Talk:North Dakota/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Missile defence

Why in North Dakota? I understand Russia putting its around Moscow, but why did the U.S. choose ND???

-G —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.24.150.53 (talk) 20:04, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Borders

"Bordered on the north by Canada..."

Wouldn't it be better to state which specific Canadian province(s) it borders? - Lee M 00:13, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Done it. - Lee M 00:23, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Vérendrye

The French-Canadian trader La Vérendrye was the first documented explorer of the area, leading a party to the Mandan villages about 1738.

This has me confused. If La Vérendrye was the first explorer of the area, who built the villages? Ben Arnold 00:48, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
First explorer that wrote stuff down. Is it really necessary to spell it out and qualify the man as a European? It can't be that confusing. --Alexwcovington (talk) 07:24, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Outmigration

Editor;

Since the above was spun a bit I will provide a different context. Out migration does not exist. Macro changes in number of births and deaths are causing many regions and areas to "loose" population. However, society has shifted to a completely different model based on new efficiencies in the workforce that require humans to be in close contact with other humans - knowledge centers - also known as cities. Jobs now are continuing to become more and more based on information and knowledge than on resources of the land. The resources of the future are in our minds, to tap those resources we need to be close to the source - other humans - cities. Rural areas in any developed country of the world or emerging countries like India and China are experiencing the same thing. Society is changing, the way we work is changing and it requires us to be near the resources we need to tap. Just as the gold rush to California, or the homestead rush to the great plains, those settlers were rushing to the resources...its no different today.

Thanks for contributing your opinion. First of all, let me say that that sort of thing is supposed to be here and not in the article.

If this was a simple issue of people moving from rural areas to cities, North Dakota would be doing just fine. North Dakota has cities. You might not call them cities, but they're there. And they're connected just the same as anywhere else.

In the modern age of information technology, there is little distinction between Mumbai, Arviat, or Minot as far as trading knowledge goes. But North Dakota has just as many telemarketing centers as anywhere else.

Looking at the demographics, we see across-the-board declines in population in rural areas, and in the cities, a major drop in under 18s, very slight boost in the 18-to-25 demographic, a slight drop in 25-to-65s, and a large boost in the 65+ demographic.

What can be gathered from this is that the birthrate is dropping, the adult population is dwindling, and the farm kids are getting to college and getting the hell out of Dodge.

The real issues are highly complex, with heavy social and economic factors. Do North Dakota's children appreciate the almost chokingly conservative political atmosphere? The lack of meaningful employment in virtually any skilled field? "No" has been the overwhelming response.

You may call that societal restructuring but it's plain to see for anyone that cares that something needs fixing in North Dakota. --Alexwcovington (talk) 19:22, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Its the climate s t u _ _ _. That's what needs fixing. Global warming would help, if only that religion were true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.104.162.5 (talk) 02:26, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject North Dakota

I have made an initial proposal for a Wikiproject on North Dakota. I would invite everyone to comment on it. --Alexwcovington (talk) 02:48, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Constitution trivia

Demi added:

  • A conflict exists between the state consitution and the U.S. Constitution. The North Dakota Constitution specifies only that members of the legislative and judicial branches swear an oath of office, while the U.S. Constitution specifies that members of all three branches must.

Can you provide

  1. references to article and section of each
  2. some reason why this is of encyclopedic interest?

Gene Nygaard 06:54, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

In accession to the United States, North Dakota concedes the supremacy of the federal constitution, thus no conflict exists. The situation could be best described as a legal (not not practical) technicality, as all state officers swear an oath to the constitutions of North Dakota and the United States. --Alexwcovington (talk) 08:17, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Religious data

Can anyone tell me where this religious data is coming from? The US Census Bureau conducts no such survey. --AlexWCovington (talk) 12:08, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

The religious data needs to be editted. It doesn't quite make much sense. 24.111.40.84 7:43, April 23, 2006
The data that's there now is decently formatted and comes from a verifiable source. What's the problem? --AlexWCovington (talk) 01:03, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Attractions

Good wikipedia articles do not contain excessive lists. Could the list of attractions be turned into prose? Also, I'm concerned that this list is going to quickly get out of hand as users seem to be adding anything they can think of to this list. --MatthewUND(talk) 23:36, 9 February 2006 (UTC)


