Talk:51st state

2012 Referendum

I recently edited the section on the 2012 referendum to remove its pro-statehood bias. I was not surprised to find that my edit was reverted but I was surprised that it was by an anonymous IP claiming that my edits constituted Original Research with no comment on the talk page or mention of the citations I included. The current article does not reflect that there is disagreement over what the outcome of the referendum means. Statehood proponents claim a clear victory while opponents point to the facts that I cited (strong abstention campaign resulting in 26% abstention in second vote, leaving statehood a minority if you include abstentions. Furthermore, if you exclude independence supporters from the first question you find only 30% support for non-independence change). The results were not the decisive victory for statehood proponents that the article indicates. I cited a newspaper report from The Hill[1], El Nuevo Dia [2] (Spanish), and a letter from the Governor-Elect of PR to President Obama [3]. Furthermore, there is already a parenthetical not hinting at this issue with a citation to the Huffington Post in the previous paragraph. This is not original research, there were plenty of citations to news analysis. It should not be news to anyone who has been following the issue at all.

On an unrelated note, also reverted was my removal of information which really is no longer relevant like the date that the bill for the referendum was introduced and passed. This info was relevant here before the referendum but now should be in the article on the referendum while here only the results are reported. If people want to know the precise legislative history of the referendum they can click the link. I am restoring my edits and if you have any particular questions about anything I change, please don't hesitate to put a citation needed note by it, post here, or remove the offending phrase. Thanks -- InspectorTiger (talk) 02:46, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Your probably wrong on all counts. Elections Rarely have a 100% turn out, and only 26% not voting is actually much less than most. It's highly doubtful that a "abstination campaign" had anything to do with it. Besides, if people wanted to vote against state hood, they'd have VOTED AGAINST STATEHOOD. Seriously, it was an option on the ballot, no reason to abstain. the abstination campaign seems more likely to have been an attempt to claim a vote against statehood when the proponents of statehood clearly won. 24.187.19.109 (talk) 21:32, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Monaco?

From the book "Americans and the Making of the Riviera" by Michael Nelson: http://books.google.it/books?ei=NOqbUZ7BE47FPImPgMgH&hl=it&id=3ZAiAQAAIAAJ&dq=%22Americans+and+the+Making+of+the+Riviera%22&q=Annexation#search_anchor "Monaco was neutral during the war, but so eager was Prince Louis to dissociate the principality from the French and so impressed had he been by the Americans that he requested the United States to annex Monaco as American territory. The minister of state made the request to Major-General Robert Frederick, the general commanding the Riviera coastline and the Italian border. The general recovered from the shock and told him that such an annexation was no function of the military and that he should make such a representation through the State Department." --151.41.180.137 (talk) 21:46, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Which Michael Nelson? What are their qualifications? --80.114.178.7 (talk) 20:25, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

According to http://www.michaelnelsonbooks.com/ "Michael Nelson was General Manager of Reuters. He was one of the principal architects of Reuters development of computerised financial information, which caused a revolution in world markets." The link to the section of Google Books above is for the Italian version. The spelling of computerized in the quote from Nelson's website is British. - 173.16.85.205 (talk) 04:22, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Minimum population requirement for statehood

This edit caught my eye. I have no problem with it as it seems to simply remove an unsupported editorial assertion which may be WP:OR. The edit summary, however, says "Population of 60000 required for statehood. With no permanent residents, these islands aren't prospective candidates for the foreseeable future". I note that Article IV, Section 3 of the US Constitution doesn't mention a minimum population requirement for statehood; if there is such a requirement (perhaps embodied in some Congressional rule), this article probably ought to mention it and cite a supporting source. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:04, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Negative sense

As I see it, in the negative sense of "51th state", the alleged "cultural" influence of the USA, is the direct result of the presence of US troops, who can force the local government to ignore elections and tell local stations what to broadcast (otherwise some people would be killed, and US soldiers can't be prosecuted).

I admit that's painting US troops in a negative light, but we are talking about the "negative sense of 51th state". --80.114.178.7 (talk) 19:34, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Official Monster Raving Loony Party

In the Official Monster Raving Loony Party article it has this reference to the 51st State:

The 2009 adventure game, Time Gentlemen, Please!, displayed an alternative reality where the OMRLP were voted in and handed Britain over to the United States, allowing it to become the 51st state.

Should this be included in this article?

Wetter88 (talk) 07:33, 10 May 2015 (UTC)