Jump to content

Talk:51st state

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 124.171.174.152 (talk) at 01:10, 27 July 2008 (→UK republic). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject iconUnited States Unassessed
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
???This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Flag Image

While I would love to sit here and debate when the 51st state will come into existence, I'd like to instead point out that the caption under the image of the 51 star flag is misleading. A flag has not "been created" just in case. The design of the flag is decided by the President through executive order, and hence no committee of people sitting hundreds of feet beneath the surface in a concrete room with a red phone with lines direct to Northern Kentucky or Puerto Rico actually exists on the off chance that another state will join the union. Mercer5089 (talk) 05:57, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Northern Kentucky Hoax?

>>There has been a recent movement for Northern Kentucky and Jefferson County, Kentucky (Louisville) to secede from Kentucky to form the State of Northern Kentucky. << Oh, please. I don't know who put THAT on there, but it's gone unnoticed by newspapers like the Courier-Journal, the Kentucky Enquirer and the Herald-Leader. Sounds like the fantasy of a kid at PRP. Mandsford 01:20, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Puerto Rico 2004

Do you want to mention the vote taken in Puerto Rico refusing admission into the U.S. at that time? (Can still happen if the referendum is taken up again.) - Texture 21:38, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

That's not quite true. In the last referrendum (in 2003), they gave voters three choices - statehood, independence, or keep it like it is. It almost always comes out 1/3 for statehood, 1/3 for indepdence, and 1/3 for keep it like it is. →Raul654 21:40, Feb 18, 2004 (UTC)
My phrasing was poor - You should add just what you said. - Texture 21:42, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Actually, it's usually more like 51% status quo, 47% statehood and maybe 2% independence. Whether it's because of genuine popular sentiment or because of independistas boycotting the referendum (depending on who you talk to), the independence option has never been particularly popular.
However, the political status question is the political issue on the island, with the three major political parties founded on their stance on the issue. As can be seen in Politics of Puerto Rico, the pro-independence party doesn't have a very good showing in the commonwealth government at all. Guppy313 17:17, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The political status of Puerto Rico was discussed in the United Nations (June-2006). Puerto Rico's self determination is an ongoing debate in the special decolonization committee of the UN since the early 70's. Puerto Rico was taken out of the list of non- self governing countries in 1953 when it was established the Estado Libre Asociado de PR(translation: Puerto Rican Associated Free State; US gov. translation: Commonwealth )(see: http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2006/gacol3138.doc.htm ). --vertical 15:37, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian statehood

article should not suggest canada would become one american state. Badanedwa 22:59, Jun 3, 2004 (UTC)

The phrase is also designed to appeal to Canadians' fears of losing power in such a union. In reality, if Canada did join the United States, each province would most likely be admitted as a state of its own, making Canada the 51st through 60th states. However, the phrase "51st state" clearly carries the subtext that all of Canada would have the power of just one single state.

What about the Territories? SYSS Mouse 19:06, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Uh, you're asking a fairly detailed question to a purely hypothetical sitaution. That's not exactly easy to respond to. →Raul654 19:08, Aug 19, 2004 (UTC)
Not quite 10 states. It's unlikely that Prince Edward Island would be admitted as a state. Were there to be an annexation of Canada, the Maritime Provinces would probably be merged into a single state. Probably eight states
Similar reasoning would apply to Britain in the hypothetical case of Britain being annexed. Probably Wales and Scotland and Northern Ireland would be one state each, while England would be divided into around 10 or so states. In fact, most of the so-called "51st states" would probably be divided up into several states were they to be annexed.
At any rate, these are extremely improbable events.  :-)
The idea that the UK would join the US as 13 states is hilarious. 26 new senators = instant 34% plurality in the Senate! Ha! Four states, maybe. And only if they agree to adopt US spelling. :-) --Tysto 08:52, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's far more likely that just England becomes the 51st state if/when Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland realise that leaving the Union is a viable option, there's a decent chance that the SNP will win the next Scottish Parliament election and call a referendum on independence. Its really a grey area as theres not a great deal of love for either the US or the EU as far as Britain losing some sovereigntyJoevsimp 16:32, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I highly doubt the credibility of the poll taken supposedly showing 18 or 19% of Canadians favouring annexation. I personally have never heard of such a poll being taken, and even if it was it could not have been done nation wide, I also doubt that most Canadians polled took it as a serious question. Personally I find it offensive to my nation, I strongly doubt it's accuracy and I ask that it's reference be removed. Let me make something clear, Canadians are proud of our heritage, culture, customs and values, we have absolutely no interest in joining the United States!