State motto

The state motto section was added to all states, not just North Dakota to go along with nicknames. Lots of info included in infoboxes are also in the articles, the infoboxes just give a quick fact list for the various states. If you still object, maybe it can be discussed somewhere else so we can figure out if it should be in infoboxes for all of the states or none of the states, either way, consistency is the key. youngamerican (ahoy-hoy) 18:51, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Problems

Something very odd has been going on with this article since early this morning. I was editing the intro and geography sections and the project database seemed to be having some problems. It was soon locked because of some server problem and my revisions (which I had saved) vanished - but one still shows up in the history of the article. However, if you look at what should be that revision of mine, it turns out to be someone else's changes to some Pokemon article. Just wanted you to know about this bizarre turn of events. --MatthewUND(talk) 20:39, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, now I reverted the article to the pre-Pokemon problem and now the Pokemon revision has vanished so you're all gonna think I'm nuts. Oh well. Hopefully things will be fine now. Not sure If I would bet on it, though. --MatthewUND(talk) 20:47, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

HI!

im in need of some help here - whats the legal age for alcohol consumption in ND??—Preceding unsigned comment added by SniperSarge (talk • contribs)

21 years, per North Dakota Century Code 5-01-08. --AlexWCovington (talk) 21:48, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

who iz tha author ov diz acticle!!??

i juzz wont 2 kno who it iz ppl!!!!!!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.152.126.145 (talk)

Please refrain from using an unoffical "dialect". TRBUFF (talk) 02:17, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Suggestions For "Tweaking"

These are all suggestions that I could do for the page, if you want....

  • under "climate": would it be worthwhile to reference the US weather service info for the average and extreme temps by the month?
  • under "emigration/outmigration": what about referencing the term "brain-drain" that is often used?...
  • under "culture": adding something about knoepfla (spelling may be incorrect...)?
  • under "important cities and towns": including the census population of the cities also?
  • when discussing the flickertail, what about referencing the term "dak-rat" that is often used?
  • is there any plan to include the term "nodak" as a slang reference to a North Dakotan?

Just some ideas....

NDCompuGeek 22:45, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the thoughts.
  • We could easily do a chart similar to Climate of Bismarck, North Dakota for the whole state -- though picking a particular location to use as the data point may be tricky.
  • "Brain drain" may be a bit cliché... but I think if the section on outmigration was expanded there would be room for it.
  • Knoephla is referenced on Cuisine of North Dakota; both articles could use expansion if you'd like to help.
  • Important cities and towns have census data in the relevant city and list articles; though I suppose it's not unreasonable to put it on the main North Dakota page, it does pose a bit of an issue with the combined urban centers. I'm sure it can be discussed.
  • Dakrat? Perhaps an article on North Dakota slang would be in order.

--AlexWCovington (talk) 17:14, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I know this is an old thread, but it looks like somebody might see this. In reviewing a list of state demonyms, it seems as though it would be perfectly acceptable to include the term "Nodak" as it does mean something to the people up here. Also, we have stores and business that use the term almost interchangeably with North Dakotan--which you just hear on the news. Just a thought, but I would like to see it as a colloquial sub-head in the state's demonym section. 64.122.82.126 (talk) 13:59, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

New Sports section added to updated Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. states format

The Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. states format has been updated to included a new Sports section, that covers collegiate sports, amateur sports, and non-team sports (such as hunting and fishing). Please feel free to add this new heading, and supply information about sports in North Dakota. NorCalHistory 12:49, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Please see South_carolina#Sports_in_South_Carolina as an example. NorCalHistory 13:16, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

