Talk:Idaho/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 1

History of Idaho

I'm seeing a contradiction in the Economy section of the article, with the following excerpt:

"In recent years, Idaho has changed itself from an agricultural and tourism state into a science and technology center. Science and technology has become the largest single economic center (over 25% of the State's total revenue) within the State and is greater than agriculture, forestry and mining combined. However, potatoes are still the best source of wealth to its economy."

I'm not really clear on how potatoes can be the best source of wealth to Idaho's economy if agriculture isn't the largest economic center--particularly if, as the article states, the Science and Technology sector is larger than agri, forestry, and mining put together. Could someone clarify this? Do they mean the largest single source of wealth? --phreyan 13:44, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Nevermind. I went ahead and removed the last statement about potatoes. Aside from having no reference and contradicting the entire paragraph it concludes, it would belong more in the Economy section. Perhaps a separate or less contradictory statement recognizing the history of growing potatoes in Idaho could work here, but since it is mentioned other places in the article I don't know if it is necessary. --phreyan 14:29, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

"Soda Springs is the world's only captive geyser"? Do other geysers run around?-- 15:04, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

"The coolest kid that lives there is named Justin." I really don't think it should be here.

More info on editing this page can be found here: WikiProject U.S. states

There's a lot more to do.

It seems like there is a typo in the elevation statistics. The mean elevation should not be higher than the maximum elevation!

I switched it. --mav 05:10 Mar 16, 2003 (UTC)

The values for the mean and the max elevation can't be right, they are much to high, aren't they ? -- 16:45, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I'm wondering about the paragraph about the name. A little rewriting might make it a bit more clear, but since the hoax is totally new to me, I'll not be qualified to alter it. Maybe if I get some more info about that under my belt. ;Bear 03:59, 2004 Aug 16 (UTC)

When it mentions the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, it should be spelled "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints." Just thought I'd let someone know. :P --Parlod 15:07, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I really don't think the last paragraph in the history section is important enough to be listed within an encyclopedia.

Maddox at has recently written an article about Idaho. Isn't that neat? It should have a link on the Idaho page here.

No, the Maddox page was not neat, it was totally pointless and provided no relevant information about Idaho, I removed it.

I've found various sources attesting to the hoax story, but none of them mentions the "I the ho" derivation, which only appears in modern jokes. Is there a citation for this? --Matt McIrvin 15:51, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

This has been a slippery topic for over 100 years. In the late 1850s there was a steamboat on the Columbia River named Idaho. Idaho County, which was then part of Washington Territory, was named after that. I've heard the name Idaho was originally proposed for Colorado in the 1870s, but obviously not used there. Where the name came from previous to all that is subject to a plethora of conflicting sources and local legends. --Faustus37 15:10, 9 February 2006 (UTC)


I've been doing a lot of work on the History section. I think the territorial history here is pretty good. The history after statehood in 1890 is a bit, um, lacking. Let's do some work on that. --Faustus37 15:12, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I did more. There's more to do. It's getting rather long. I suggested we split it off into a new article --Faustus37 17:46, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

If you do split it be sure to put a link to it in the regular Idaho page

Transferring the History section to a new article "History of Idaho" did'nt work out well. All of the links, stubs, ETC. disappeared. Maybe a Wikipedia knowledgeable person could either correct the errors or change it back the way it was.

BOY I did it Now!

Sugested that someone fix the IDAHO HISTORY section and now I'm blocked from editing by BorgQueen. Such is life.

"Your user name or IP address has been blocked from editing. You were blocked by BorgQueen for the following reason (see our blocking policy): "persistent vandalism - 3rd unique block" Your IP address is"

You use AT&T Worldnet Service and have implemented the AT&T Worldnet Accelerator feature. You & perhaps several other hundred people have IP Address Disable the Accelerator option and your IP Address will change.