The plural of "anecdote" is not "data"... obviously you're in the 80%.
Someone also put that US Trade Secretary after Free Trade agreement was signed said "Canadians don't know what they have just signed... In 20 years, they will be sucked into our economy." Maybe also relate to how it reflects how Canadian economy is so intergrated with US. Also, Time magazine 1997 had poll that said something around 65% say that joint currency (e.g. Euro) will come to Canada.

Israel

I've seen Israel referred to as the 51st state on more than one occaision in the same vein as the UK. Perhaps this should be mentioned.

I would be interested if any sober British commentators had ever suggested joining the union. Sounds like utter nonsense to me.

Afghanistan and Iraq also, to suggest that they are, and will continue to be, completely under US control. - Cerv

Someone removed the Israel section and I've put it back, after some difficulty figuring out the system. I couldn't find a history of the removal, which seems very curious, but in any case it seems like censorship. I thought the idea behind Wikipedia was to DISCUSS the changes and arrive at consensus. --Guernseykid 07:47, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The 51st State

The "humorous refeferences" section states "The UK is the proposed 51st state in the movie of the same name – see The 51st State". I don't see anything in its IMDB entry that supports this. It might have been a brief throwaway joke that doesn't deserve mention in this article. Can anyone who has seen that movie confirm or deny this reference? -- Ponder 15:06, 2005 Mar 22 (UTC)

It's been a month and no one has spoken up in support of keeping the reference, so I removed it. Feel free to revert if you can confirm the reference in the movie was more than a throwaway joke. -- Ponder 16:23, 2005 Apr 25 (UTC)
I've seen the movie but unfortunately didn't see your original comment. Yes the 51st State does part partly refer to the UK being the 51st state. It also refers to something to do with drugs (can't remember exactly what), but it is a deliberate double meaning. Samuel L Jackson's character makes several reference to UK being 51st state. Pcb21| Pete 17:37, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)


There were discussions between British PM Wilson & President Johnson in 1967 about the UK joining the US after France vetoed Britains second application to the EU http://www.forbes.com/global/1999/0405/0207032a_print.html

disambiguation

Should there really be a disambiguation page for all the meaning of 51 State...I mean, as it stands now the only difference is the capitalization of the "S" User:Dowew May 18th 2005

Other Contenders

Other less likely contenders are Guam and the U.S. Virgin Islands, both of which are unincorporated organized territories of the United States, the Northern Mariana Islands, which is a commonwealth like Puerto Rico, and American Samoa, an unorganized, unincorporated territory. - Are those even possible for statehood? Guam has about 164,000 people, USVI 125,000, Northern Marianas 80,000, and American Samoa 70,000 people. With such small populations, I wouldn't think there was any chance at all of statehood. I've heard proposals to merge the various Pacific possessions with Hawaii, but that's the closest I've seen to a statehood proposal for them Nik42 07:04, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You know, D.C. only has around 500,000 :) I'll admit that sentence was a bit of an afterthought, but I was just trying to put in theoretical possibilities. As far as I'm aware, but I could be wrong, the only population threshold for statehood officially made was 60,000 (that's how many Ohio had at statehood). In any case, I'm pretty sure I have seen something about Guamanian statehood (I didn't add that part) and I'm curious as to whether I could find any other obscure statehood movements in the others. I think all four of their populations are probably at least as much as the proposed Jefferson or Lincoln. I'll try to expand it in the next few days, and if not just merge it and make it a small note in one of the other sections. --Dmcdevit·t 07:45, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
While 60,000 may have been the minimum in the early 19th century, it certainly isn't now. Alaska, for example, had 226,167 people in 1960 (it was admitted 1959) [1]. States in general were much smaller in 1800, so the minimum for statehood was likewise smaller. Nik42 14:31, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It's not that Ohio set a precedent with 60,000, it's that 60,000 was the statutory minimum, and when Ohio reached it, they were permitted to petition to join. Alaska's larger population at the time of their admission didn't change the law. Jeff Worthington 19:25, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, there are also apparently some people who support U.S. statehood for Guyana.--Pharos 08:05, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You can find some people who want statehood in lots of places. I've even seen groups from places like Taiwan advocating US statehood. That'd be a fine international situation.  ;-) Nik42 14:31, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If I recall correctly, there were actually serious plans by the U.S. to aquire Taiwan in the late 19th century.--Pharos 19:18, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if there were any "serious" plans, but I do know that Commodore Perry advocated annexation of Taiwan Nik42 03:28, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Should the Philippines be mentioned? I've seen the idea tossed about, but I don't know how seriously the idea is taken out there. Guppy313 17:09, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Netherlands as 51st state