List of notable North Dakotans

I just reverted the list of notable North Dakotans to the previous shorter list. The recent additions basically amounted to a copying of each and every entry from the Fargo, North Dakota list to this state list. It is my belief that this state list should be kept short and reserved for only people who have lived in North Dakota and have gone on to become truly notable for an extended period of time throughout the nation. Other less notable North Dakotans belong in the longer, more comprehensive list that is clearly linked to at the beginning of this shorter list. I just don't think that the recent winner of America's Next Top Model and the other recent additions are worthy of being included in a short list of notable North Dakotans. They are fine in the individual Fargo article or in the comprehensive list, but in the short statewide list? No. --MatthewUND(talk) 23:51, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Matt, I am trying to remain civil with you but people like J. Lang and James F. Buchli ARE notable for extended periods of time. I don't know that many people from North Dakota that have become a Space Shuttle Pilot, nor many that have become very well known and respected musicians. Also Ed Schultz, like him or not, IS a nationally syndicated radio talk-show host...on the same level as Shaun Hannity and Rush Limbaugh. If you want to get into a revert war over this, so be it, but calling people such as these three 'less notable' than a bush pilot is fairly insulting. I can understand limiting the list but let us not be silly about it. --Brian (How am I doing?) 14:25, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Brian, your earlier additions to the list were essentially a copy and paste from the Fargo list. You copied every person listed in that article and pasted them into this list. That's what I had a problem with. Just because someone is notable enough to be listed in a city article, doesn't make them necessarily worthy of being on the short list for the state. Buchli, Lang, Schultz, and Vee are ok additions to this short list, but people like Caridee English do not belong on this list. This list should be kept short and reserved for truly notable North Dakotans. If you had just added Buchli, Lang, Schultz, and Vee in the first place, I never would have had a problem with it. --MatthewUND(talk) 21:25, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Matt, then I offer my apology. After looking over the article, you are correct. Only the truly notable should be on this list. People like Cari and Miss North Dakota (which changes yearly) should not. Rough day at work...sorry for snapping at you --Brian (How am I doing?) 21:39, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
No problem, Brian! If there is anybody else who you think is really worthy of being on the state's short list, go ahead and add them. I just think it is a good idea to keep this list quite short. Otherwise, it's kinda pointless to have this list and the List of people from North Dakota. I encourage everybody to keep adding to that last list. It's already pretty long and I'm sure there are more people out there that we have overlooked. --MatthewUND(talk) 22:19, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I was looking at the list of notable North Dakotans but I don't see Teddy Roosevelt. I would also like to suggest putting Jim Kleinsasser. He's been starting for the Vikings for over 10 years now. He went to high school and college in ND. Headward (talk) 20:08, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Temperature charts

Since ND's average temperatures vary from northeast (coldest) to southwest (warmest), I figured it would be easier and more accurate to just have two separate temp. charts instead of one. Feel free to add/modify these charts when necessary. --Distortionmaster20 22:45, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Great idea! Thanks for taking the time to put those in there. --MatthewUND(talk) 00:23, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

North Dakota Pictures

Apparently the scenic pictures that I submitted for the article were "questionable". So, does anyone know where I can find some NON-questionable pictures for North Dakota? --Distortionmaster20 23:24, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I think I gave you that link discussing what kinds of pictures can and cannot be used in Wikipedia articles. Anything in the public domain is fair game as is anything that you produce yourself and essentially release into the public domain. In most cases, the best way to get pictures for Wikipedia articles is to take the picture yourself and upload it to Wikipedia. There really aren't that many useful pictures out there in the public domain...at least not many that are easy to find. It is not acceptable to take non-public domain images from random websites and use them in Wikipedia articles. --MatthewUND(talk) 03:23, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
I see. Ok cool, on my next trip to North Dakota I'll see if I can take a few of my own pictures. In the mean time, I'll try to search for pictures in the public domain.

--Distortionmaster20 14:14, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

The Largest and Oldest Reference

Hello,

I am wondering why we need: "The largest and oldest among them is the University of North Dakota in Grand Forks." This does not seem very relevant and seems to be more like gloating... additionally after checking other states this reference seems unique. --Ndstate 06:40, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you that this particular statement doesn't fit here very well. Still, since both UND and NDSU are the largest institutions of their kind in the state, I think we should mention that fact in some manner. I'm going to rewrite that section a little...tell me what you think. --MatthewUND(talk) 07:41, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

North Dakota Casinos

Should I begin creating the pages for the remaining North Dakota Casinos? I started one about Spirit Lake, but that got deleted. That incident has made me hesitant about trying to make pages for the others. I would like some feedback. Thanks. TRBUFF (talk) 18:47, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Hispanic heritage vs. Race

Starting with the landmark court case of Alvarez vs. Owen in 1931, Hispanic heritage is considered separate from race. Hispanic individuals can be White, Black, American Indian, Asian, or of any other race. It is important that in articles such as this, we not misuse census data to racialize Hispanic heritage. --Node (talk) 17:42, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Should we say, "of hispanic ancestry"? TRBUFF (talk) 02:18, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Badlands

This page states that the Badlands lie in North Dakota, which doesn't seem right. Because they aren't mentioned on South Dakota I think that the two got mixed up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.109.186.206 (talk) 15:08, 31 May 2003 (UTC)

The badlands are in both states. They run from the South Dakota-Nebraska border at least half way up North Dakota. South Dakota (and Wall Drugs) have done a better PR job. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richj (talk • contribs) 15:12, 31 May 2003 (UTC)

Population

Hardly anyone lives in this state. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.33.175.160 (talk) 00:18, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, over 600,000 people live in North Dakota... —Preceding unsigned comment added by R9tgokunks (talk • contribs)

who iz the author

who is the author of north dakota —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.152.126.145 (talk) 00:21, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Cleaning up article

I cleaned up some of the article, and added references for everything I could find on. I'm using Minnesota (a featured article) as an example/template. I'm not quite finished yet, but everything from the top to the Culture section I've worked on.

