Talk:Jefferson (proposed Pacific state)

Proposed states

What other proposed states have there been? I know Puerto Rico. I guess there's two types: territories already in the US and those outside the US like PR. --Chavez 04:20, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

See 51st state and List of U.S. state secession proposals for a number of these. Sarge Baldy 22:12, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

State box

Isn't it a bit misleading to use the standard state box in describing the State of Jefferson, if it's still only a state of mind? For starters, unless they have some kind of governing body already, they can't really have an official state flag and whatnot; borders and other statistics might be better as "projected area" or "proposed area." Maybe a better phrasing would be "proposed state flag" or "official flag of the State of Jefferson Citizen's Committee"? Very interesting article here! Keep up the good work, --Khazar 16:23, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I added proposed to the infobox header, hopefully that's prominent enough to get the point across. --iMb~Meow 22:53, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

It's still inappropriate to use the infobox. The State of Jefferson is a concept and never got beyond it. It's ludicrous to state it has definite size, area, and borders when there were several proposals as to how many counties the state were supposed to be composed of. Nevermind that many of the fields, ie, current elected officials, can never be filled in. hateless 07:10, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Redding

According to this article, Redding, California would be the largest city in the state of Jeffeson. Yet, Redding is the county seat Shasta County, which according to this article, would not be a part of Jefferson. So is Redding in Jefferson or not???

-User: Mmace91

That's the neat thing about an imaginary state, it can contain as many cities as you like ;) The current-day Jefferson pipe dream adds several counties to the south and north that didn't participate in the 1940s demonstrations. See for example this version from the people who sell the Jefferson merchandise. --iMb~Meow 20:26, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Updated the map thingy to help explain the mystery of Redding :) --iMb~Meow 23:32, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Just to set the record straight, Shasta County is indeed part of the State of Jefferson as per the "Statham Talks" during the 90's on the State of Jefferson. - signed by anon IP

The proposed state boundary would most likely be north of Chico and Ukiah, two of the region's most populous cities are geographically and politically closer to the state capital of Sacramento to feel not as much isolated and alienated from California state officials. + 71.102.7.77 (talk) 19:36, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Other use of name

In the days when American adventurists were agitating to annex the remainder of the so-called Oregon Country, which is to say, British Columbia, the state-name proposed was Jefferson; this was 1858-1860 or so.Skookum1 16:49, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Improper Editing

Dear Anonymous Editor (IP 209.232.215.253):

Please do not engage in anonymous editing, and then refuse to discuss your point of view. Please contact me, and explain your actions, and I am confident that we can reach an agreement. Please see Wikipedia:Resolving_Disputes.

NorCalHistory 21:21, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Move to "Jefferson (proposed U.S. state)"

This isn't a current state, so to remain factual, we should only note it as a proposed U.S. state. At its current state, this article implies that this is a current U.S. state. --Mrmiscellanious 20:20, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Talk: Fisheries Plan

This section…

Many citizens of "Jefferson" feel threatened by National Marine Fisheries Service's plans to create fish hatcheries along the Klamath River, as well as creating a buffering zone along the river. This buffering zone would oust many people from their homes and even demolish an entire town.

could be improved wrt pov. How about...

Many citizens of "Jefferson" feel threatened by National Marine Fisheries Service's plans to create fish hatcheries along the Klamath River, as well as creating a buffering zone along the river. These plans attempt to address the drastic reduction in the number of salmon in the Klamath. The buffering zone would oust many people from their homes and even demolish an entire town name the town, and put citation here.

with better wordsmithing – the point is to balance the entry to explain the Fisheries Service plans. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 157.127.124.15 (talk) 00:07, 30 January 2007 (UTC).

