The contents of the Iowans for D.C. Statehood page were merged into District of Columbia statehood movement on 15 February 2023. 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. |
Iowans for D.C. Statehood was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 8 December 2022 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into District of Columbia statehood movement. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
On 1 March 2022, it was proposed that this article be moved from Statehood movement in the District of Columbia to District of Columbia statehood movement. The result of the discussion was moved. |
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)
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)
"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)
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)
Never mind, I decided to keep this page, since it pertains not only to District of Columbia voting rights but also District of Columbia home rule. See Talk:District of Columbia voting rights for more. -- BlueMoonlet 04:38, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Statehood now statehood now statehood now Congress needs to get it's but moving Spursfest101 ( talk) 04:40, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
I was just reading up the related articles on D.C. home rule, D.C. voting rights, D.C. Statehood and D.C. retrocession to Maryland and I was wondering why it all seems so difficult to give D.C. representation. As noted above, even Australia's capital territory is represented in both its House of Representatives and the Senate. Now it is true that have all of Washington D.C. become a state might require a constitutional amendment, but in the D.C. retrocession article there was a paragraph in the proposals section to the effect that most of the District could be retroceded to Maryland, with the exceptions of the National Capital Service Area (federal monuments, the White House, Congress, Supreme Court and other federal buildings) with the National Capital Service Area (NCSA) becoming a rump District. If that proposal doesn't require a constitutional amendment, then neither should Statehood for D.C., if a Statehood proposal includes separating the NCSA from the proposed New Columbia and retaining the NCSA as the District. Thus there would be the state of New Columbia and the District of Columbia with no need for a D.C. Voting Rights Amendment. In the fact the only amendment needed would be to repeal the 23rd amendment and it shouldn't be too hard to get the required number of states to get any such "repeal amendment" through. And if the article on 51st state(s) is correct, then Washingtonians are supposed to be the most in favour of statehood out of all the potential candidates (and this includes Puerto Rico where around 45-46% favoured statehood in the last few referenda). If that is the case, then it isn't hard to imagine that the majority (even if only a slim majority) of Washingtonians are in favour in statehood. Does anyone know if the Statehood advocates have any proposals along those lines (New Columbia and a rump D.C.)? Or do all the Statehood advocates put forward proposals to turn all of the District into a State? 72.27.165.213 06:40, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
I added an 'Arguments Against' section. The notable sourced objections I can find are a) the fact that (from the Federalist Papers) concerns were expressed about placing the federal govt within a single state b) the small size of the city by geography and population, c) having a state which lacks any rural area and with a large dependence on the federal government as an employer d) the possibility of DC imposing a commuter tax on federal employees living in neighboring states (which they are currently barred from doing). I think these are common objections that are raised when statehood is discussed. Afpre ( talk • contribs) 14:10, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Who can fix that to "District of Columbia statehood"? I don't know how. Korky Day 01:13, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
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)
A "homeland for the African-American people of DC"? Where are they moving to? Are non-African-Americans who live in DC going to be get their own ethnic homelands too? I'm beginning think this is simply vandalism or trolling, not a serious attempt to add info, esp given the IP is from Canada, not the DC area. I will file an AIV report or contact an admin if further changes are made without any serious attempt to discuss the issue AND gain a consensus first, and to provide sources to back up the 'homeland" language. - BillCJ ( talk) 00:52, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Statehood has nothing to do with ethnic self determination, homelands, or secession. If there is a movement for DC to "secede", then that, but the actual definitions of words, "secession" means leaving the US, not becoming a state of the US. Btw, all the BBC link above states is about voting rights, and the piece is 7 years old. - BillCJ ( talk) 01:22, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
All this talk suggesting that the issue is about black people is buying into political race-baiting. "African Americans" (but I am counting all black-skinned people) are a minority in DC, and this has been true for at least a decade. It is not a "black city", and the statehood "movement", which many residents (black and otherwise) do not support, is not about "black". It is simply a tactic for the Democrats to grab additional Senate seats.
Whether the statehood proposals are legal is quite unclear. The article's un-supported assertion in the lead that it would merely take an act of Congress is biased. The most likely legal route for normal Congressional representation would be retrocession (except for a tiny area where the Capitol, White House, Supreme Court, and the monuments sit)...back to Maryland. And absolutely nobody wants THAT. Residents don't want to be in Maryland, Maryland doesn't want the horrible mess, and of course that wouldn't satisfy the true goal -- grabbing some power.
In the end, nothing will ever come of this. I can think off the top of my head about 10 Constitutional challenges that would come up and you can be sure the Supreme Court would toss the statehood act.
Bur meanwhile it's good race-bait, and not to be wasted for manipulating the ignorant masses.