I fixed it a few days ago. --Faustus37 00:10, 23 May 2006 (UTC)


Is it true that one can be send to prison over homosexuality in Idaho? Migdejong 03:12, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm a native Idahoan, and I've never heard of anything like that. At most there might be an old law to that effect that's no longer enforced. --Faustus37 15:27, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
Sodomy_laws_in_the_United_States: 2003 - 5 years to life for any sexual orientation.
Whether this was ever enforced in recent history is another thing.
Further investigation shows this law to have been struck down as of 26th june 2003
and that the law applied to all but heterosexual married couples.
see [[1]]

I don't even think that's on the books- kind of illegal, given federal laws. Pajari 04:23, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

It WAS on the books, but was cleaned up in Phil Batt's governorship 03:10, 22 December 2006 (UTC)jbischoff 2010, 21 December 2006 (MST)

Vardis Fisher

I'm disappointed that Vardis Fisher is not listed in the category of Well-known Idahoans.

He is now. I added him to the People from Idaho category. --Faustus37 17:00, 17 March 2006 (UTC)


I just inserted a space in front of LDS, indicating that LDS is a Christian religion. But now, the percentages don't add up correctly. Before, the Protestant and Catholic percentages added up correctly to the total Christian percentage, and the Christian, LDS, other religion, and non-religious added up correctly to 100%. But because LDS is a Christian religion, the LDS percentage, the Catholic percentage, and the Protestant percentage need to add up to the total Christian percentage, and the total 100% percentage needs to include Christian, other religion, non-religious, and nothing else. I don't know exactly what the correct percentages are, so someone needs to research and fix that. I assume the correct percentage is Christian - 79%, and everything else stays the same. --QQQ (3-19-06)

A person might,if so inclined,completely re-categorize the entire Idaho religion section. Reading the interview of Brigham Young (Profit, Seer and Revelator) of the Mormon Church by Horace Greeley (New York Tribune editor) in 1859, is certainly a religious enlightenment. New category's might include schismatic, heretical, and out of the way of salvation. Good Luck! It seems accuracy & truth are interwound.

I just changed Christianity - 65% to 79%, if no one minds, because I can't leave it the way it was. --QQQ (3-21-06)

There is a 2001 survey of religious affiliation at If you impute the affiliation of the non-responders, you get the following breakdown for Idaho: -- JimIrwin 13:43, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Idaho is HEAVLY morman


Ee-dah-hoe or Ee-dah-how is what I learned was the origin in 4th grade Idaho History class.

What is the origin of the name? I can't find it anywhere! Fishhead64 07:44, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
I took that 4th grade Idaho History class too. A lot of it was, well, fanciful. I believe this ties into the George M. Willing hoax mentioned in the article. "Ee-da-how" in its various spellings is supposed to be the original Native American word for "gem of the mountains," but to my knowledge no such word exists in any Native American language. --Faustus37 22:24, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

This section is poorly started: "However,..." However what? What is being continued? What is preceding this? Who is Willing, and why would I have known already who he is and what his "claim" is? There is no explanation that gives any background; it's like the text was cut and pasted from within another article. Klugerama (talk) 22:06, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

The page was vandalized, as a check of the page history shows. I just restored the missing paragraph. Pfly (talk) 01:12, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

External Links

I removed a link to added by I don't think that belongs on the list of links for a U.S. state. Maybe if there were a separate article "Politics in Idaho" or something similar, or if it were used to actually back up a claim in the article, it would fit. Here, it does not. Ufwuct 16:52, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, does the article really need 4 external links to environmental groups. They appear to be somewhat POV, which IS allowed externally, but when there are this many, it appears NPOV is not being upheld within the article. I'm also not sure what purpose they serve in support of the article. Maybe only the best and most relevant two should kept??? I'm open to comments. Thanks. Ufwuct 16:56, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Alright, it's been 1 month without comment. So, I've removed three of the environmental external links. The first two removed are mentioned in the collection of links at Protect Idaho Rivers Conservation Links, so they were redundant. The last one seemed far too shrill for an article simply about a U.S. state, so I just removed it. I wouldn't go quite as far as to say that the link isn't a reliable source for any Wikipedia article, but I certainly don't think it belongs in this article, especially without context. Thanks. Ufwuct 22:58, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Thebestpageintheuniverse link dubbed "more info about Idaho" is a single persons opponion about how much they hate Idaho and Idaho drivers. It has NO place on this page about the wonderful state of Idaho. I removed it yesterday and someone re-added it, I'm removing it again. The site is poitness and provided no additional info about Idaho. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Idahoguy (talkcontribs) 09:12, 19 December 2006 (UTC).

