derek-thomas/squad-v1.1-t5-question-generation huggingface dataset:
In November 2012, a referendum resulted in 54 percent of respondents voting to reject the current status under the territorial clause of the U.S. Constitution, while a second question resulted in 61 percent of voters identifying statehood as the preferred alternative to the current territorial status. The 2012 referendum was by far the most successful referendum for statehood advocates and support for statehood has risen in each successive popular referendum. However, more than one in four voters abstained from answering the question on the preferred alternative status. Statehood opponents have argued that the statehood option garnered only 45 percent of the votes if abstentions are included. If abstentions are considered, the result of the referendum is much closer to 44 percent for statehood, a number that falls under the 50 percent majority mark.

Question: What percentage of voters rejected the status of territory? Question: What percentage of voters preferred statehood? Question: What percentage of voters abstained from voting on a preferred alternative status? Question: What argument do those opposing statehood use?
The Washington Post, The New York Times and the Boston Herald have published opinion pieces expressing support for the statehood of Puerto Rico. On November 8, 2012, Washington, D.C. newspaper The Hill published an article saying that Congress will likely ignore the results of the referendum due to the circumstances behind the votes. and U.S. Congressman Luis Gutiérrez U.S. Congresswoman Nydia Velázquez, both of Puerto Rican ancestry, agreed with the The Hill 's statements. Shortly after the results were published Puerto Rico-born U.S. Congressman José Enrique Serrano commented "I was particularly impressed with the outcome of the 'status' referendum in Puerto Rico. A majority of those voting signaled the desire to change the current territorial status. In a second question an even larger majority asked to become a state. This is an earthquake in Puerto Rican politics. It will demand the attention of Congress, and a definitive answer to the Puerto Rican request for change. This is a history-making moment where voters asked to move forward."

Question: What newspapers have published opinion pieces expressing support for Puerto Rico's statehood? Question: When was that article published? Question: What newspaper suggested that Congress would ignore Puerto Rico's referendum? Question: What Congress members agreed with the Hill's assesment?
Several days after the referendum, the Resident Commissioner Pedro Pierluisi, Governor Luis Fortuño, and Governor-elect Alejandro García Padilla wrote separate letters to the President of the United States Barack Obama addressing the results of the voting. Pierluisi urged Obama to begin legislation in favor of the statehood of Puerto Rico, in light of its win in the referendum. Fortuño urged him to move the process forward. García Padilla asked him to reject the results because of their ambiguity. The White House stance related to the November 2012 plebiscite was that the results were clear, the people of Puerto Rico want the issue of status resolved, and a majority chose statehood in the second question. Former White House director of Hispanic media stated, "Now it is time for Congress to act and the administration will work with them on that effort, so that the people of Puerto Rico can determine their own future."

Question: What politicians pushed for statehood for Puerto Rico? Question: What politician fought against statehood for Puerto Rico? Question: How did these politicians voice their concerns? Question: What was the White House stance?
On May 15, 2013, Resident Commissioner Pierluisi introduced H.R. 2000 to Congress to "set forth the process for Puerto Rico to be admitted as a state of the Union," asking for Congress to vote on ratifying Puerto Rico as the 51st state. On February 12, 2014, Senator Martin Heinrich introduced a bill in the US Senate. The bill would require a binding referendum to be held in Puerto Rico asking whether the territory wants to be admitted as a state. In the event of a yes vote, the president would be asked to submit legislation to Congress to admit Puerto Rico as a state.