Does the Emigration section fit better with Population (under Demographics) as it is right now, or under History? I'm sort of leaning on keeping it the way it is with a mention under the history section.

Hopefully this will someday be a good article and later achieve FA status.--milk the cows (Talk) 05:01, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I think it probably makes the most sense under "Population". I wonder...do you think we even need to give the section about emigration its own section heading or could we just remove the section heading and lump it in under "Population"? I don't know...something about having a section called "Emigration" seems a little too negative to me. I'm certainly not against the text...just wondering about giving it its own subsection. Anyways, you've been doing really good work on the article lately! --MatthewUND(talk) 08:00, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I would say this article is close to if not a good article already if you are comparing it to Minnesota —Preceding unsigned comment added by Npnunda (talk • contribs) 18:58, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

"thick, stew-like chicken soup with occupation, occupations: lye-treated fish" That's lutefisk, isn't it? Also: "Thick, stew-like chicken soup with"...what? This passage looks like it's been vandalized. Methychroma (talk) 19:08, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I've returned it to the original wording - just some older vandalism that had been missed. AlexiusHoratius 20:22, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Red "I voted" tags

I was dissapointed the state of North Dakota distributed red "I voted tags" whether you vote rep or not. This is suggestive and presumptive. Maybe after today 11/04/08 they should get brighter red, larger tags

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.21.201.56 (talk) 05:16, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Temperature variation mentioned under climate section

Hello, just a regular Wikipedia reader (and North Dakota resident) here. I noticed under the climate section the claim "There is no other known place on Earth with a temperature variation of 180°F". This seemed incorrect compared to various US state climate extremes data I've read in the past. In fact, the Wikipedia article on U.S. state temperature extremes lists the temperature variance for Alaska as also being 180°F, which would contradict the above mentioned claim. Considered removing this myself based on this, but decided that it would be better to leave this to regular editors around here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.107.65.99 (talk) 05:46, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Midwestern?

Just wondering if there are any actual North Dakotans out there who can clarify if they believe they are in the Midwest as this article claims. I've always thought of ND as being a Great Plains state, although technically I guess that's more of the the western part. I know the Census Bureau lumps ND into the Midwest, but then they only have four piles of states, so they have to be pretty liberal in their lumping. Jmdeur (talk) 00:47, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I can confirm that North Dakotans think of themselves as Mid-Westerners. But if you asked them if they were a Great Plains state, they would say "Yes" to that too. (Real-life North Dakotan here.) 118.7.129.207 (talk) 12:52, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Notable North Dakotans

I have a problem with Ed Schultz being considered a notable North Dakotan. He is not a native of the state. He is originally from Virginia. He went to college in Minnesota, and currently lives there. Not everyone who lived in North Dakota can be considered a North Dakotan. Under this logic, Teddy Roosevelt would be a "notable North Dakotan". Notable North Dakotans should be reserved for those that are native of the state or currently live there.75.253.80.171 (talk) 07:20, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Although I partially agree with your logic, It seems that Schultz has spent a great many years in the state. You seemed to contradict yourself though. First you say that he currently lives there, then you say that "natives" should be reserved for those who currently live there. Many notable people have been born in one state and have moved to another, only to be identified with their new state. Abraham Lincoln was born in the south, but hails from Illinois. Reagan was born in Illinois, but identified as a Californian.Jojhutton (talk) 12:10, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
The first poster seems to be saying Schultz lives in Minnesota. He was on the air in North Dakota on a radio station in Fargo. I understand the point that someone who is not from the state originally nor claims it as their home should not be listed as Notables from that state. Lincoln and Reagan both held political office in their adopted home states, so their residency is not in question and they claimed those states as their homes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Badlandsgirl (talk • contribs) 17:55, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Dakota instead of North Dakota

I don't recall where I originally heard or read about it, but wasn't there a political movement aimed at changing the name of the state to just Dakota instead of North Dakota? It might have been during the 90s, but there was political pressure from tourist channels to change the name of the state to move away from the image as a bare cold province noted for it's North term. The article doesn't mention anything about it. Can anybody shed some light on this topic?