I've lived in Virginia less than a mile from the DC line for 60 years. This nonsense comes up periodically. Probably why today, when the House actually passed the latest statehood act, "H.R. 51" (on strictly partisan lines of course) the press hardly covered it! They know it's not going anywhere. Yawn. Dicirnah ( talk) 02:28, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
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)
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)
Does the current president have the "Taxation without Representation" plates back on the limo? If we're mentioning Clinton and Bush, we should update it for Obama as well. Zaldax ( talk) 14:24, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
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)
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)
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. [3]
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?
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)
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":
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)
H.R. 51 "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)
The result of the move request was: moved. ( closed by non-admin page mover) Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 01:22, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
– The D.C. article was moved from District of Columbia statehood movement in 2018 by IVORK, acting on a technical request from an IP with summary "Consistent with Statehood movement in Puerto Rico". That article had itself been moved from Puerto Rico statehood movement without edit summary by Ahnoneemoos in 2012. I think that in 2018 the IP went in the wrong direction, and that, rather, it's the Puerto Rico article that should have been brought (back) in line with the D.C. one.
There does not seem to be a COMMONNAME for the movement for statehood in D.C. or the movement for statehood in Puerto Rico, and I assume that's why descriptive titles have been favored. However, there is a COMMONNAME for the concept of statehood in these places as well: "D.C. statehood", or more formally "District of Columbia statehood" in D.C., and "Puerto Rico statehood" or "Puerto Rican statehood" in Puerto Rico. Those are the terms widely used by adovocacy groups, opponents, and the newsmedia.
It would be preferable to build these descriptive titles around existing COMMONNAMEs, and thus I suggest restoring the titles of "District of Columbia statehood movement" and "Puerto Rico statehood movement", which simply add "movement" to the end of established names for the relevant concepts. -- Tamzin cetacean needed (she/they) 00:47, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
Oppose. I prefer the current titles Statehood movement in the District of Columbia and Statehood movement in Puerto Rico. These current titles appear "cleaner", easier to read. For some titles we simply have to go with such qualitative "metrics". I'll use this ridiculous example just to make a point: If we had an article about oversized swords used in the films The Empire Strikes Back and The Return of the Jedi, we could have these two title options:
However, only the first one appears cleaner. Thus my preference for Statehood movement in the District of Columbia and Statehood movement in Puerto Rico. Mercy11 ( talk) 23:32, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
The contents of the Iowans for D.C. Statehood page were merged into District of Columbia statehood movement on 15 February 2023. 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. |
Iowans for D.C. Statehood was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 8 December 2022 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into District of Columbia statehood movement. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
On 1 March 2022, it was proposed that this article be moved from Statehood movement in the District of Columbia to District of Columbia statehood movement. The result of the discussion was moved. |
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)
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)
"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)
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)
Never mind, I decided to keep this page, since it pertains not only to District of Columbia voting rights but also District of Columbia home rule. See Talk:District of Columbia voting rights for more. -- BlueMoonlet 04:38, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Statehood now statehood now statehood now Congress needs to get it's but moving Spursfest101 ( talk) 04:40, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
I was just reading up the related articles on D.C. home rule, D.C. voting rights, D.C. Statehood and D.C. retrocession to Maryland and I was wondering why it all seems so difficult to give D.C. representation. As noted above, even Australia's capital territory is represented in both its House of Representatives and the Senate. Now it is true that have all of Washington D.C. become a state might require a constitutional amendment, but in the D.C. retrocession article there was a paragraph in the proposals section to the effect that most of the District could be retroceded to Maryland, with the exceptions of the National Capital Service Area (federal monuments, the White House, Congress, Supreme Court and other federal buildings) with the National Capital Service Area (NCSA) becoming a rump District. If that proposal doesn't require a constitutional amendment, then neither should Statehood for D.C., if a Statehood proposal includes separating the NCSA from the proposed New Columbia and retaining the NCSA as the District. Thus there would be the state of New Columbia and the District of Columbia with no need for a D.C. Voting Rights Amendment. In the fact the only amendment needed would be to repeal the 23rd amendment and it shouldn't be too hard to get the required number of states to get any such "repeal amendment" through. And if the article on 51st state(s) is correct, then Washingtonians are supposed to be the most in favour of statehood out of all the potential candidates (and this includes Puerto Rico where around 45-46% favoured statehood in the last few referenda). If that is the case, then it isn't hard to imagine that the majority (even if only a slim majority) of Washingtonians are in favour in statehood. Does anyone know if the Statehood advocates have any proposals along those lines (New Columbia and a rump D.C.)? Or do all the Statehood advocates put forward proposals to turn all of the District into a State? 72.27.165.213 06:40, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