Should links to websites having to do with individual communities be in the Idaho article? Seems to me they can go in the external links of the pages about the community itself. I ask this because of the recent edit made by user Picklegnome 16:16, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

External links should in my (not humble) opinion be in the most appropriate article. Links to communities should be in those articles. Links of interest to the state at large are appropriate for the state article. --Robbie Giles 16:23, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Hoax of a hoax??

I have read about the George Willing "hoax" before, on The Best Page in the Universe[2], Wikipedia, and elsewhere (when reading about the etymology of the names for all 50 states). So, I suppose I just accepted the "hoax" theory as fact. This article[3], which lists an excerpt from a 1951 book[4], suggests that the issue is not so clear. (By the way, the title of the excerpt and the title of the book on Amazon are NOT the same.) So, I have introduced a degree of skepticism into this section regarding the naming of Idaho. I could not find anything on Snopes when searching for "Idaho" or "George Willing" (let me know if any of you can find something). Hopefully, this is not just an urban legend or a hoax of a hoax. It feels reminiscent of the Chevy Nova story [5]. ANY new, reliable information would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. Ufwuct 17:55, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

How about comment on re-naming the state if it IS a hoax name. Jefferson is honestly the name it deserves if the Word Idaho is really a hoax. Honestly its only fair if we have no true Ameri-Indian or Spanish Name for it, why not use the name that would be most unifying, Jefferson, its been a debated re-name for Oregon and parts of the Oregon Territory for years. How about it? Or Lincoln? I mean this is something that needs to be discussed.

Idaho has been a state for over 100 years, and has a rich history with the name "Idaho." I for one, as a resident, would not approve trying to change the name just because "Idaho" is based on a hoax. It is a word now, because it is my home state. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:22, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Pacific Northwest?

Is it entirely accurate to classify Idaho as a Pacific (Northwest) state, considering that it's hundreds of miles from the actual Pacific? Vranak

It is often grouped with the Pacific Northwest. There are old and strong links between much of Idaho and Washington and Oregon, via the rivers, transportation, economy, history, etc. Northern Idaho came close to becoming a part of Washington long ago. Lewiston, Idaho is sometimes called a "seaport" due to its river traffic links with Portland and the Pacific via the Snake and Columbia rivers. The Oregon Trail is a historic link. There are many others. Southeast Idaho seems more of a stretch, but for most of the state, yea. Pfly 22:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
South Idaho sucks anyway... We are only a few hours (1 in a plane) from the coast.. i don't think its that bad teamcoltra

New proposed WikiProject

There is now a proposed WikiProject to deal with the state of Idaho at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Idaho. Any parties interested in taking part in such a project should indicate as much there, so that we can know if there is sufficient interest to create it. By the way, I have no idea where the banner at the top of this page came from. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 16:55, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

older entries

I'm sure the folks in Germany would like the same deal. No need to keep mentioning the pesky Nazi thing...right.

Idaho folks are more open-minded than the rest of US gives credit. Rest of US perceives Idahoans as intolerant. Not true. Idaho had first Jewish Govenor. Idaho has oldest continuing Jewish community.

Please consider editing the paragraph about the Neo Nazis. They were very small part of Idaho history and not representative of Idahoans in general.