Question: When was H.R. 2000 introduced? Question: What would H.R. 2000 do? Question: What did Senator Heinrich's bill require? Question: What would happen in the event of a yes vote in this referendum?
Washington, D.C. is often mentioned as a candidate for statehood. In Federalist No. 43 of The Federalist Papers, James Madison considered the implications of the definition of the "seat of government" found in the United States Constitution. Although he noted potential conflicts of interest, and the need for a "municipal legislature for local purposes," Madison did not address the district's role in national voting. Legal scholars disagree on whether a simple act of Congress can admit the District as a state, due to its status as the seat of government of the United States, which Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution requires to be under the exclusive jurisdiction of Congress; depending on the interpretation of this text, admission of the full District as a state may require a Constitutional amendment, which is much more difficult to enact. However, the Constitution does not set a minimum size for the District. Its size has already changed once before, when Virginia reclaimed the portion of the District south of the Potomac. So the constitutional requirement for a federal district can be satisfied by reducing its size to the small central core of government buildings and monuments, giving the rest of the territory to the new state.

Question: Where are these ideas located in the Federalist Papers? Question: Who considered the implications of the definition of the seat of government in the Constitution? Question: What limits does the constitution have for the size of Washington, D.C.? Question: What caused the size of Washington, D.C. to change?
Washington, D.C. residents who support the statehood movement sometimes use a shortened version of the Revolutionary War protest motto "No taxation without representation", omitting the initial "No", denoting their lack of Congressional representation; the phrase is now printed on newly issued Washington, D.C. license plates (although a driver may choose to have the Washington, D.C. website address instead). President Bill Clinton's presidential limousine had the "Taxation without representation" license plate late in his term, while President George W. Bush had the vehicle's plates changed shortly after beginning his term in office. President Barack Obama had the license plates changed back to the protest style at the beginning of his second term.

Question: What Revolutionary War motto have Washington, D.C. statehood supporters modified and used? Question: What does the phrase protest? Question: In what way has the phrase been spread wide? Question: When did  Obama have the protest plates put on his Presidential limousine?
This position was carried by the D.C. Statehood Party, a political party; it has since merged with the local Green Party affiliate to form the D.C. Statehood Green Party. The nearest this movement ever came to success was in 1978, when Congress passed the District of Columbia Voting Rights Amendment. Two years later in 1980, local citizens passed an initiative calling for a constitutional convention for a new state. In 1982, voters ratified the constitution of the state, which was to be called New Columbia. The drive for statehood stalled in 1985, however, when the Washington, D.C. Voting Rights Amendment failed because not enough states ratified the amendment within the seven-year span specified.

Question: What party carried the position of D.C. Statehood? Question: What party did the D.C. Statehood Party merge when? Question: When did the movement get closest to success? Question: What would be the new name of the D.C. State? Question: When did the drive for statehood falter?
Other less likely contenders are Guam and the United States Virgin Islands, both of which are unincorporated organized territories of the United States. Also, the Northern Mariana Islands and American Samoa, an unorganized, unincorporated territory, could both attempt to gain statehood. Some proposals call for the Virgin Islands to be admitted with Puerto Rico as one state (often known as the proposed "Commonwealth of Prusvi", for Puerto Rico/U.S. Virgin Islands, or as "Puerto Virgo"), and for the amalgamation of U.S. territories or former territories in the Pacific Ocean, in the manner of the "Greater Hawaii" concept of the 1960s. Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands would be admitted as one state, along with Palau, the Federated States of Micronesia, and the Marshall Islands (although these latter three entities are now separate sovereign nations, which have Compact of Free Association relationships with the United States). Such a state would have a population of 412,381 (slightly lower than Wyoming's population) and a land area of 911.82 square miles (2,361.6 km2) (slightly smaller than Rhode Island). American Samoa could possibly be part of such a state, increasing the population to 467,900 and the area to 988.65 square miles (2,560.6 km2). Radio Australia, in late May 2008, issued signs of Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands becoming one again and becoming the 51st state.