...Another liberal with unsupported claims strikes again.... If you want the name of the town and citation, how about supporting your claim of "the drastic reduction in the number of salmon in the Klamath" with some factual data and cite the sources.... The truth is that the entire mouth of the Klamath and 40 miles upriver are under the direct control of a Native American tribe with unrestricted fishing access to the salmon population... let's not punish the remainder of the Klamath region population unless the federal government is ALSO willing to impose upon the Native American tribe reasonable restrictions on fish harvesting that will benefit ALL peoples in the region. ... But wait, under federal law we can't do that to the Native Americans, so instead the government chooses to misplace blame (intentionally, for the good of the tree-hugging liberals) on the hardworking taxpayers of the Klamath and mis-use the environmental regulations using the excuse of a declining fishery. No wonder the State of Jefferson will live on forever in our hearts and minds until it becomes reality. - signed by anon IP

No need to out all your blame on "liberals". Stick to facts and references, please.

The Klamath Lake fishery plan controversy in 2002 was a powderkeg for the region's notable criticism of federal government policies, in addition to state secession movements and also the Cascadian Independence party called for the Pacific Northwest to secede from the United States to establish the Republic of Cascadia. + 71.102.7.77 (talk) 19:38, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Start class

If there was more than just the one inline reference this would be real close to a B class article. Aboutmovies 17:41, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Uncited

The following section is all uncited, and part of it appears to be contentious, so I pulled the whole thing out.

Today there are more talks of creating the new state, mostly only half serious. Many citizens of "Jefferson" feel threatened by National Marine Fisheries Service's plans to create fish hatcheries along the Klamath River, as well as creating a buffering zone along the river. This buffering zone would oust many people from their homes and even demolish an entire town. Meanwhile, others in "Jefferson" have embraced the idea of the entire Pacific Northwest breaking away from the United States and Canada to become its own country, Cascadia. A large barn off of Interstate 5 north of Weed, California has "the State of Jefferson" painted on the roof. Indeed, some local drivers have license plate frames declaring themselves citizens of Jefferson.

Seems to me cites needed are:

• Reference to the project creating fish hatcheries and the buffer zone.
• Reference to that project evicting people or demolishing a town, including which town.
• Reference to Jeffersonians embracing the Cascadia nationhood movement.
• Reference or image of the Barn -- I know it's there, but a cite is needed.
• Reference or image of a SoJ license plate frame.

- Keith D. Tyler ¶ 17:31, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Source for expansion/citations

• IDEA FOR STATE OF JEFFERSON PREDATES OREGON, CALIFORNIA. The Oregonian, July 20, 1997, Author: JOHN TERRY. Aboutmovies (talk) 00:16, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, but I think Mendocino County shouldn't be part of Jefferson. Too much involved with San Francisco's megalopolis to be in another state. Just my opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.8.255.79 (talk) 18:36, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

How about a citation, rather than just your opinion about inclusion of Mendocino.

Maybe it wasn't part of a magalopolis when Jefferson was proposed. -- SEWilco (talk) 03:25, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Pulitzer Prize for 49th State Story

Stanton Delaplane, a San Francisco Chronicle reporter in 1941, is credited with covering the story of the State of Jefferson. His series ran from Nov 27, 1941 until Dec 7, 1941 when Pearl Harbor was bombed. In 1942, he was awarded the Pulitzer Prize for this series. Seems this should be included in the State of Jefferson history. Ckconti (talk) 15:53, 8 September 2008 (UTC) Kristin Delaplane 11:51 AM EST Sept 8, 2008

How about a SOCAL(Southern California) republic as well as state of Jefferson?

The article was great! Espcially the proposed flag of the State of Jefferson TWO "XS"! Double cross! Are they any State of Jefferson proponants these days? AndreAndreisme (talk) 19:07, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

BC if annexed and made a state, 1850s-60s

I might have posted about this here before, but it came up againt tonight; see here and also follow the link on notes I just wrote on alternate boundaries in the Pacific Northwest|"notes" to the main info/discussion where this came up. During the restiveness around the BC gold rushes, what hype there was about annexation talked about a new state north of Washington, either Jefferson or Franklin and presumably north to at least 44-40; this was mostly before the Alaska Purchase, I think the name proposal largely faded out pretty quick, adn there may have been other names, but none fixed so strong as the rhetoric for annexation (all interesting stuff btw); the idea of extending the ID-WA and ID-MT boundaries northward came up in the 1880s-1890s again, though....Skookum1 (talk) 04:06, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I have serious doubts on the possible historic documents about British Columbia originally wanted to be an U.S. state instead of a Canadian province. There was once an Oregon Country made by local Anglo-American settlers unable to make an allegiance with either the British or the USA. The area was also disputed by Spain, then France and finally the Russians whom claimed Alaska, Yukon and the Pacific coast all the way down south to their Fort Ross about 100 miles north of San Francisco. + 71.102.7.77 (talk) 19:41, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