In spring 2005, Inc. Magazine and Forbes Magazine both ranked Boise, Idaho as #1, or #2 Best Place to live / start a business. There are many good reasons why the population continues to grow faster than other areas. Perhaps you could replace the Nazi comment with something more positive?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:36, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Nevada Test Site Fallout

According to official U.S. Government maps published in Wikipedia at the Nevada Test Site page, Idaho received a large quantity of fallout from tests of nuclear weapons beginning in the early 1950's. There are no official reports of testing of products from Idaho including crops such as potatoes, lumber, and other products sold to consumers worldwide. Although this information is not good news for Idaho, it seems appropriate and important to report this fact. After posting this reference on the Idaho web page, it was repeatedly and maliciously deleted by people with an apparent financial or other special interest in hiding this information. The Wikipedia "Neutral Point of View" policy states that articles should be written "representing fairly and without bias all significant views". Just because you do not like the facts does not mean that verifiable facts should be deleted since they represent a different point of view. User: 04 September 2007

I have no connection with Idaho and reverted the edit simply because it appeared to be controversial, misplaced (in the section of the article on food) and, most importantly, unreferenced. Typically, sources are footnoted in the article itself. Best, ► DRTïllberġ ◄Talk 03:17, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
You obviously did not read my explanation and REFERENCE CITED in the sentence. Your actions are malicious conduct and will be reported to Wikipedia editors. User: 04 Sept 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:30, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Repeatedly adding the same irrelevant unsourced bolded sentence is rather tiresome POV pushing. The material added:
Idaho received large amounts of radiation fallout from the Nevada Test Site since the early 1950's.
A link to another Wikipedia article is not a reference and in addition that article says nothing about Idaho. Vsmith 03:35, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


To resolve issues regarding insufficient references, the following references are proposed for a new section in the Idaho article to explain and document a significant point of view.

These references, cited in major newspaper and television sources, provide background information for this important issue. I hope these articles alleviate prior concerns regarding insufficient references. 05:42, 5 September 2007 (UTC)User: M.Sc. 05 September 2007