I think the following sentence is completely untrue. Please provide references for it or I will remove it in one week. Thanks

"The same counts for many people in the Netherlands, who also consider their government as puppets of the USA, thus arguing their country should be occupied or incorporated in the USA."

Andries 19:08, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Here are a few:

http://www.planet.nl/planet/show/id=824716/contentid=510297/sc=0d8f7a http://debatplaats.vara.nl/forum/listthreads?forum=152618&offsetPosts=0&thread=1024&offset=0 http://www.fnv.nl/abvakabo/renderer.do/menuId/19811/clearState/true/sf/19811/returnPage/19811/itemId/22832/realItemId/22832/pageId/6481/instanceId/19810/

Recognition of China?

Under Use of "51st State" in Taiwan, someone has noted that "the United States has not officially recognized either the Republic of China or the Republic of Taiwan". Is this true? I thought the United States officially recognized the Republic of China since 1974? Skarredmunkey 03:50, 18 October 2005 (UTC)Skarredmunkey[reply]

The US has officially recognized the People's Republic of China, AKA Mainland China Nik42 03:57, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Similar phenomena in Australia and NZ

As well as accusations of Australia being a 51st state of the USA, there's also banter about New Zealand being Australia's 7th state, or Australia being called the "west island" of New Zealand (NZ has a north and south island). Does this kind of stuff happen with other countries? Andjam 03:35, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

While it would be logical to have similar phenomena occur here in Austria regarding Germany, we don't have 'em, or rarely do, because of some recent history. Because Austria has been having fewer economic problems lately, however, it's sometimes claimed that "Austrians are the better Germans" (actually the new headline of the German Bild Zeitung some time this summer). File:Austria flag large.png ナイトスタリオン ✉ 10:51, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Canada and the 51st state.

I removed the paragraph where it talks about the poll. As mentioned by someone above, I too dought that it's credible and have never heard of it before, and even if it wasn't, I'd bet a poll that said that 20% of Canadians supported joining the United States would be all over the news. Jareand 06:12, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Someone had added it again since. I left it, but added that this poll is hardly reflective of Albertans as a whole due to the somewhat radical nature of the publication which is no longer in print. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Halogenated (talk • contribs) 01:58, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Israel

I've added Israel. It seems pretty obvious that in many people's minds it would be at the top of the list as the country referred to by the term "51st State". Howard M. Sachar deals with the question in his book "A History of Israel", I believe. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gurnseykid (talk • contribs) .

This is my first interaction with Wikipedia. It's slightly bizarre that you can edit other people's discussion entries, but c'est la vie!

Gurnseykid

Here's a column by Richard Reeves using the trope. Ellsworth 00:33, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Virginia Sucession as 51st State

I live in Northern Virginia (ie suburbs of Washington, D.C.), which is part of the Eastern part of Virginia, yet I have never heard that "Eastern Virginia" leave the state. What I have heard however, is that Northern Virginia succeed.