What I"m talking about is long after that (and I won't start correcting your various fuzzy understandings). the Oregon Question was settled in 1846, with Russian and Spanish claims long before. The particular annexationist worries I'm talking about were 1859-61 or so, due to the large numbers of American miners on the British Columbia mainland. Other annexation movements followed right after, more composed of an alliance of colonists of all backgrounds who viewed annexation as an option adn weren't all that enthusiastic about joining Canada; but the "state of Franklin" or whatever it was is related to the (small) movement within the American mining population to stage a seizure of the territory and declare a US territory/state. The idea lasted probably all of five or six barrels of whiskey and probably a good fistfight or two, but there is no connection between what I'm talking about and the Oregon Country or the Russian or Spanish episodes you're bringing up...Skookum1 (talk) 04:31, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Seems like reference to one or several reliable sources ought to clarify things. Skookum1, is there a verifiable source you can cite? And what, if anything, of this ought we to reflect in the article? Cheers. N2e (talk) 00:57, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

State? How?

Secession from California or Oregon is not sufficient to make an area a state. Statehood is bestowed via an act of Congress.

Seceding from your state is actually secession from the Union, which is illegal.

If the local government declares secession. I'm not sure that changes their status at all -- there is no established process for such. The article needs to address this. Bustter (talk) 05:47, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Regarding "secession from the Union... is illegal," please cite your sources. The several States formed the Union via ratification and so their actions supersede those of the general government, except for those areas specifically spelled out by the Constitution where the general government takes precedence. Please also note that the Constitution is a primarily a document which structures and limits the general government, not the States. Unless there is a specific power of the general government granted in the Constitution which denies the ability of States to secede, then the States do indeed have this power. Historically it could not be otherwise: the States never would have ratified the Constitution if they thought they would not be allowed to leave it. Many of the States were suspicious of the Constitution, and some even today would say "rightly so." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tonywhite68 (talk • contribs) 15:25, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Official website

Recently there has been an edit war over the "official" website with each editor claiming the other has "hijacked" or "pirated" the URL. The choices are http://stateofjefferson.com/ and http://jeffersonstate.com/

Both websites describe approximately the same area (southern Oregon and northern California, though the latter has a map) and both describe similar motivations for creating a new state. Both websites have been archived by the Wayback Machine since the late 1990s and have many snapshots:

• SoJ: 93 times since December 2, 1998
• JS: 367 times since January 25, 1999

The earliest snapshots of both seem more focused on advertising local businesses while later snapshots of both are more focused on the benefits of creating a new state.

I considered looking at the Wikipedia article history to see which was first included, but decided it doesn't matter. What does the community think about including both links? —EncMstr (talk) 18:59, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Of the two I find http://jeffersonstate.com/ more informative. The other one's apparent inner pages lead to other websites, most commercial. The one I prefer has a lot of content instead of one lead off page article and links to external sites. But there is no reason not to include both for readers to take their pick. Also we could skip calling either one "official" as there is yet no state of Jefferson, there can be nothing "official" either. Sorry if it seems I was involved in an edit war, I chose the http/jeffersonstate.com site of the two choices because it has more internal content. 50.45.168.46 (talk) 23:20, 6 September 2013 (UTC) Sorry about that, I forgot to log in to comment. The preceding comment is by me. Ellin Beltz (talk) 23:21, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for opening this discussion!

I preferred the http://StateOfJefferson.com website. It has a more academic approach to the movement. The material was developed with permission of the Siskiyou County Museum and the Siskiyou County Historical Society. It is the only website that actually lists copyright credit for the photos that everyone seems to have adopted for the movement. I also like the fact that http://StateOfJefferson.com is edited by volunteers (currently a University of California Archeology student and a journalist). Also on the plus side, they recently opened a forum in response to the latest headlines and are accepting contributions from other volunteer editors. It seems much more like an effort to include the community.