I can appreciate how tedious this collaborative editing process may seem. If your edit had added even one of those sources above, I wouldn't have touched it. I was reviewing all anonymous edits, not just yours, and reverting edits that appeared to be vandalism. I actually think that your edit is interesting, and on closer review doesn't seem to be badly misplaced. However, keep in mind that Wikipedia is constantly being edited and your changes may be edited further by others. See Wp:own. Best ► DRTïllberġ ◄Talk 15:02, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
I am personally familiar with this issue and believe this section could be quite useful. However, how about including a summary of the information from the cited sources? A list is only soooooooooo useful to our readers. GwenW 03:33, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Your recent contribution was a vast improvement. However, as GwenW points out the current section consisting of basically just a list of "references" isn't the way we write an encyclopedia. Please do as suggested and summarise the info from a few of the sources in a non-pov prose section with the refs added as footnotes. As it is, it will be drastically modified or deleted unless made more encyclopediac. You've got a good start, now - on with the hard part: writing the prose. Cheers, Vsmith 03:49, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Please do not delete this section as you continue to threaten. Wikipedia's "Neutral Point of View" policy says that facts can be included "representing fairly and without bias all significant views". A brief summary of the issue was included in my text. Since Gwen says she is "personally familiar" with the issue perhaps she could provide a summary of the issue. Otherwise, I will be pleased to provide additional text summaries of references, as time permits. I feel this issue is important because the U.S. military and Federal Government obviously performed these nuclear tests knowing that the fallout would kill or seriously injure many U.S. citizens. Additionally, how many consumers have eaten Idaho potatoes without knowing if they were tested for radiation poisons? I find this conduct obnoxious and feel that those in the military and government who participated in this outrageous behavior should be fired and their pensions taken away. May God help these poor victims. 19:58, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
I propose this section be deleted from this article for the following reasons:
  • The sources listed are popular sources only, several from organizations with a vested interest in the controversy.
  • Several of the articles refer to proposed legislation which was not enacted, or even supported by reps other than Crapo.
  • Similar sections do not appear in other heavily affected states' main articles.
  • A 300px map is overkill, and puts undue emphasis on the one section
  • List of links do not equate to an encyclopedic section.
  • Downwinders or Radiation Exposure Compensation Act are much more appropriate articles for this topic.
I do this, not to whitewash the topic, but to treat it in a similar manner as other controversies. This article should be a balanced report on this topic, and not give undue emphasis to a particular topic, unless it is of paramount significance. One well crafted sentence in the article should be sufficient. I will work on suggestions for a QUALITY OF LIFE (very rough title) section mentioning rankings of the state which include this information. There may also be information on heavy metal exposure from mine tailings, pesticide exposure, Idaho National Laboratory exposure, and other hazards which can be included in the proposed section. It should also include good information (if it exists) about "residents and living conditions" in the state. --Robbie Giles 15:59, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
I support your suggested section change as the current stub of a section is highly POV and our resident anon from Texas seems unwilling to summarise and edit his section. Vsmith 17:34, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Again, I object to the deletion of this section. Wikipedia rules require references from reputable verifiable sources and this is exactly what is provided.
  • "Popular sources" such as New York Times, USA Today, CBS Television, National Geographic and others DO NOT have a vested interest in Idaho other than to report significant newsworthy stories. Citing such "popular" references is NOT a justifiable reason to delete the article.
  • Contrary to your statement, legislation for "downwinders" WAS passed in 1990 as the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act. However, as references describe, many people died of cancers that were not covered by the 1990 RECA law but clearly attributable by CDC reports as related to radiation fallout. Many in congress oppose legislation because it would be too expensive because of the number of people affected and the resulting amount of claims. In my opinion, the US military and US government should have thought about the impact prior to exploding these nuclear bombs. As one reference points out, they did think about it and waited until the winds blew in a Northeast direction prior to detonation to avoid the fallout hitting more heavily populated areas such as Southern California. It is time for the US government to get their checkbook out and start paying for medical bills and providing reasonable compensation to these victims.
  • This section provides introductory text, concluding text, and verifiable references from very reputable sources. As previously explained in this discussion section, I plan to expand the text summaries of references. A small 300 pixel map is NOT overkill and is the same size as other pictures in the article. Again, this is NOT a valid reason to delete the section.
  • You are free to ADD a new section on Quality of Life. However, you are respectfully requested to NOT DELETE this important section because it represents a "sigificant point of view" and is compliant with Wikipedia rules.
  • Please know that I live in Texas, not Idaho, and have no axe to grind on this issue. I was fortunate enough to have grown up in an area that had minimal impact from these nuclear tests. I hold a B.Sc. from University of Texas and an M.Sc. from Southern Methodist University and feel reasonably well qualified to report on this issue. When reviewing other articles on Wikipedia, I was surprised to see that there was no report of the issue in the Idaho section. I feel this issue is important because victims still need compensation, the issue is a current topic in major news media, consumers should be aware of risk of Idaho products such as potatoes, and potential residents need to be warned about radiation.
  • By the way, your article on "Camas Prarie" is only a list of links with ONE introductory sentence and was tagged by Wikipedia in May 2007 as having NO REFERENCES.
--User: 09 Sept 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:06, 9 September 2007 Please sign your edits with four tildes: ~~~~.
I would suggest rather than filling the talk page with rather redundant arguements and personal Ad hominem comments that you work on your added section to make it more neutral and in line with Wikipedia standards. Vsmith 17:34, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Removed the list of links and some pov. Request citations for government reports. Made a subsection of Environmental issues section per Robbie Giles suggestion above. Now it needs expansion and the nuclear fallout bit needs explicit referencing and summarising in a WP:NPOV manner. Vsmith 17:55, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

IMO, this should fall under "History" and the list of links should be converted into references. The non-neutral stance should be rectified as well. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 02:33, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Moved to History of Idaho#1950s to present, where the topic is more in-line. It still needs sources and not links, however. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 02:35, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I changed the 2007 population estimate to match the US Census Bureau numbers released on December 27, 2007. See The number previously posted (a little over two million) for the population of Idaho is too high. It was probably a cut and paste error. Felt (talk) 13:39, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


According to the U.S. Census Bureau, Persons of Hispanic or Latino origin, comprised 10.7 percent of the population of Idaho in 2009. Why isn't this large ethnic presence noted in "Demographics"?