It's true, I've seen stuff about this as well, but I think it was coming from state legislators as a way to get more people to move there. In my opinion they are ignoring the fact that the reason people think that it is cold there stems more from the fact it gets really, really cold there and not so much from the "North" in the name. However, I don't know that it is notable enough for the article, at least not this article; weird stuff like this is always coming out of state legislatures. So far, I think it's just an idea a few people have put forward. AlexiusHoratius 17:45, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
Ok. I guess your right. The idea probably never moved forward anyhow, because the name of the state is still called North Dakota.

WikiProject U.S. States

Wondering how to edit this State Entry?
The WikiProject U.S. states standards might help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maveric149 (talk • contribs) The Native American content in this article needs revision. There is a claim that Native Americans knew of Spanish and French claims on their land. I am from the Turtle Mountain Indian Reservation and in light of the research I have conducted this is inaccurate. I am having a hard time finding documentation, besides the old crossing treaty; that supports tribal stories of how we lost the land from Pembina to Fargo (to the Cheyenne River). There was a flood which forced the tribe to move west. When they returned they found European homesteaders with deeds issued by the state of North Dakota. The disenfranchised Native American population were ceded land and founded the town of Walhalla; named by a Catholic priest who moved with the people. The Walhalla land was taken by the state of North Dakota and the Chippewa people were moved to Present day Belcourt, North Dakota. The current size of the Turtle Mountain Indian Reservation is 6 miles x 12 miles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.16.96.44 (talk) 15:55, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Critique Please?

I was wondering about these new facts that are interesting and I have no clue where to put them in this article.

North Dakota's air quality has lead to controversy some people claiming it is the cleanest in America one report suggests; "North Dakotans thrive in a high quality natural environment and breathe some of the cleanest air in the nation." The American Lung Association gave the state an "A" rating on air quality. source> http://www.bismarcktribune.com/news/opinion/mailbag/article_458aae9b-7a28-5108-b595-6dafaa7b7c83.html

North Dakota has been called America's safest state even though it is only America's 3rd most safest state after New Hampshire and Maine. source> http://os.cqpress.com/Crime%20State%202008_Safest.pdf

The American Automobile Association has complimented the state's scenery and has labeled it "America's Most Affordable Vacation Site". source> http://www.ndtourism.com/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Global.Geo.Historic.Data (talk • contribs) 15:06, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

First, Wikipedia isn't for lists of trivia or facts, so I don't know where they would go and I don't think they belong in the article since the sourcing is currently insufficient and potentially misleading.
  1. On safety, where is the source that "North Daktoa has been called America's safest state"? You provide a rebuttal to that statement from a single source, but no source for the first half of that statement. You need sources for both to include. Having said that, the statement by itself is just a throwaway line that doesn't connect with anything else in the article, so on those grounds I would argue it should be left out.
  2. On "most affordable vacation site" it could probably be included in the Economy Section, which probably needs a "tourism" component. If it was part of a broader discussion of North Dakota's recreational sites, parks, lakes, etc, it could probably work. However, you do not provide a source that AAA that says that. The ref you give is a banner advertisement on the North Dakota Tourism Department website making that claim. To be accurate, the statemetn should be rewritten, since you aren't citing AAA, as "According to the North Dakota Department of Tourism, the AAA has labled the state as X". Linking to the main page and relying on flash ad, though, is insufficient. Needs a more concrete reference.DCmacnut<> 15:44, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Um ok, I thought such things would expand the section. Well concrete information on the internet is very hard to come by concerning the state's low popularity. There are alot of sites talking about the fact that North Dakota is the safest state, but none that are trustworthy I think. I'll try finding a few. Global.Geo.Historic.Data ([[User talk:Globa l.Geo.Historic.Data|talk]]) 19:09, 30 June 2010 (UTC)Global.Geo.Historic.Data

http://money.cnn.com/2007/03/22/real_estate/dangerous_states/index.htm Global.Geo.Historic.Data (talk) 19:33, 30 June 2010 (UTC)Global.Geo.Historic.Data