The other website is a commercial venture run by Jefferson Enterprises. They financially benefit from promoting SOJ. The owner has even trademarked the use of our XX symbol on clothing for his exclusive profit. What is so cool about that?

But who really cares? I say list both of them, or neither, as the official site.

They both have a link in the External Link section. I say we keep that part intact, as is. I read the editing history and found that one of the links had been changed and thus created two links for just one website (and edging the other one out). You can call that ‘pirated or hijacked’ if you like. Maybe that is just the way SOJ folks joke with each other. After all, the whole thing is just in people’s minds. Sojhistory (talk) 20:18, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Remember, Wiki is not

Among the things Wikipedia is not... It is not a place to push personal agendas , make negative comments about groups of people and/or contribute original research. It is also not the place to put non-existent references. After searching for the alleged citation carefully, and finding nothing, I reverted an anonymous edit which contained all of the above and a claim which is unsupported in any of the citations currently in the article. Under the Citation guideline:

If a claim is doubtful and harmful, remove it from the article. You may want to move it to the talk page and ask for a source, unless it is very harmful or absurd, in which case it should not be posted to the talk page either. Use your common sense.... see... Wikipedia:Libel.

My common sense says it goes, and really should not return. Ellin Beltz (talk) 14:58, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. Thanks! —EncMstr (talk) 17:27, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Projected financial reports

I'm all for the State of Jefferson, But I have some question, First one, Will the cost of living increase, or decrease? There are huge financial responsibly's placed upon a state, with a low population, the responsibly will fall upon the people, but at what cost? I have looked for the projected financial report for the State of Jefferson, but unable to find anything. Have any projected financial reports been done? If so, were could I find them?--Trinity274 (talk) 17:26, 19 January 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trinity274 (talk • contribs)

"Humboldt Nation"?

Is a phrase a lot of people in the Humboldt/Trinity Counties area use, right? The notion originated in the 1970s. Has anyone else heard of this? I'm trying to find more information on it because I think it would fit in the article. --98.246.156.76 (talk) 04:37, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

List of Cities

I think it would be neat to have a list of the biggest cities (not metros, singular municipalities) in the latest Jefferson proposal, and their populations. Obviously Redding is biggest, and Medford is up there, but what else that we don't think of normally, would be major towns/small cities in Jefferson? YellowAries2010 (talk) 22:18, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

I tried, but there isn’t many references to the largest cities in the North part of California that would be in Jefferson. Maybe if the movement gets going again, the media will release a list of those cities and we can add it. Only time will tell. Wikiwriter2.0bytheomorg (talk) 17:07, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Sacramento

Would the capital of California have to be moved since Sacramento would be near the northern edge of Jefferson?Greeninventor999 (talk) 15:38, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jefferson (proposed Pacific state). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130930014430/http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/download/DataSet.txt to http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/download/DataSet.txt

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:22, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Lassen County voted for Hillary Clinton in 2016.

The fact the rural voters tend to favor the GOP over the Democrat Party is hardly unique to California. Nor is the fact the region of the proposed State of Jefferson voted overwhelmingly for Mr. Trump diagnostic of any popular sentiment for the proposed state. After all, voters in Del Norte and Lassen counties voted decisively to reject the State of Jefferson in 2014 and 2016 respectively, in spite of voting for Donald Trump. Only one county has voted for the State of Jefferson. (Tehama County, 2014) If you are going to mention that Lassen County voted for Hillary Clinton, then should you also note that Lassen County also voted against the State of Jefferson in June 2016 by 57 to 43 %. http://www.redding.com/story/news/local/2016/06/10/lassen-voters-reject-state-of-jefferson/93730552/ 67.45.114.112 (talk) 04:03, 14 May 2017 (UTC) Uncle Mike (talk) 04:07, 14 May 2017 (UTC) uncle mike

Updates

The State of Jefferson has expanded now to include Amador, Calaveras and Tuolumne Counties (http://soj51.org/committees/)