Question: What is another likely country for statehood? Question: What is another likely country for statehood? Question: What entity reported on Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands becoming one again?
The Philippines has had small grassroots movements for U.S. statehood. Originally part of the platform of the Progressive Party, then known as the Federalista Party, the party dropped it in 1907, which coincided with the name change. As recently as 2004, the concept of the Philippines becoming a U.S. state has been part of a political platform in the Philippines. Supporters of this movement include Filipinos who believe that the quality of life in the Philippines would be higher and that there would be less poverty there if the Philippines were an American state or territory. Supporters also include Filipinos that had fought as members of the United States Armed Forces in various wars during the Commonwealth period.

Question: What country had small grassroots movement for US Statehood? Question: What party used to be known as the Federalista Party? Question: What was the most recent year of the Phillipines pushing for statehood?
In Canada, "the 51st state" is a phrase generally used in such a way as to imply that if a certain political course is taken, Canada's destiny will be as little more than a part of the United States. Examples include the Canada-United States Free Trade Agreement in 1988, the debate over the creation of a common defense perimeter, and as a potential consequence of not adopting proposals intended to resolve the issue of Quebec sovereignty, the Charlottetown Accord in 1992 and the Clarity Act in 1999.

Question: What is another connotation for the 51st state label? Question: When was the Canada-US Free Trade Agreement enacted? Question: When was the Charlottetown Accord signed? Question: When did the Clarity Act go into effect?
The phrase is usually used in local political debates, in polemic writing or in private conversations. It is rarely used by politicians themselves in a public context, although at certain times in Canadian history political parties have used other similarly loaded imagery. In the 1988 federal election, the Liberals asserted that the proposed Free Trade Agreement amounted to an American takeover of Canada—notably, the party ran an ad in which Progressive Conservative (PC) strategists, upon the adoption of the agreement, slowly erased the Canada-U.S. border from a desktop map of North America. Within days, however, the PCs responded with an ad which featured the border being drawn back on with a permanent marker, as an announcer intoned "Here's where we draw the line."

Question: When was this campaign ran? Question: Who suggested that the Free Trade Agreement amounted to an American takeover of Canada? Question: Who erased the border in the ad? Question: What was the slogan of this ad?
The implication has historical basis and dates to the breakup of British America during the American Revolution. The colonies that had confederated to form the United States invaded Canada (at the time a term referring specifically to the modern-day provinces of Quebec and Ontario, which had only been in British hands since 1763) at least twice, neither time succeeding in taking control of the territory. The first invasion was during the Revolution, under the assumption that French-speaking Canadians' presumed hostility towards British colonial rule combined with the Franco-American alliance would make them natural allies to the American cause; the Continental Army successfully recruited two Canadian regiments for the invasion. That invasion's failure forced the members of those regiments into exile, and they settled mostly in upstate New York. The Articles of Confederation, written during the Revolution, included a provision for Canada to join the United States, should they ever decide to do so, without needing to seek U.S. permission as other states would. The United States again invaded Canada during the War of 1812, but this effort was made more difficult due to the large number of Loyalist Americans that had fled to what is now Ontario and still resisted joining the republic. The Hunter Patriots in the 1830s and the Fenian raids after the American Civil War were private attacks on Canada from the U.S. Several U.S. politicians in the 19th century also spoke in favour of annexing Canada.

Question: When did Quebec land in British hands? Question: When did Ontario land in British hands? Question: During which the US invade Canada? Question: What did several US politicians suggest doing in the 19th century?
In the late 1940s, during the last days of the Dominion of Newfoundland (at the time a dominion-dependency in the Commonwealth and independent of Canada), there was mainstream support, although not majority, for Newfoundland to form an economic union with the United States, thanks to the efforts of the Economic Union Party and significant U.S. investment in Newfoundland stemming from the U.S.-British alliance in World War II. The movement ultimately failed when, in a 1948 referendum, voters narrowly chose to confederate with Canada (the Economic Union Party supported an independent "responsible government" that they would then push toward their goals).