This is partially due to the fact that NV is far more liberal then the rest of the state, we tend to be more interested in national news as opposed to state news (becasue we are so close to DC), and thus partcipation can be lax in state politics, and that the taxes sent to Richmond don't equate to the state funds we receive, causing some resentment.

May change the article. Any thoughts?

Zidel333 23:42, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

US Virgin Islands as county of Florida?

During visits to the US Virgin Islands, I have heard of proposals for the USVI to become a county or counties of Florida (similar, I suppose, to what is mentioned in this article for Samoa and Hawaii). I have no verifiable sources (I literally "heard" it in conversation), so I won't add it, but perhaps someone else has a source.-- MayerG 16:14, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually sounds like a workable solution... Source would be good, though. —Nightstallion (?) 19:22, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ulster American Party

On the piece about the Ulster American Party, it only a blog article. The party isn't registered with the Electoral Commission as political party, which all parties are required to register. So I feel it should be taken off. 159753 11:47, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure it is registered with the Electoral Commission. I feel it fits.

Canadian State Hood

OK. There is no way that 18 to 19 % of all Canadians agree to letting Canada become the 51st state. For one Canada has far to many friends in the world to just let the Americans run us. There are a lot of foreign offices in Canada and, If China has its way, Canada is going to become a huge economic player in the world.

2. If you've ever read a Canadian newspaper other then the National Post you wouldn't believe the kind of anti-American bashing is in it. Like, I look in the political section of the Calgary Sun every morning and there's at least one column telling us how much the Americans suck.

The fact is while we don't do much to distinguish our selves culturally, Canada is A LOT different then the U.S and even if we were annexed, it would be the biggest slaughter for American troops ever cause everyone in Canada would put up arms to get of America.

CANADA KICKS ASS, EH

The survey in question. It should be noted that the survey was conducted shortly before September 11, 2001. I recall seeing at least one major Canadian media outlet break down the results by province (can't seem to find it now), and (again, at the time), and the most pro-annexation province was Quebec, with ~30% in favor. Guppy313 17:07, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not well informed about Canadian politics, because I live in Germany but isn't Quebec the state that wants to be seperated from Canada? When they want to be autonomous, why should they be part of the US? No offense, just a question. --DocBrown 03:56, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    ---------------- Yes - (its a province, not a state)
If it ever happened, Canada wouldn't become one state anyway, but a number of states... AnonMoos 18:55, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It wont ever happen. Support for an independent union separate from Canada and the usa would most likely have FAR more support. Annexation by the united states would be akin to jumping from the frying pan to the fire in many Canadians minds. Western canada in particular i belive would balk at this - we already contribute vast amounts of resources to a comparably tiny government. Independence over annexation. Imean, what would the Americans be able to give say, Alberta? Our economy is exploding and our health care is better... Find something Albertans could use that American annexation would give and then you can start to think of coming to the table. One more time "Independence over annexation". (like 1 in 5 canadians would actually leave canadian soveringty for the messy gangbang of corruption that is american government.)

Ireland

It seems to me that the text "[Ireland] is hesitant to become part of a larger European confederation that has different values than Ireland, Britain, and the United States." is POV. In fact, it's an almost complete distortion of the truth. - Walshicus

I concur. —Nightstallion (?) Seen this already? 21:17, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"If Irish unification comes to pass, Protestant and Catholics alike may prefer to be part of a larger nation home to a significant portion of the Irish diaspora and where religious rights are guaranteed to all." This is an insult to the Republic. Religious rights are already fully guaranteed in Ireland!

"Compared to the United Kingdom and Canada, Ireland is the most likely candidate among English-speaking countries to join the union because of these historical and cultural ties." This is subjective opinion, hardly substantiated. It could be equally argued that certain Canadian states are more likely candidates.