If you are going to mention the counties favoring the proposed state, shouldn't you also mention those who have rejected it? Del Norte voted against in 2014, Lassen voted against in 2016, The boards of supervisors of Shasta (http://www.chicoer.com/article/zz/20140624/NEWS/140629251), Trinity (https://sierrafoothillsreport.com/2015/09/18/trinity-county-supes-say-no-to-state-of-jefferson/), Sierra (http://www.lakeconews.com/index.php?option=com_content&id=44720:state-of-jefferson-sierra-county-supervisors-decline-to-join-supporters-rally-in-sacramento&Itemid=197)and Alpine (https://shastalantern.net/category/state-of-jefferson/page/2/) Counties voted against the State of Jefferson. The counties of Lake (http://lakecountydemocrats.org/lake-county-board-of-supervisors-rescind-vote-on-state-of-jefferson/), Amador(http://www.keepitcalifornia.org/breaking-news) and Plumas (http://www.lakeconews.com/index.php?option=com_content&id=44797:-state-of-jefferson-update-plumas-supervisors-rescind-jefferson-advisory-vote-resolution&Itemid=197) voted to rescind their decision to place the State of Jefferson measure on the ballot. The State of Jefferson ballot measure for Nevada County (http://www.theunion.com/news/elections/state-of-jefferson-initiative-fails-to-qualify-for-ballot-in-nevada-county/) failed to get enough signatures to qualify. The City Council of Redding, California (http://www.krcrtv.com/news/redding-city-council-rejects-state-of-jefferson-proposal_20160512232906516/10640572)voted against the State of Jefferson proposal.

I really think the opposition to the current proposal should be acknowledged in any article about the proposed state. Uncle Mike (talk) 04:47, 14 May 2017 (UTC) uncle mike

Size - error ( width, length appear to be x10 )

" • Width 2500 miles (4020 km)

   • Length	2950 miles (4750 km)  "

That's roughly ( twice ? the ) size of the 48 states, whose Wiki: " Total area = 3,796,742 sq mi "

Wiki says: Oregon:

• Width	400 miles (640 km)
• Length	360 miles (580 km)

So (eyeballing your map) JN would be about 0.6 x 1.2 of OR, therefore around 240 x 430

Probably the 4 number at top should each be divided by 10?

[ I stumbled here from WW2 fire balloons ]

---

o0o-----

Some selected email is read - every few days at random.

802-259-3070, usually checked on return home.

    Dan

Grampadan (talk) 20:30, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Jefferson (proposed Pacific state). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121111160946/http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/download_data.html to http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/download_data.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140620074821/http://www.redding.com/news/2013/sep/03/live-tweets-siskiyou-county-supervisors-discuss-se/ to http://www.redding.com/news/2013/sep/03/live-tweets-siskiyou-county-supervisors-discuss-se/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070621232235/http://www.ijpr.org/Index.asp to http://www.ijpr.org/INDEX.ASP
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110929164342/http://www.ijpr.org/Page.asp?NavID=1033 to http://www.ijpr.org/Page.asp?NavID=1033
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070921220849/http://sisnet.ssku.k12.ca.us/~msusdftp/jones/ian/historypg1.html to http://sisnet.ssku.k12.ca.us/~msusdftp/jones/ian/historypg1.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:20, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Modesto

In what universe is Modesto considered part of the State of Jefferson?SouthParkFan65 (talk) 22:06, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Is State of Jefferson dead, or just hibernating?