I added an 'Arguments Against' section. The notable sourced objections I can find are a) the fact that (from the Federalist Papers) concerns were expressed about placing the federal govt within a single state b) the small size of the city by geography and population, c) having a state which lacks any rural area and with a large dependence on the federal government as an employer d) the possibility of DC imposing a commuter tax on federal employees living in neighboring states (which they are currently barred from doing). I think these are common objections that are raised when statehood is discussed. Afpre ( talk • contribs) 14:10, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Who can fix that to "District of Columbia statehood"? I don't know how. Korky Day 01:13, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
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)
A "homeland for the African-American people of DC"? Where are they moving to? Are non-African-Americans who live in DC going to be get their own ethnic homelands too? I'm beginning think this is simply vandalism or trolling, not a serious attempt to add info, esp given the IP is from Canada, not the DC area. I will file an AIV report or contact an admin if further changes are made without any serious attempt to discuss the issue AND gain a consensus first, and to provide sources to back up the 'homeland" language. - BillCJ ( talk) 00:52, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Statehood has nothing to do with ethnic self determination, homelands, or secession. If there is a movement for DC to "secede", then that, but the actual definitions of words, "secession" means leaving the US, not becoming a state of the US. Btw, all the BBC link above states is about voting rights, and the piece is 7 years old. - BillCJ ( talk) 01:22, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
All this talk suggesting that the issue is about black people is buying into political race-baiting. "African Americans" (but I am counting all black-skinned people) are a minority in DC, and this has been true for at least a decade. It is not a "black city", and the statehood "movement", which many residents (black and otherwise) do not support, is not about "black". It is simply a tactic for the Democrats to grab additional Senate seats.
Whether the statehood proposals are legal is quite unclear. The article's un-supported assertion in the lead that it would merely take an act of Congress is biased. The most likely legal route for normal Congressional representation would be retrocession (except for a tiny area where the Capitol, White House, Supreme Court, and the monuments sit)...back to Maryland. And absolutely nobody wants THAT. Residents don't want to be in Maryland, Maryland doesn't want the horrible mess, and of course that wouldn't satisfy the true goal -- grabbing some power.
In the end, nothing will ever come of this. I can think off the top of my head about 10 Constitutional challenges that would come up and you can be sure the Supreme Court would toss the statehood act.
Bur meanwhile it's good race-bait, and not to be wasted for manipulating the ignorant masses.
I've lived in Virginia less than a mile from the DC line for 60 years. This nonsense comes up periodically. Probably why today, when the House actually passed the latest statehood act, "H.R. 51" (on strictly partisan lines of course) the press hardly covered it! They know it's not going anywhere. Yawn. Dicirnah ( talk) 02:28, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
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)
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)
Does the current president have the "Taxation without Representation" plates back on the limo? If we're mentioning Clinton and Bush, we should update it for Obama as well. Zaldax ( talk) 14:24, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
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)
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)
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. [3]
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?
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)
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":
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)
H.R. 51 "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)
The result of the move request was: moved. ( closed by non-admin page mover) Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 01:22, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
– The D.C. article was moved from District of Columbia statehood movement in 2018 by IVORK, acting on a technical request from an IP with summary "Consistent with Statehood movement in Puerto Rico". That article had itself been moved from Puerto Rico statehood movement without edit summary by Ahnoneemoos in 2012. I think that in 2018 the IP went in the wrong direction, and that, rather, it's the Puerto Rico article that should have been brought (back) in line with the D.C. one.
There does not seem to be a COMMONNAME for the movement for statehood in D.C. or the movement for statehood in Puerto Rico, and I assume that's why descriptive titles have been favored. However, there is a COMMONNAME for the concept of statehood in these places as well: "D.C. statehood", or more formally "District of Columbia statehood" in D.C., and "Puerto Rico statehood" or "Puerto Rican statehood" in Puerto Rico. Those are the terms widely used by adovocacy groups, opponents, and the newsmedia.
It would be preferable to build these descriptive titles around existing COMMONNAMEs, and thus I suggest restoring the titles of "District of Columbia statehood movement" and "Puerto Rico statehood movement", which simply add "movement" to the end of established names for the relevant concepts. -- Tamzin cetacean needed (she/they) 00:47, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
Oppose. I prefer the current titles Statehood movement in the District of Columbia and Statehood movement in Puerto Rico. These current titles appear "cleaner", easier to read. For some titles we simply have to go with such qualitative "metrics". I'll use this ridiculous example just to make a point: If we had an article about oversized swords used in the films The Empire Strikes Back and The Return of the Jedi, we could have these two title options:
However, only the first one appears cleaner. Thus my preference for Statehood movement in the District of Columbia and Statehood movement in Puerto Rico. Mercy11 ( talk) 23:32, 1 March 2022 (UTC)