when pages would change, and what the new standard operating procedures would be, and how to refer to the old name in its historical context. With a name change to the State of Washington, Douglass Commonwealth or the State of Washington, DC we very well may need some kind of clearinghouse for organized discussion on things like this. Perhaps this discussion is premature or I'm counting my chickens before they hatch/crystal balling, though it's definitely a possibility and perhaps this should be on the mind. I haven't even discussed whether or if there are Constitutional/Supreme Court challenges to any statehood developments. I could be surprised and potentially Puerto Rico becomes a state first. Presumably there would be some similar discussions minus the name change and seat of government issues. Anyone have thoughts on this or is it too early to discuss this? -TenorTwelve (talk) 06:15, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

@TenorTwelve: I think we should take guidance from Wikipedia's WP:ARTICLETITLE policies. Firstly, in the event that a 51st state is realised, I think what kind of article "51st state" would become (to turn into a redirect to "Quinquaginta Unum" or to continue as a discussion on proposed statehoods) would bank heavily on whatever is the WP:COMMONNAME at the time.

Let's say for example that the 51st state is named "Quinquaginta Unum". If recent reliable sources have pivoted to using "51st state" to refer to Quinquaginta Unum more often than referring to other proposed statehoods, then it would be reasonable to believe that Quinquaginta Unum has won the WP:COMMONNAME battle and would be the target of the "51st state" article title. However, at the same time, if reliable sources have not yet caught up to using "52nd state" to refer to other proposed statehoods, then we cannot yet use "52nd state" as the new title of this article because that would run afoul of WP:COMMONNAME and WP:NEO.

This may mean that there could be a period of time where there isn't a new proper name for an article discussing proposed statehoods, but that's perfectly okay. We don't need to have a proper name for the article. WP:NDESC envisions this. Like what you suggest, we could always WP:MOVE this article to a generically descriptive title such as "Proposed United States states" with "52nd state" as its redirect, while "51st state" redirects to "Quinquaginta Unum". We could also insert a {{Redirect}} hatnote into the lead of "Quinquaginta Unum" that briefly explains that "51st state" was also used to refer to candidates for statehood, with a link to "Proposed United States states".

This, to my mind, seems to be the most appropriate solution under Wikipedia's policies if such a situation were to occur. And of course, as with all article titles, this arrangement can always be revisited in the event that "52nd state" - or some other phrase, even - becomes the new WP:COMMONNAME for this topic. Epistulae ad Familiares (talk) 11:06, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

I am surprised that other countries do not complain about referencing the states of the United States as if the United States is the only country. And you say discussion; is it appropriate to have discussions in Wikipedia articles? Sam Tomato (talk) 20:13, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Vote required to add state?

Readers come here from Google looking for the number of votes required in congress to add a state, and I can't seem to find anything about this mentioned in the article. Is it 2/3 majority in both house and senate? Can we add this? Cstanford.math (talk) 21:53, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi! Thanks for bringing this to my attention. I think people would want to know this information. I have added it. It's simple majority in both chambers but the Senate has the filibuster so 60 votes would be needed unless there are reforms to the filibuster which some statehood groups support to enable a simple majority vote in the Senate. If a statehood bill is vetoed, it needs a 2/3 override in both chambers. Thanks! -TenorTwelve (talk) 12:01, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

That information belongs in the article about the United States constitution. Putting it here would be a duplication. Sam Tomato (talk) 20:05, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

References

Authority

I see no authority for the term 51st state. Is it a term made up by someone using Wikipedia to create the term or is there an official definition? Sam Tomato (talk) 20:02, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

The links that follow here were not created by me. Sam Tomato (talk) 20:03, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

What do you mean by official definition? It's a phrase that simply fits into what it is associated with, the fact that there are currently 50 states in the United States, so the next would by definition be the 51st state. Doesn't need an official authority, it's simply a mathematical quantity. RegistryKey^(RegEdit) 01:30, 28 January 2022 (UTC)