Now do you think this statement has a reliable source? I think this statement should go in the first paragraph, U? Global.Geo.Historic.Data (talk) 22:37, 30 June 2010 (UTC)Global.Geo.Historic.Data

not necessarily. I think the whole concept of "safest" state versus "dangerous" state is highly subjective, and you'll get different results depending on the study even with a reliable source, a neutral point of view would need to be maintained. Your comment that you can't find sources "concerning the state's low popularity" indicates you may be trying to insert bias and original research in an article where it doesn't belong. If I'm wrong, I apologize. But I would still argue it shouldn't be included. But I'm just one person. If another editor besides you thinks it should be included (consensus rules), it doesn't belong in the lede paragraph per WP:WEIGHT. The opening is meant to summarize the general sense of the article, not list every little item. It would need to find a different section.DCmacnut<>

Thank you for your help. Global.Geo.Historic.Data (talk) 03:43, 13 July 2010 (UTC)Global.Geo.Historic.Data

I'd say that to include the statement about safest state, you'd have to make it clear in what aspect(s) ND is safe - e.g. rate of crime, rate of serious crime, rate of murder, general mortality, motor vehicle accidents? The pdf in the link seems to imply (without stating, as far as I can see) crime rate. But again, what sort of crime? Also, not sure that it is helpful to say that ND has been called the safest state when it only the third-safest: why not just say that it is is the third-safest state?
Some articles to have a section for "trivia" or "interesting facts", so if several such facts could be found, with references, perhaps such as a section could be added to this article? (I must say that questions of air quality and safety probably don't count as "trivia", so that might not be the best heading here.) Ondewelle (talk) 01:37, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Trivia are fine! A trivia section is OK for giving the flavor of the place. If properly credited and framed, even famous false nostrums help. I am more concerned about incorrect citations, missing sources, obviously mislabeled pictures, meaningless phrases, plain nonsense etc. I but caught one of each in a cursory look at about 1/5 of the article. A local armed with patience will probably catch many more. Spamhog (talk) 14:05, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Not a state

North Dakota is not a state and never was. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.210.2.161 (talk) 03:35, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Technically, this is correct due to a defect in North Dakota's state constitution. Apparently, the Governor is not required to take an oath of office in ND, which violates Article VI of the US Constitution, rendering its statehood illegitimate. http://newsfeed.time.com/2011/07/14/because-of-constitution-error-north-dakota-is-not-a-state-and-never-has-been/ 67.193.96.49 (talk) 04:36, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
"State Senator Tim Mathern introduced a bill fixing the mistake that will be put to voters this spring." http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/upshot/fine-print-north-dakota-may-not-state-195631502.html# What happens if the people of North Dakota vote NO? That is the question. 67.166.155.113 (talk) 05:00, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Interesting thought to postulate, but not encyclopaedic... unless ND actually does vote "No" to the correction on the state constitution. 67.193.96.49 (talk) 08:16, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Saying "a lack of an oath of office=not a state" is a bit of a stretch, despite what some article on the internet says. Also, since we feel the need to be technical about it, North Dakota was never an organized territory on its own, so saying it is one now is wrong. Someone let me know when ND is formally admitted to the Union so I can get rid of my 49-star flags. (This all reminds me of a year or two ago when the mayor of Topeka, in some lame PR move, renamed the town "Google" for a day. The resulting flurry of edits to this "encyclopedia" were predictable.) AlexiusHoratius 08:34, 16 July 2011 (UTC)


The notion that ND is not a state based on some supposed defect its constitution is absurd. Also, why is Grand Forks listed first in the lisi of cities with major universities? Pro-UND bias is again the only possible explanation.

  • That two Presidents approved the statehood proclamation, and it was published in the official US statutes, renders any legal claim that it is not a state frivolous on its face. The lack of an oath could be reason for a lawsuit by the Justice Department to force compliance, but they have not done so for 122 years, and the move to repair the defect seems rather unhurried as well. (unsigned) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.230.222.174 (talk) 22:48, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Agreed - I'd really like to see some sort of legal source (in other words, more than what's been offered so far) saying that a constitutional oversight like not having an oath of office voids statehood. AlexiusHoratius 00:55, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

From what I've read of similar legal challenges, one need only find a document mentioning the "State of North Dakota" that is signed by a federal official, and/or a state document mentioning the statehood of North Dakota within the United States of America. A paper check from the Department of the Interior to the State of North Dakota, for example, would satisfy this requirement. So too would a document entrusting units or equipment of the North Dakota National Guard to the Department of Defense. Any official document, recognized by both parties, that signifies North Dakota as one of the fifty states would satisfy the legal question. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.202.248.227 (talk) 01:33, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