Question: When were the last days of the Dominion of Newfoundland? Question: What was the result of the 1948 referendum? Question: What did the Economic Union Party support?
In the United States, the term "the 51st state" when applied to Canada can serve to highlight the similarities and close relationship between the United States and Canada. Sometimes the term is used disparagingly, intended to deride Canada as an unimportant neighbor. In the Quebec general election, 1989, the political party Parti 51 ran 11 candidates on a platform of Quebec seceding from Canada to join the United States (with its leader, André Perron, claiming Quebec could not survive as an independent nation). The party attracted just 3,846 votes across the province, 0.11% of the total votes cast. In comparison, the other parties in favour of sovereignty of Quebec in that election got 40.16% (PQ) and 1.22% (NPDQ).

Question: What does Canada being referred to as the 51st state in a positive way mean in the US, generally? Question: What is a negative connotation of the term? Question: How man votes did Parti 51 attract in 1989? Question: What did the other parties receive that year?
Due to geographical proximity of the Central American countries to the U.S. which has powerful military, economic, and political influences, there were several movements and proposals by the United States during the 19th and 20th centuries to annex some or all of the Central American republics (Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras with the formerly British-ruled Bay Islands, Nicaragua, Panama which had the U.S.-ruled Canal Zone territory from 1903 to 1979, and formerly British Honduras or Belize since 1981). However, the U.S. never acted on these proposals from some U.S. politicians; some of which were never delivered or considered seriously. In 2001, El Salvador adopted the U.S. dollar as its currency, while Panama has used it for decades due to its ties to the Canal Zone.

Question: When did Panama have the US-ruled Canal Zone Territory? Question: When did the British Honduras become Belize? Question: When did El Salvador adopt the US Dollar as its currency?
Cuba, like many Spanish territories, wanted to break free from Spain. A pro-independence movement in Cuba was supported by the U.S., and Cuban guerrilla leaders wanted annexation to the United States, but Cuban revolutionary leader José Martí called for Cuban nationhood. When the U.S. battleship Maine sank in Havana Harbor, the U.S. blamed Spain and the Spanish–American War broke out in 1898. After the U.S. won, Spain relinquished claim of sovereignty over territories, including Cuba. The U.S. administered Cuba as a protectorate until 1902. Several decades later in 1959, the corrupt Cuban government of U.S.-backed Fulgencio Batista was overthrown by Fidel Castro. Castro installed a Marxist–Leninist government allied with the Soviet Union, which has been in power ever since.

Question: What country was Cuba a territory of? Question: What battleship sunk in the Havana Harbor? Question: When did Fidel Castro overthrow the Cuban government? Question: What government did Castro install?
Several websites assert that Israel is the 51st state due to the annual funding and defense support it receives from the United States. An example of this concept can be found in 2003 when Martine Rothblatt published a book called Two Stars for Peace that argued for the addition of Israel and the Palestinian territories surrounding it as the 51st state in the Union. The American State of Canaan, is a book published by Prof. Alfred de Grazia, political science and sociologist, in March 2009, proposing the creation of the 51st and 52nd states from Israel and the Palestinian territories.

Question: Why is Israel referred to as the 51st state? Question: When was Two Stars for Peace published? Question: What book did Martine Rothblatt publish? Question: Who wrote the book The American State of Canaan?
In Article 3 of the Treaty of San Francisco between the Allied Powers and Japan, which came into force in April 1952, the U.S. put the outlying islands of the Ryukyus, including the island of Okinawa—home to over 1 million Okinawans related to the Japanese—and the Bonin Islands, the Volcano Islands, and Iwo Jima into U.S. trusteeship. All these trusteeships were slowly returned to Japanese rule. Okinawa was returned on May 15, 1972, but the U.S. stations troops in the island's bases as a defense for Japan.