I have been bold (in the Wikepedian rather than the Hiberno-English sense) and excised this section entirely. I'm neither a deletionist nor a citation-freak, but it consisted entirely of speculation and uncorroborated, subjective material. Aside from which, it was absolute bollocks from beginning to end.DublinDilettante (talk) 05:10, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Guyana

The section on Guyana makes no mathematical sense. It notes that 100,000 people have dual (not "joint") Guyanese and American citizenship. It then notes that "350,000 out of 700,000" Guyanese live in the United States. That makes no sense, since it would mean that half the population of Guyana simultaneously lives in the USA. Since most of the laws of physics have not been broken, then I guess, the author of those sentences meant to say that 350,000 Guyanese live in the USA, out of approximately (350,000 + 700,000 =) 1,050,000 Guyanese worldwide (or between the USA and Guyana, as I am certain there are Guyanese nationals in Barbados, Canada and the United Kingdom). As to why the fact that half as many Guyanese live in the USA as in their own home country is important is beyond me, since it is well known that there are more Irishmen outside Ireland (especially in the USA, Canada and UK) than in Ireland itself. Then there are the Haitians, Jamaicans and Cubans with similar situations.72.27.24.159 22:32, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was a little confused by that as well, I assume that the 350,000 Guyanese in the USA are in fact seperate from the 768,000 (UN, 2005) that live in Guyana. In the Wikipedia Guyana article it says that there are 100,000 Guyanese living in the United States with a source from (http://uscis.gov). So how many is it? The numbers used in the article appear to be either wrong or grossly misleading and more clarity is needed. Benson85 01:30, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
First, this assertion has been bugging me for several months as well, so I went and read the guyanausa website again, and figured out that what it's saying is that there are half as many Guyanans [or whatever] living in the US as there are remaining in Guyana. Even the 1.05M Guyanans is low, because as I read it, only something like 47% of expats live in the US. This would indicate that there are closer to 1.5M Guyanans total. As for the 100k living in the US as given on uscis.gov, again, from GuyanaUSA, it says that 100k Guyanans have US citizenship. As for how notable this "movement" might be, my boss, who immigrated to the US from Guyana as a teenager back in the 1970s, had never heard of such an idea until I mentioned it to him a coupla months ago... It may just be me, but it looks like the requirements for inclusion in this article may be rather low, if there are any requirements at all... Tomertalk 02:16, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sicily

Is it true that there were plans to invade and annex Sicily after WWII, if the communists had taken control of the island?66.170.83.152 18:29, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Yes, After WWII there was a huge movement in Sicily to secede from Italy and join the US as the 49th State. Plans were made that if the Communist party won power in Italy the US would seize Sicily and procede to decide on the statehood issue from there. The Communists didn't win power and the US felt that having a State half a world away surrounded by many potential threats wasn't logical (or logistically possible). If the Communists did win Sicily might very well be the 49th state. Someone should put in a section about this. -DCR


Bulgaria as the 53rd State

During the decay and collapse of Communism in Eastern Europe, there was a political party in Bulgaria that wanted Bulgaria to become the 53rd state in the union. I do not think that this party, whose official name I do not recall, had any significant following, nor do I think that they were - oh, how can I put this? - in possession of exact knowledge of the number of states in the union. This information was imparted to me by a Bulgarian penpal at the time. I put this here as an interesting bit of trivia that is not quite appropriate for the article itself Hi There 05:21, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So would they wait for states 51 and 52 to join before they joined, or what? ;) EricDerKonig 206.154.229.139 13:17, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Taiwan

I added an {{unsourced}} tag to this. However, I did not delete it because I remember reading about this in the NYT 8-9 years ago. Could someone with online access to the archive look it up? Thanks, JChap2007 18:32, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What about Belize?

This article is interesting, and I never knew about the Guyanese movement to become a state. Is there a Belizeian equivalent? After all, it's quite a bit closer to North America than Guyana and is the only other mainland English-speaking nation in the Americas (Canada and Guyana are already covered in the article). A2Kafir 00:20, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