As what was mentioned a few posts above, there seems to be no real haste in clearing this matter up. To me this would imply that the argument is being investigated as being valid. Why else would Tim Mathern want to propose a bill, that would be voted on in the spring, to see if North Dakota does want to be "admitted" to the Union. Of course, one could also argue that North Dakota has looked into this matter and found the argument to indeed be valid hence the reason to vote on it. 67.166.155.113 (talk) 05:20, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps it is an issue that needs to be fixed, but my main point is that not requiring an oath of office doesn't nullify statehood, so there is no reason to go around the article talking about how its statehood is "dubious" or that it's a territory "on paper", as one of the edit summaries said. (To this I would respond "what paper"? The bill making ND a state? The non-existent establishment of the Territory of North Dakota?) AlexiusHoratius 13:31, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

There have been countless laws prohibiting the various exercises of free speech, and no one has ever postulated that those laws did not exist because they violated the first amendment. North Dakota may not have fit the letter of constitutional requirement, but that does not mean it is not a state. We can be 100% sure that this will be remedied, retroactively if need be, just as Ohio's situation was. No mention is needed in the intro, certainly, and at most a tiny mention in history when it is resolved. --Golbez (talk) 13:39, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Only one person makes the claim that ND is not a state--one John Rolczynski, whose credentials are that he has written a history of his home town--a history that has never been published. He has not published his ideas in any law journal or anywhere else. So his theory fails the test of a reliable source on constitutional issues. see his papers Rjensen (talk) 20:48, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Any law that violates the Constitution is in fact not a law, and never was. That's the whole point of the Constitution: it's the sole source of all legal authority in the United States. A law passed that contradicts it is inherently and automatically invalid. Likewise, if North Dakota's admission as a state violated the Constitution due to a defect in its state constitution, that means North Dakota is not a state and never was. — Red XIV (talk) 00:56, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
The North Dakota constitution does NOT violate the US constitution, and no Reliable Source thinks that it does. When it comes to constitutional law, there are many well-published experts. None has been cited who supports the claim of one elderly non-lawyer in North Dakota. The Congress accepted the ND electoral vote in 2001 when certifying Bush--who would have lost the White House if the claim was valid. Rjensen (talk) 06:14, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Actually, the outcome of the election would have been the same: 268 Bush - 266 Gore. mzellman (talk) 17:27, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
This is completely irrelevant to the issue at hand, any in any case, both of you are wrong. An absolute majority (currently 270) of votes are required to win the presidency. See Electoral_College_(United_States)#Summary .אבי נ (talk) 14:37, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
"Any law that violates the Constitution is in fact not a law, and never was." And the people who violated these non-laws aren't in prison? And Rjensen has an excellent point - right now, this claim has been independently reported but not independently affirmed. It's still only one person making a claim, and it has not been peer-reviewed. --Golbez (talk) 14:14, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

It is not a state and never was. While common law would place it as a state at this point, constitutional law would not. Constitutional law overrides common law. Therefore, North Dakota is not a state. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.106.199.67 (talk) 17:55, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Please back up your statement with a reliable source on the constitutional issues of statehood on this matter (an article in Time Magazine about what some amateur thinks doesn't count). As someone brought up earlier, congress didn't ratify Ohio's statehood until 1953. That doesn't mean it wasn't a state until 1953, nor that Ohio should be called a territory when it comes to events that happened before 1953. I'm still waiting to see a solid legal source saying that not requiring an oath of office voids statehood. AlexiusHoratius 18:05, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I hope you find one of these sources reliable. If not I can always find you some more.

http://gawker.com/5820646/north-dakota-may-not-actually-be-a-state

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-14142111

http://news.yahoo.com/because-constitution-error-north-dakota-not-state-never-130642805.html

http://blog.seattlepi.com/thebigblog/2011/07/14/north-dakota-might-not-technically-be-a-state/

http://www.mndaily.com/blogs/newsstand/2011/07/14/north-dakota-may-not-really-be-state

http://www.thedailybeast.com/cheats/2011/07/12/north-dakota-may-not-be-a-state.html

http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/393823/august-03-2011/threatdown---fake-states--sharia-weather---monopoly

http://badlandsbadley.wordpress.com/2011/07/15/north-dakota-is-technically-not-a-state-also-technically-not-interesting/