Question: When did Artcle 3 of the Treaty of San Francisco come into effect? Question: How many people lived on the island of Okinawa? Question: When was Okinawa finally returned? Question: Why did the US have troops on Okinawa?
In 2010 there was an attempt to register a 51st State Party with the New Zealand Electoral Commission. The party advocates New Zealand becoming the 51st state of the United States of America. The party's secretary is Paulus Telfer, a former Christchurch mayoral candidate. On February 5, 2010, the party applied to register a logo with the Electoral Commission. The logo – a US flag with 51 stars – was rejected by the Electoral Commission on the grounds that it was likely to cause confusion or mislead electors. As of 2014[update], the party remains unregistered and cannot appear on a ballot.

Question: When did the 51st State Party attempt to register in New Zealand? Question: What does the 51st State Party advocate? Question: Who is the secretary of the 51st State Party? Question: Can people in New Zealand vote for the 51st State Party?
Albania has often been called the 51st state for its perceived strongly pro-American positions, mainly because of the United States' policies towards it. In reference to President George W. Bush's 2007 European tour, Edi Rama, Tirana's mayor and leader of the opposition Socialists, said: "Albania is for sure the most pro-American country in Europe, maybe even in the world ... Nowhere else can you find such respect and hospitality for the President of the United States. Even in Michigan, he wouldn't be as welcome." At the time of ex-Secretary of State James Baker's visit in 1992, there was even a move to hold a referendum declaring the country as the 51st American state. In addition to Albania, Kosovo which is predominately Albanian is seen as a 51st state due to the heavily presence and influence of the United States. The US has had troops and the largest base outside US territory, Camp Bondsteel in the territory since 1999.

Question: Who is the mayor of Tirana? Question: Who said that Albania is the most pro-American country in Europe? Question: When did James Baker visit Albania as Secretary of State? Question: What is the name of the largest US military base outside of US territory?
During World War II, when Denmark was occupied by Nazi Germany, the United States briefly controlled Greenland for battlefields and protection. In 1946, the United States offered to buy Greenland from Denmark for $100 million ($1.2 billion today) but Denmark refused to sell it. Several politicians and others have in recent years argued that Greenland could hypothetically be in a better financial situation as a part of the United States; for instance mentioned by professor Gudmundur Alfredsson at University of Akureyri in 2014. One of the actual reasons behind US interest in Greenland could be the vast natural resources of the island. According to Wikileaks, the U.S. appears to be highly interested in investing in the resource base of the island and in tapping the vast expected hydrocarbons off the Greenlandic coast.

Question: When did the US control Greenland? Question: How much did the US offer to pay for Greenland? Question: What university is professor Gudmundur Alfredssson from? Question: What is one reason the US would be interested in Greenland?
Poland has historically been staunchly pro-American, dating back to General Tadeusz Kościuszko and Casimir Pulaski's involvement in the American Revolution. This pro-American stance was reinforced following favorable American intervention in World War I (leading to the creation of an independent Poland) and the Cold War (culminating in a Polish state independent of Soviet influence). Poland contributed a large force to the "Coalition of the Willing" in Iraq. A quote referring to Poland as "the 51st state" has been attributed to James Pavitt, then Central Intelligence Agency Deputy Director for Operations, especially in connection to extraordinary rendition.

Question: What had been Poland's stance towards the US, historically? Question: What led to the creation of an independent Poland? Question: What did Poland contribute to the "Coalition of the Willing"?
The Party of Reconstruction in Sicily, which claimed 40,000 members in 1944, campaigned for Sicily to be admitted as a U.S. state. This party was one of several Sicilian separatist movements active after the downfall of Italian Fascism. Sicilians felt neglected or underrepresented by the Italian government after the annexation of 1861 that ended the rule of the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies based in Naples. The large population of Sicilians in America and the American-led Allied invasion of Sicily in July–August 1943 may have contributed to the sentiment.

Question: How many members did the Party of Reconstruction in Sicily have in 1944? Question: What did the Party of Reconstruction in Sicily campaign for? Question: When did the annexation of Sicily by Italy happen? Question: When did the Allied invasion of Sicily occur?