My Opinion

I don't mean to sound well... uh... mean, but as much as I would love to have Canada and the U.K. be a part of the United States, it just sounds improbable. I mean think about it, a World power joining the United states? The U.S. Gained independence from the U.K. and they sign up as a state? Canada is Way to be to be a state, the U.S would need to make many states out of canada. I know there is no rule for how large a state could be, but that would be bigger than all 50 States the U.S.A has now. Puerto Rico makes the most since to me. I would love having countries becoming states, but that would be degrading to the countries. Also the U.S. would be harder to manage for Congress and the President. By yhe way, the U.S would need to print off more money to make a steady market rate. Comments are always welcome I want to know why you agree or disagree with me. The 51 State flag looks Great by the way.Bloddyfriday 14:23, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The section about the UK really needs a rewrite. It's almost laughable to be honest. 195.92.168.163 22:32, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Think again, mate, millions of men have died for hundreds of years for the independance of our nation, We're hardly going to throw out the Queen and love the American flag, If statehood was enforced on us then there would be a lot of rioting, flag burnings, US troops stationed here would be murdered, Practically no one on this side of the pond likes America (Especially the way some Americans distort history, in particular about the war) Canada is extremely loyal to Britain (hatred for Americans is rife among the Canadians I've met, mostly because of the 1812 invasion) and would object on the strongest possible terms. I personally think America is big enough as it it, And if you tried to take Britain or any country loyal to us we'd kick your ass just like we should have done in 1776 (There's another thing, the rebel's were losing, the only reason we didn't completely crush the resistance was because we were fighting a war with France at the time and thought the war of independance was costing us too much money)-Ted Fox 14:51, 25 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.4.174.22 (talk) [reply]

The Moon

How about the Moon as the 51st state? 4.235.120.195 13:12, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great idea! Green cheese for everyone! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.190.154.60 (talk) 02:27, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Afghanistan and Iraq

sounds like a political statement and should be removed. realistically its beyond retarded

This statement wins. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.192.211.221 (talk) 02:52, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Moon

How about the Moon as the 51st state? 4.235.120.195 13:12, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Erm, right... that sounds as if you're suggesting the moon should be the 51st state, as opposed to you having any actual credible sources or whatever for a case to be made for it. If that's the case, here is not to do it.
Still, it's rather a not-very-clever suggestion... no nation can claim ownership over the Moon, it's impractical - plus, it has a population of nought. --86.130.16.74 01:14, 1 June 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Very funny. About as likely as Britain becoming a state Bazonka (talk) 19:00, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

