Talk:District of Columbia statehood movement

message: The lede/summary to this article is pretty good, and it uses high quality sources when it comes to contemporary news about who supports the measure and what is happening in politics but beneath that  this article doesn’t reflect the complex and contentious debate over this issue in America, the quality of explanation isn’t great, so it manages to slant similarly to Vox’s “6 questions about Washington, DC, statehood you were too disenfranchised to ask” and yet still provide less information on substantive policy questions surrounding the issue than Vox’s explainer. Probably the best quality poll to date found 2/3 of Americans are against statehood. From reading this article the existence of such a large opposition or the arguments they have are nonexistent, save for a short mention of some apparently inconsequential argument in the federalist, and a vexillological concern which it quickly explains away. With the article describing 5 pro arguments and 1 against, this is both a problem of the overall quality of the article, and it’s neutrality. It doesn’t mention any of the arguments against on legal grounds which have run in major newspapers, but does include a vague unsubstantiated assertion by Muriel Bowser that statehood would have limited the Capitol attacks, going on to boost the prevalence of this view WP:Voice by contextualizing her claim as something “proponents” are saying which I would say is murky puffery at best. This is a consistent theme in the article, so I’m adding the NPOV tag for now.Abovfold (talk) 07:21, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: * Retrocession is addressed in the article. See #Retrocession. Orcaguy Talk Mon œuvre 22:51, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

text: * I have tagged the source as failing verification. I couldn't find any other discrepancies in the section, though if there's anything I missed, then please make note of it. Specific changes you think would improve the article are welcome. You can also just edit the article yourself! Orcaguy Talk Mon œuvre 22:51, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Neutrality and quality

message: Are there other examples of federal states where the capital region is not part of another subnational entity? This is (partly) the case in Belgium where the Brussels Capital Region has certain autonomy. Voters in Brussels do have their own legislature and the rights to vote in the federal general elections. Wouter Lievens 09:11, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I can think of a couple examples: the Australian Capital Territory of Australia and the Distrito Federal of Mexico. Some nations' capitals are considered "special cities" directly under the administration of the federal government, such as Seoul in South Korea. Ian 13:16, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  The ACT has since the 1970s been more-or-less equivalent to a state. It is represented in the Commonwealth (federal) House of Representatives and the Senate; residents of the ACT must vote in federal constitutional referenda; these rights & responsibilities were originally granted only to residents of states. Additionally, the ACT is self governing to a similar extent as the states: it has responsibility for its education and health etc. etc. (though I think it's police force are the Australian Federal Police, rather than a separate territory-based force as in the Northern Territory). At this stage the biggest difference between the ACT as a territory and it as a state is that the federal government can over-rule legislation in the territory it can't in the states. —Felix the Cassowary 14:08, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Similar Situations

message: "Such an action would require an act of Congress and approval from the District and the State of Maryland. "  This sentence contradicts what is written in
Voting rights in Washington, D.C..  I don't believe that legally the district would have a voice in the matter as Congress makes the laws for DC.15:37, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Since self-rule, the District basically makes its own laws and sets its own budget although these actions can be overturned by Congress. Constitutionally, Congress is the ultimate authority and can do what it wants in D.C. unilaterally. When the Virginia portion of D.C. was retroceded, District citizens were not consulted. They didn't even have any locally elected government that could represent them in such a decision. I removed the reference to the D.C. approval requirement in the article. --dm (talk) 00:48, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Congressional oversight

message: The page on D.C. Statehood is short, and represents a subset of the subect matter of Voting rights in Washington, D.C.  I am proposing a merger of the two, retaining the name of the latter.  Any objections?  --BlueMoonlet 15:24, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge into Voting Rights page

message: *Merge as "D.C. Statehood" Someone has put a merger tag on both articles, but there doesn't seem to be any discussion as yet.  I think this is a fine idea, as the article cover essentially the same subject matter, and I would have done it myself if I had had time.  I would propose D.C. Statehood as a better title than New Columbia, as the latter is only one possible name that the proposed state might have.  --BlueMoonlet 05:19, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge D.C. Statehood and New Columbia

message: Who can fix that to "District of Columbia statehood"?  I don't know how. Korky Day 01:13, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Encyclopedia headings should not be abbreviated

message: Homeland? That's not what statehood is about by any stretch. Please stop adding this without verifiable, reliable sources to back up your claim,a nd a concensus here to include the phrases in the text. Thanks. - BillCJ (talk) 00:42, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The movement is hardly known *only* in the "DC area". People around the world are also familiar with this controversy, and we're supposed to cover all POV's (see Wikipedia:POV). For example, here's a BBC article on the statehood movement.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.97.134.80 (talk) 01:01, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

text: There is a trend these days to ethnic self-determination, on all scales; DC's size is on the order of, say, a Kosovo, and, as I and anyone who's actually lived there will tell you, the secessionist spirit is at least as motivated by race as it is by, say, voting rights.  DbelangeB (talk) 01:07, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