Sca (talk) 21:11, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

GA Nomination

somone should nominate this article for a good article Nom, i think it's up for it. - -[The Spooky One] | [t c r] 02:43, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

The geography section doesn't even mention anything about the most significant geographic feature of the state. Crusty wallace (talk) 01:37, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

State amphibian/bird/etc

There is a box containing the info on state bird etc, which is normally closed. When I press 'show', the box appears but the column containing the map and photos doesn't move down, so the info is hidden. (I'm using Firefox 2 if that matters). (talk) 17:55, 5 November 2008 (UTC)


people in idaho are probly used to toorists because og the great land features there...lolz! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:47, 2 February 2009 (UTC) For gods sake learn to spell. Exactly what is your point? --Thunderbuster (talk) 02:41, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

state reptile?

Someone recently added Sceloporus woodi as the state reptile. This is dubious on a number of counts:

  • No source. (Though the other state emblems mostly also lack references.)
  • That reptile is found only in Florida. (According to the WP article as well as [6].) Now that doesn't 100% rule it out but it makes it doubtful.
  • It's not listed here.

So, anyone got a source for this? -- Why Not A Duck 00:09, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


I'm not sure what to do about the problem, but the alignment in the geography section is all wrong (on my monitor, at least. I don't know how common the problem is). Could someone possibly fix that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:22, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I worked on it some, I think it is better now, let me know what you think. ~~ GB fan ~~ talk 00:37, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Idaho/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Dana boomer (talk · contribs) 15:17, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I'll be taking this article for review, and should have my full review up shortly. Dana boomer (talk) 15:17, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this article does not meet the WP:Good article criteria at this time. The main problem is the significant lack of referencing, but there are also many other issues. Here are some more specific thoughts:

  • The lack of referencing is the most pervasive issues. References are needed for statistics, opinions, and potentially controversial facts. Some specific areas that need additional references include the sections on Climate, Demographics, Economy, Counties and Politics.
  • The image layout needs work. There are huge amounts of white space and text sandwiched between images.
  • The bottom part of the article, from Important cities and towns down, turns into a series of lists. These should be turned into prose, wherever possible. For example, in the National Conservation Areas section, it would probably be best to remove all but the top five or so most important parks, and instead replace the list with a prose description of how many parks there are, how much land they cover, how many tourists per year use them, a general description of the recreation/conservation/etc activities that happen there, etc. This would give the reader much more information than a list of blue links. This is just one example, the other sections that are nothing more than a list of blue links also need work. The list of lakes further up in the article is another example of a place where it would be easy to turn an uninformative list of links into a paragraph or two of prose that would be much more useful to the reader.
  • Law and government section - This section is very choppy, with tiny subsections and a bunch of one and two sentence "paragraphs". The executive, legislative and judicial branch subsections could easily be merged into the state government section, which would make the prose flow better and would make it easier to remove duplicated information.
  • Ten dead links; some are tagged and some aren't. See here for details.
  • Other reference issues:
    • What makes #7 ( a reliable source?
    • What makes #19, 22 (American Forts Network) a reliable source?
    • What is #34 ("Zuivelzicht" April 25, 2007)?
    • References should at the very minimum have a title, publisher and, for web references, an access date.

Faustus, I see that you nominated several other articles at the same time as this one. While I appreciate your enthusiasm, it does not appear that you edited the articles, or at least the ones that I checked. It is generally better for editors who have worked on a particular article to be the ones to nominate it, and it also often works best for new GA nominators to nominate one article at a time, so that they can see how the process works, get tips, and then apply their new knowledge to their other articles. The other articles that you nominated that I looked at have many of the same problems with a lack of referencing and poor layout and formatting. I would suggest withdrawing them (or all but one that you are really interested in working on), and perhaps work with another experienced editor, or at a process such as WP:Peer review, until you really understand the GA criteria. Please let me know if you have any questions, Dana boomer (talk) 15:38, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Theft of the state capitol?