UK section

To be honest, a lot of it seems to be either a load of bollocks, or highly exaggerated. As stated I mean, there are basically no references in it at all (and that extends to the article as a whole (I'm talking about references as links to the bottom of the page, not URLs throughout the text)). I find it rather odd that the first reference listed in the references section in the whole article is towards the end of this section.
This one reference for this section really is a distinctly poor example. I mean, for a start, for any reference used to back up a suggestion of the UK being withdrawn from the EU and entering a free trade agreement with the US to be credible, it really does need to come from a British source. This clearly doesn't, with words such as colourful and neighbours being spelt incorrectly in American English. Saying "We are still part of the British Empire" - we referring to the US. Oh, and that little phrase, "As an American"...
Furthermore, the section says "some/many British commentators" at least a couple of times, suggesting there should be at least some evidence of these "commentators" in print or on the Internet, meaning references should in theory be extremely easy to come by. But to be honest, I've personally not heard much at all that supports or even suggests that the statements which have been preceded by "some/many British commentators" are in any way true at all. Wikipedia:Verifiability says "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." While I can understand clearly obvious statements being exempt from this, I personally would consider very few of the statements on this page being "clearly obvious" - and definitely not conflict free, as it may be seen as a challenge to a person's nationality - so they should all have appropriate references. Not that I'd be complaining if "Gordon Brown, the soon-to-be Prime Minister, wishes to withdraw British support for Iraq".
A lot of this probably applies to a lot of the rest of the article too, but, if I'm honest, I really don't care about that. --86.130.16.74 01:14, 1 June 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I totally agree. Without a reference, the "many comentators" line is an example of Wikipedia:Weasel Words. To me it seems like a political add for Gordon Brown. Added request for citation.David Eagan 16:03, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This section needs a re-write, it is based more in fantasy than any sort of political reality. I think it grossly over plays the importance of certian aspects of US life in the UK. For example, even though US shows are popular in the UK, the top 50 shows on tv here are all British. I think alot of the huff and puff can be taken out of this article, or balanced with counter arguments. 62.56.64.220 07:50, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The whole section on other countries is a fantasy world. In almost all the cases it's a tiny political movement that isn't notable or a it's been said as an insult. Nobody in the UK or most of Canada really has any plans to become the 51st State, it's all just statements regarding a precieved loss of culture. As of now this article seems to have missed that point. - MichiganCharms 17:41, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Enough with your whining, all of you. {{Sofixit}} is particularly germane here... 68.187.82.117 (talk) 07:54, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, so if this was offline, then people I know would simply reply to that with {{sofixyourmum}}...but it's not, so I won't.
So anyway, not including the fact you didn't comment until eight months after the last message in this section, let's look at the template. Second sentence: "When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes". So clearly, the improvement here would have been to remove the entire UK section, and indeed preferably the whole article, given how crap it was at that point, being so poorly sourced, and exaggerative...and just untrue. Sticking to the UK section only, even now it doesn't really belong, as there is no mention of 51st stateness (or whatever you may call it), only two eight-year-old sources of discussion of joining a free trade agreement. Back to the point, the first three edits after 1 June 2007 (though they were not mine), on 4 June at 13:55, were indeed to remove that section, and two others, which were similarly poorly sourced, as I said, like the rest of the article. The next edit, presumably looking only at the fact that the previous three were from an IP (and not the talk page, as was suggested by the IP) and removed "content", was to revert them. Obviously the Wikipedia community does not encourage you to be bold in updating pages, and you should worry a lot about making honest mistakes. Yay for Bearcat, and yay for your point. OK, so I've made a massive generalisation there, which isn't necessarily true, but I could go on, not least including the point about the poor naming of the template, and the anti-assumption of good faith the name seems to suggest.
So instead, how about you stop your whining, and actually look into what you're commenting on, before just saying "{{sofixit}}", and also consider, for someone to improve an article, they actually have to want to, not just find an article full of problems, and think "Oh my, I so have to fix this, because obviously it's my responsibility now". This article does little to make people want to edit it, and who would want to anyway, when its purpose is to suggest that a whole bunch of countries must obviously want to join the USA, except when removing the section they most care about. OK, So you probably won't read this, and if you do, you'll probably read the first line, stop, click edit and scream "OMG, WP:NPA, I'm so gonna get someone to banhammer you for that", and if that's the case: go germane yourself. If not, I'd hope you'll come up with a relevant, more than one-line reply this time, or just leave and forget the whole thing. --86.162.243.157 (talk) 15:40, 13 April 2008 (UTC).[reply]

UK republic

I may be mistaken, but isn't the UK already a republic? To quote republic, "A republic is a form of government maintained by a state or country whose sovereignty is based on consent of the governed and whose governance is based on popular representation." Isn't this the case in the UK. Isn't it just a monarchy in name only?

-- trlkly 01:28, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, no. Constitutional monarchy. It can look somewhat like a republic if you're not familiar with it, but it very much isn't the same thing. For one thing, Gordon Brown is not the UK's head of state. Bearcat 02:27, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
trlkly, if your belief were accurate, the Republican Party of Australia (among other anti-monarchist parties in various Commonwealth countries) would be waging a completely irrelevant battle... 68.187.82.117 (talk) 08:03, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The definition of the word republic and the description of the mechanisms of government in the UK, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, etc, etc, are not so easy to disentangle and present as binary categories.

Where is Tibet?

Mexico

It has become a commen joke in the western united states to invade and annex mexico in order to stop the illegal Immigration. When the mexican president perposed duel citizen ship for all mexicans, it became a histarical act.