I've seen no new content published on Youtube, by certain "leaders" of this movement, such as Mark Baird and Terry Rapoza. No evidence of meetings being held. No rallies in Sacramento. So is the idea on the back burner for now, again? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.53.232.146 (talk) 00:05, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Well, California has been kindling meetings now and then, and there are Jefferson flags flying in southern Oregon, but the movement needs another Mayor Gable to get going again. See, this would be the hardest state to make, because of Oregon’s and California’s unwillingness to lose ground. And the DNC doesn’t want yet another rural republican state. But think about this. The RNC doesn’t want DC to become a state. So here is the idea. You would have to have like a national partisan deal. Someone known nationwide would have to make a conference with RNC, DNC, Puerto Rican, DC, Cali and Oregon lawmakers, as well as Jefferson leaders all attending. A deal would be made that cedes OR and CA territory and sends a proposal to congress to accept a constitution of the state of Jefferson and BAMM! Jefferson is here! To compensate the lose of Dem seats and imbalance in the senate, DC is also made into a state. Puerto Rico is wild card ( For Republicans and Dems) and should have been made a state a while ago. So they get statehood too. Wikiwriter2.0bytheomorg (talk) 21:38, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

In a deal in which both Jefferson and DC achieve statehood, the DNC would be losing many electoral college votes and losing in the House with no difference in the Senate—DC would have one representative in the House, Jefferson would have around four. CA-2 and CA-4, both held by democrats, would be lost through redistricting the territory to bias the Republicans who would not doubt have control over the districting committee. This means six new Republican-leaning electoral college votes and whatever is lost from California and Oregon (Probably 3-5 combined). Even the addition of Puerto Rico as a state would fail to counteract the electoral college loss by ceding the land to the proposed state of Jefferson as that would only add six new Democrat-leaning electoral college votes and fails to counter the loss in representation that would be seen in California and Oregon. The only reason why the DNC would agree to a deal like this is that they're willing to trade 3-5 electoral college votes for representation in the Senate. The fact that the new state would require both the signing off of both the Democratic trifecta present in California and the Democratic trifecta present in Oregon means that the deal would have to be found to be of such a benefit to the Democrats broadly and the individual state representatives themselves (is it good for their personal career to sign off on this? Does it give them less power? Less access to money?) They'd have to overcome so much bureaucratic inertia in a party notorious for its preference of institutionalism over populism and propensity towards bureaucratic ritualism. And if it's found to be of such a benefit to the Democratic party as to be able to pass in both of these states, then the question becomes if it's really possible to create a piece of bipartisan legislation that'll benefit the Democratic Party and the answer is of course not. Perhaps if the only thing holding it up is a slim Republican majority in the Senate or House and a few Oregonian and Californian Republican representatives decide to vote in favor of it to please their own constituency, thus allowing it to pass, but otherwise, this means that the Democratic party would have to have a national trifecta at the time of passing it. And a situation where a few Republicans flip and vote for this legislation would never happen because the DNC would need a trifecta to have the confidence to attempt something with this much gall anyhow. There's always going to be your moderates like Manchin or Sinema or institutionalist Democrats who consider the effort to be a national gerrymandering project so this would require many fickle (and let's be honest, self-interested) actors all to get in line and so that's a lot of effort at whipping your own party into line, not even to mention attempting to convince a few Republicans to switch. You'd need some sort of influential DNC strategist or congressperson to lead the party towards this and that's not as easy as it may seem from the outside. And if the DNC has the trifecta and everyone's on board with giving Puerto Rico and DC statehood, then what's the point of including Jefferson in that proposal anyway? The point is that this is never happening. CatsThisTime (talk) 01:26, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Also, please stop edit warring. Talk it out in this talk page instead with Dan. CatsThisTime (talk) 01:28, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

I think he just wanted me to add a reference to my edit. Which I did earlier today. It was just a bit about why the proposed state is name after Jefferson. I found the answer in a PBS documentary recently, so I used that as a reference. Thanks for the opinion on Jefferson statehood. I agree, it would take a miracle. Wikiwriter2.0bytheomorg (talk) 04:18, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: CALIFORNIA DREAMING, THE GOLDEN STATE'S RHETORICAL APPEALS

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 7 February 2023 and 24 March 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): HarvardGrandpa (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Ksbasilk.

— Assignment last updated by Phrynefisher (talk) 00:47, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Expansion of the proposed state?

Why was this expanded to include parts of the Central Valley and Central Sierra? There is no source that anyone was trying to include Stanislaus County, for example, yet it was added to the article and added to the map by IAmBrazilian. —Lights and freedom (talk ~ contribs) 22:39, 10 May 2023 (UTC)