There seems to be a claim that the move of the state capitol to Boise was theft. The line includes "including the illegal and chaotic transfer of the territorial capital from Lewiston in December 1864 to Boise in January 1865" which seems highly POV, as does the only source that is cited for this. This sounds really dubious. Are there any more sources that can cited for this, and could we reword this to be less problematic? OrangeJacketGuy (talk) 19:33, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I had reason to check this recently, and you're right, it is very biased. The facts of what happened are: Idaho territory was established by law by the US Congress, a law that gave the governor the power to establish a capital until the territorial legislature chose a permanent location. The first governor (appointed by the President, like all territorial governors) chose Lewiston. Under the second governor, the legislature decided to move the capital to Boise. A Lewiston-area judge (a probate judge, apparently) declared the legislative session invalid and ordered the arrest of the second governor, who fled. What the guy who wrote that reference (and his supporters, if any) prefer to overlook is that even if we assume that judge had the power to declare the session invalid (and the session was eventually upheld by the Idaho Territory Supreme Court), that meant the legislature hadn't designated a capital, and so the governor (or the acting governor, as it worked out) once again had the power to put the capital wherever he wanted. Logically, the illegal thing was the Lewiston partisans trying to force the capital to stay there!
I shall be revising this claim momentarily. HistorianK (talk) 19:23, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Dead Links

The link, "List of Idaho senators and representatives" under the "Legislative Branch" subtitle of the "Law and government" subsection no longer works.Jksgvb (talk) 20:25, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Idaho residents

(following copied from my talk. Vsmith (talk) 19:01, 14 April 2015 (UTC))

If you look it up, you'll see that the people of Idaho are also called potato's. (talk) 19:08, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Please provide a WP:reliable source. Vsmith (talk) 19:12, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Sorry to contradict, but I don't see a ref saying that people who live in Idaho are called Idahoans. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 14:58, 14 April 2015
Here you go: . The suffix "-an" or "-ian" turns a noun into an adjective or a noun, meaning, "of," "from," "resembling," or "in the nature of." In regional names, particularly, it means "a person from the land of." (That's opposed to -ite, which is "a resident of," usually referring to cities, as in Pocatellite or Meridianite.) That's just common knowledge of the English language, so it is not usually necessary to provide a source that says people from America are Americans or people from Alaska are called Alaskans. What we would need is a source that says people from Alaska are called "Sourdoughs" and people not from Alaska are "Cheechakos." That's local knowledge, not common. Zaereth (talk) 17:50, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
The anon user from that IP address seems to be intent on forcing his unsourced view on the article. Can someone ban him already so that we don't trip the 3-revert rule? OrangeJacketGuy (talk) 00:05, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

@OrangeJacketGuy: i find that to be very offensive, and judging by your talk page, you seem to be very hostile toward editors who don't share your views. (talk) 14:39, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Come at me bro OrangeJacketGuy (talk) 19:49, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Awesome dude, you seem cool now. (talk) 12:19, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Idaho. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:29, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

What is the area of Idaho?

A straightforward question, it would seem, but apparently not. Following this statistic being changed in the infobox, I attempted to find a source to verify the figure which had been there (83, 571 sq. mi.), which I assumed would be a fairly simple and straightforward task. I was wrong. Upon doing so, I found multiple sources for multiple numbers, few of which agree with each other, and none of which agree with the claim which was in the infobox. It seems that estimates of Idaho's total area vary quite a bit, from 83,564 sq. mi. to 84,380 sq. mi.

These are some of the figures:

Figure (in sq. mi.) Sources
83,564 [1]
83,570 [2][3][4][5][6]
83,574 [7][8][9]
83,642 [10]
84,380 [11]

Though I'm not sure how reliable some of these sources are, there still seems to be enough discrepancy between them to see that there is disagreement. As such, I present here three questions:

1: Is there a definitive figure for the total area of Idaho?
2: If so, what is it?
3: Either way, does it really matter if the figure we list is off by a few square miles?

And, to add a touch of rhetoric to this comment:

4: Should I stop being so damn nit-picky?

The answer to number four, by the way, is "yes". Colonel Wilhelm Klink (Complaints|Mistakes) 20:53, 14 June 2016 (UTC)