JANUARY 22, 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.121.113.25 (talk) 18:09, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? 68.187.82.117 (talk) 07:37, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Estados Unidos de México y América is a quasi-joke. Wait fifty years, and the name probably will be Estados Unidos de Central y Norteamérica, Les Etats-Unis de Central et Amérique du Nord, and The United States of Central and North America. Three official languages, half a dozen semi-official languages and around 200 states, with 1/13th of the world's population.jonathon (talk) 20:14, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Original Research

I just added the Original Research tag. While I personally find this article kinda interesting, most of it reads more like a blog post musing about this territory or that country becoming the 51st State rather then an encyclopedia article. This article could be cut in half as it stands with the amount of unsourced opinion it contains. 40k of text and about 25 sections with only 24 references, this should not be. With nearly 1000 edits to this page, I guess it should come without a surprise. Perhaps a complete rewrite is in order. —A 05:43, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Long Island added to list

http://www.newsday.com/news/local/longisland/ny-listat0328,0,923448.story

Long island also was a place that was up for a 51st statehood —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.46.97.106 (talk) 00:06, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why was Israel taken off the article?

The original part about Israel was as followes: 

===Israel=== 
A number of websites assert or joke that Israel is the 51st state due to the annual

funding and defense support it receives from the United States. Commentator Richard Reeves
 has also used this trope.[1] [2] [3] [4]


The U.S. has strongly supported the recognition and right of the state of Israel, while many

Israelis in case their nation might lose to their Arabic enemies in the Middle East call for

evacuation and relocation of over 5 million Israelis of Jewish origin to a certain section of

the U.S. or another allied nation (i.e. Canada, Australia, southern Africa or South America).
  1. ^ uExpress.com: Richard Reeves by Richard Reeves - (10/21/2005) THE END OF SUPERPOWER
  2. ^ Bush welcomes Israel as 51st State - Pravda.Ru
  3. ^ Robert Lindsay: Israel Is Not the 51st State of America
  4. ^ Peace in Middle East: Israel 51st State of USA America

And so my question is: why was it taken off the article?
I sure find it relevant to it, and it is very much well sourced. And in light of this i propose to bring it back. --Oren neu dag (talk) 17:39, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


It would be more likely that Israel would be offered European Union (EU) membership as part of a peace agreement or as an award for entering into a peace agreement. Plenty of references for this over in the EU wiki.--Infocat13 (talk) 22:49, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As for Canada there was talk in western Canada in the media there that if Quebec left Canada then the western provinces would become independent as a western county or become independent as separate provinces but with a shared currency. Of course, this was in the 1980's when dissolution of Canada looked possible with out Quebec. The French in the 1960’s offered EU membership to Quebec, all of these things would be more possible then statehood in the United States.

I believe there was a poll decades ago that showed a very small percentage of the people of Alberta favoring statehood if Quebec bolted but most Albertans then would have rid themselves of Ottawa instead. All of that oil money all kept at home.

So I agree that this wiki should be kept to only referenced material.

(1)The DC statehood movement. (2) Puerto Rico--Infocat13 (talk) 22:49, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ArticleIssues

I've just tagged this article with {{articleissues}}, because it's a disgrace. This is meant to be an encyclopedia, not an accumulation of contradictory speculation.

The first paragraph is quite good:

51st state, in American political discourse, is a phrase that refers to territories considered candidates for addition to the fifty states already part of the Union. Before 1959, when Alaska and Hawaii joined the U.S., the term "the 49th state" was used. Less often, "51st state" refers to countries which are, or are perceived to be, under U.S. control or influence. For example, the 1986 single "Heartland" by The The contains a repeated refrain that "this [the UK] is the 51st state of the USA."

Then we go off into La La land, with unsourced speculation everywhere. There are also flat-out errors. For instance, my fellow Australians do not use the term "51st State", probably because in the extremely unlikely event of us joining the USA we'd become at least 4 states. (When Aussies criticise someone for being too pro-American, we use phrases like "conga line of suck-holes".)

I don't have time (or energy!) to fix this myself, so I'm requesting help in turning this mess into something resembling an encyclopedia article. Thanks in advance, CWC 14:50, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Islands

Greenland and Antilles?

tronos 05:46, 10 jun 2008 (UTC)

Maine and West Virginia

The section "potential candidates" has a subsection called "from current U.S. states." But bullets in that subsection discuss how Maine used to be part of Massachusetts and West Virginia used to be part of Virginia. As all of these states are included in the current 50, none of them is a "potential candidate" for 51st state, so I'm removing those items from the list. PubliusFL (talk) 17:52, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:51st_state&oldid=228103458"