text: "Secession" is too strong a word, I agree, but the meaning should be clear from context.  "Statehood" also carries multiple meanings, some of them overtly ethnic; see, for example, the article on Israel, which Wikipedia calls "the world's only Jewish state". DbelangeB (talk) 01:47, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Perhaps a solution would be to create a new article discussing secession and include an "other uses" link at the top of this article to the new article. Or a new section in this article might also suffice. 129.97.134.80 (talk) 01:56, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: "Statehood" as it is used in the phrase "D.C. statehood" means making D.C. a U.S. state like California or New Jersey. It never refers to secession from the U.S., because no one is advocating that. Please don't add anything about nationhood for D.C. to this article unless you have legitimate sources for this. Like I said, no such movement exists as far as I know, so citations would be hard to come by. --D. Monack | talk 02:31, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Homeland

message: Unfortunately the Westlaw links aren't persistent. The site is highly user-hostile and unlinkable because of cookies and JavaScript. The best option seems to be to link to the DC Code page and let the reader navigate from there on their own. Maybe there's a better copy out there on the web somewhere. For now, I'll change the bad links to the best known option (which is still nonideal). —KCinDC (talk) 19:54, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: New Columbia constitution links

message: The "License plates" section seems irrelevant, since it doesn't mention statehood. I could see moving it to District of Columbia voting rights, perhaps as part of a new section about attempts to draw attention to the issue. —KCinDC (talk) 22:48, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. The license plate issue relates more to voting rights than statehood. -epicAdam (talk) 15:17, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm. Looks like it was there but was removed. —KCinDC (talk) 15:24, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: License plates?

message: Let's face it: This article is biased, presenting no opposing opinion to statehood or voting rights. Possibly include a section icluding possible ulterior motives, such as DC not having any Republicans in office, essentially giving the Democratic Party 2 free Senate votes (which I oppose) and 1 free representative in the House (which I support).--Carolinapanthersfan (talk) 23:31, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: An "ulterior motives" section would be problematic because ulterior motives are by definition never stated openly. We obviously can't speculate about statehood advocates' inner thoughts. On the other hand, a section describing the arguments of prominent opponents would be appropriate. —D. Monack talk 07:14, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Downsides

message: After a too-lengthy exchange of back-and-forth edits with User:Carolinapanthersfan concerning the "Advocates" section of the article, I removed the one sentence in the disputed paragraph that lacked a source, and restored the balance.  I hope this compromise will satisfy interested parties.  If not, please discuss the matter here.  JohnInDC (talk) 20:28, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the Advocates section needs to be properly sourced just like everything else on Wikipedia, but don't pretend that your the "Opponents" section was just the flip side of this one. "Advocates" merely lists the main activists behind statehood without repeating their arguments. Fairly non-controversial stuff. Your "opponents" section was a list of arguments without naming anyone who actually made such arguments. They're not equivalent. Wikipedia is not a forum for your personal opinions. —D. Monack talk 21:11, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

text: Excuse me, I didn't mean to direct my comments to you, JohnInDC. They're obviously addressed to User:Carolinapanthersfan. Sorry for the confusion. —D. Monack talk 21:14, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Understood.  I would add that the entire article is (blandly) descriptive, simply identifying what the issues are and how they came to be.  This is really not the place for the pros and cons of the matter.  JohnInDC (talk) 21:17, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: "Advocates"

message: Let me present a possible argument against here.
Warning: This is WP:OR, I am not proposing an addition to the article.
States with less than 1 million population, along with DC.
12 percent of the US Senate elected by less than 1.4 percent of the population? OK, it's in the constitution.
Nevermind how the residents of DC would vote, why make it 13.7 percent of the Senate represented by 1.5 percent of the population?
::The link above to population data seems a little out of date. It would be helpful to have all the 2020 census figures. Here is an updated version of the US Bureau of Economic Analysis's graph of the populations of the nine smallest states plus DC, from 1930 to (apparently) 2015. If Washington DC became a state, it would be one of 12 with current populations that are smaller than 1.5m, and if one projects the trend lines on the Bureau's graphs, DC's population could perhaps overtake some of the other smaller states in the near future. And as for "Nevermind how the residents of DC would vote", it would be nice if they were actually able to do so. Thomas Peardew (talk) 12:43, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: google population graph

message: I noticed an earlier section in this talk page suggested a merge back in 2006, but apparently it was reversed...why? I mean, they ARE on slightly different topics, but everything contained in the New Columbia (state) article could easily be contained in this article, if it isn't already. I just don't see the logic to it. --StoryMakerEchidna (talk) 19:43, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see any reason why it couldn't be merged. Be bold, merge the content, and create the redirect. Best, epicAdam(talk) 21:58, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why did the merge with New Columbia fail? 

message: I check pages listed in :Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of :District of Columbia statehood movement's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "heritage":
From District of Columbia voting rights: 
From District of Columbia home rule: 
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 04:36, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orphaned references in [[:District of Columbia statehood movement]] 

message: "To provide for the admission of the State of Washington, D.C. into the Union." Introduced by Eleanor Holmes Norton. Mapsax (talk) 00:05, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  2020 bill