Talk:Proposed political status for Puerto Rico: Difference between revisions
→About Romney: Mitt Romney Supports Puerto Rican Statehood: |
|||
Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
Just saying: Romney doesn't actually speak in favor of Puerto Rico becoming a state. Romney states, at best, that if the people of Puerto Rico decide they want(!) to be a state, he isn't going to stop them from wanting to become a state. Actually becoming a state is a whole different ballpark, of course! <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/87.236.7.98|87.236.7.98]] ([[User talk:87.236.7.98|talk]]) 11:25, 8 November 2012 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
Just saying: Romney doesn't actually speak in favor of Puerto Rico becoming a state. Romney states, at best, that if the people of Puerto Rico decide they want(!) to be a state, he isn't going to stop them from wanting to become a state. Actually becoming a state is a whole different ballpark, of course! <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/87.236.7.98|87.236.7.98]] ([[User talk:87.236.7.98|talk]]) 11:25, 8 November 2012 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
||
:: Romney Support Statehood for Puerto Rico and the Republican Party do it also on their Platform! <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/24.54.198.59|24.54.198.59]] ([[User talk:24.54.198.59|talk]]) 12:17, 9 November 2012 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
:: Romney Support Statehood for Puerto Rico and the Republican Party do it also on their Platform! <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/24.54.198.59|24.54.198.59]] ([[User talk:24.54.198.59|talk]]) 12:17, 9 November 2012 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
||
The Republican Party platform of 2008 and 2012 says: |
|||
We support the right of the United States citizens of Puerto Rico to be admitted to the Union as a fully sovereign state after they freely so determine. We recognize that Congress has the final authority to define the constitutionally valid options for Puerto Rico to achieve a permanent non-territorial status with government by consent and full enfranchisement. As long as Puerto Rico is not a state, however, the will of its people regarding their political status should be ascertained by means of a general right of referendum or specific referenda sponsored by the U.S. government. |
|||
Mitt Romney Supports Puerto Rican Statehood: |
|||
[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lHSMuengpI0 Mitt Romney Supports Puerto Rican Statehood] |
|||
==Requested move== |
==Requested move== |
Revision as of 23:04, 9 November 2012
The contents of the Puerto Rico statehood movement page were merged into Proposed political status for Puerto Rico on November 8, 2012. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Proposed political status for Puerto Rico article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
Puerto Rico Start‑class High‑importance | ||||||||||
|
United States Start‑class Mid‑importance | ||||||||||
|
What happens next
As I understand it there is now a popular mandate that Puerto Rico becomes the 51st State of the USA. What happens next to allow this to happen and what is the timetable for such a change? yorkshiresky (talk) 11:20, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
- The timetable is unknown and it is not certain that it will happen. First, the Puerto Rican legislature must formally petition the U.S. Congress for admission. Simultaneously, a constitutional convention would have to be called within Puerto Rico, to draft a state constitution, which would then have to be ratified by another plebiscite. Then Congress must pass, and the president sign, a statehood bill into law, which would admit Puerto Rico into the Union. This is a big step in the statehood direction, but it's a long, slow process - on purpose. polarscribe (talk) 06:08, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
About Romney
Just saying: Romney doesn't actually speak in favor of Puerto Rico becoming a state. Romney states, at best, that if the people of Puerto Rico decide they want(!) to be a state, he isn't going to stop them from wanting to become a state. Actually becoming a state is a whole different ballpark, of course! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.236.7.98 (talk) 11:25, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
- Romney Support Statehood for Puerto Rico and the Republican Party do it also on their Platform! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.54.198.59 (talk) 12:17, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
The Republican Party platform of 2008 and 2012 says:
We support the right of the United States citizens of Puerto Rico to be admitted to the Union as a fully sovereign state after they freely so determine. We recognize that Congress has the final authority to define the constitutionally valid options for Puerto Rico to achieve a permanent non-territorial status with government by consent and full enfranchisement. As long as Puerto Rico is not a state, however, the will of its people regarding their political status should be ascertained by means of a general right of referendum or specific referenda sponsored by the U.S. government.
Mitt Romney Supports Puerto Rican Statehood:
Mitt Romney Supports Puerto Rican Statehood
Requested move
It has been proposed in this section that multiple pages be renamed and moved. A bot will list this discussion on the requested moves current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil. Please use {{subst:requested move}} . Do not use {{requested move/dated}} directly. |
- Puerto Rican statehood movement → (ignore this part - the talk page is messed up and I had to do this to get the template to work)
- Puerto Rico (proposed state) → Puerto Rican statehood movement
– Proposing this move for a very simple reason. Puerto Rican statehood movement will still be a valid topic for an article even if Puerto Rico does become a state. Puerto Rico (proposed state), on the other hand, would logically need retargeting to Puerto Rico if this happens. This will then break a whole bunch of links that discuss Puerto Rico's attempts to be a state. The consistency argument is bunk - unlike all the other proposed states at Category:Proposed states of the United States, this proposal actually has a reasonable chance of happening, rather than being a fringe pipe dream idea like the rest. This is a huge difference, and justifies Puerto Rico getting a different treatment. Note that I moved the page to this article earlier, and another editor reverted me, but the talk page wasn't moved back. Ego White Tray (talk) 13:32, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose. WP:CRYSTAL. There can be an article about the statehood movement and one about the state proposed itself. The topics can be clearly separated. ChemTerm (talk) 13:44, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
- For reference, these were originally separate and there was a clear consensus to combine them into a single article at Talk:Puerto Rico statehood movement. And saying that Puerto Rico has a statehood movement has nothing to do with Crystal balls - it does have a statehood movement, whether they succeed or not, the statehood movement exists now. Ego White Tray (talk) 13:50, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
- The merger is nonsense. A proposed state is not a movement. There is a conceptual difference. I am absolutely in favor of having an article on the movement. Also of removing movement content from the state article. Regarding the so called consensus: It was, AFAICS, a 11 hour consensus by three editors. ChemTerm (talk) 13:55, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
- You keep reverting a consensus merge and have made zero effort to restart discussion. Maybe I should follow your lead and revert your page move and delete this discussion? Ego White Tray (talk) 16:21, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
- The merger is nonsense. A proposed state is not a movement. There is a conceptual difference. I am absolutely in favor of having an article on the movement. Also of removing movement content from the state article. Regarding the so called consensus: It was, AFAICS, a 11 hour consensus by three editors. ChemTerm (talk) 13:55, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
- For reference, these were originally separate and there was a clear consensus to combine them into a single article at Talk:Puerto Rico statehood movement. And saying that Puerto Rico has a statehood movement has nothing to do with Crystal balls - it does have a statehood movement, whether they succeed or not, the statehood movement exists now. Ego White Tray (talk) 13:50, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
- Comment I sent a notice to those who took part in the merge discussion as they had input in what the title of the article should be. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:35, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
- As I said elsewhere, I recommend having everything related to Puerto Rico becoming a state at Puerto Rican statehood movement, to avoid redundancy and because parentheses are used in titles only for disambiguation purposes, which do not apply here. Sandstein 17:16, 9 November 2012 (UTC)