http://www.newser.com/story/123250/north-dakota-may-not-be-a-state.html 

- Daniel Bolstad  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.161.33.108 (talk) 19:38, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
While I agree that Stephen Colbert is hilarious, citing his comedy show as a reliable source on constitutional law just seems like a poor idea. .אבי נ (talk) 14:42, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
Did you actually read the entire BBC article? It says that an 82-year-old "local historian" thinks it doesn't make it a state, but a constitutional expert disagrees. AlexiusHoratius 21:11, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Uh, well... THERE'S A GIANT THING BEHIND YOU! Turn around and don't look back for at least a month! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.161.33.108 (talk) 21:13, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I really would recommend that everyone read the BBC article you provided - it basically debunks the entire "it is a territory" argument. AlexiusHoratius 21:20, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Bah, foiled yet again by my laziness. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.161.33.108 (talk) 21:22, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I give no craps about constitutional experts and statehood mumbo jumbo, this is a territory, the great territory of Dakota, and you cannot deny it if they have legislature to fix the error. 173.52.233.112 (talk) 21:33, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

North Dakota has not been given any special treatment. It is a territory according to the Constitution of the United States. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.52.233.112 (talk) 21:38, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

In 2012 they are making it a state, officially, but until then it's the great ol' territory of Dakota. I agree with 'Unsigned' and 'Unsigned' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.161.33.108 (talk) 21:49, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

North Dakota IS a territory; they are creating legislation to vote to make it a state. That is pretty undeniable. Though it's been treated as a state, the Feds can do that. But since it's not a state, it's not a state. The next person that marks changing it to a territory as vandalism I am going ape on. I will report YOU for vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.90.33.69 (talk) 04:02, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

You know what? If anyone disagrees with me in saying it's a "location", I have no hope left for humanity. lavacano201014 (yell at me here) 19:08, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Wither or not you like it, or think it is absurd, etc, due to the executive in the state not being required to take the oath of the United States, North Dakota is not a state but remains a territory. There is plenty of articles relating to this as well as the state constitution and the federal that you can read. I would also suggest reading the legislation that voters will vote on in 2012. It is not factually correct to have it as a state until the people vote on it in 2012. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ElliotKauffman (talk • contribs) 23:51, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

We've shown proof that North Dakota is in fact NOT a state, please show proof otherwise, I'm changing it to territory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.247.254.66 (talk) 03:57, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Okay, since Rjensen isn't keen on having it not be considered a state, how about we have a compromise? We could have a section on this page talking about how its statehood is in question. 64.229.205.242 (talk) 16:18, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
one elderly gentleman with no expertise in the matter thinks it's not a state. n=1. That's fringe. Rjensen (talk) 18:13, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps, instead of using the term State, we use Militarily Occupied Territory of North Dakota.

=Reasoning: Grand forks AFB and Minot AFB, both being under the command of the United States Air Force. There are also numerous smaller military installations throughout the Militarily Occupied Territory that provides and maintains parts of America's nuclear Trident. The DoD does have a large presence in the region due to an DoD estimate of North Dakota possessing 80% of all land based nuclear warheads. DEWY CHEATEM AND HOWE (talk) 08:39, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from DarrinRodgers, 13 August 2011

Under the "Religion" section, change "the Assembly of God" to "Assemblies of God"

DarrinRodgers (talk) 02:53, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

 Done Avicennasis @ 03:35, 13 Av 5771 / 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Lead-section redraft 6/3/12

I note that AlexiusHoratius does not think my proposed re-draft was an improvement.

I suggest that it packs-in more revealing points, while excluding the so-what facts that simply get in the way.

Nobody wants to know that this state is the 19th most extensive, the 3rd least populous and the 4th least densely populated, unless they are actually wanting to study the whole league-table.

For some reason, my critic does not think raccoon-hunting should be mentioned, but this comes straight from the main article. If he thinks ND should not be described as a 'frontier state', he is welcome to suggest a better classification. 86.168.138.96 (talk) 10:08, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

To most Americans "frontier" doesn't mean 'border' so much as 'untamed wilderness', or the edge of it. The census bureau declared the frontier to be closed (mostly settled) in the 1890s, so describing a state in such a way today sounded odd. (Notice how Alaska calls itself "The Last Frontier".) Also, the census bureau classifies ND as being in the Midwest. Some states fall cleanly into one region or another and some exhibit characteristics of more than one, and in cases like this it's usually best to go with the census bureau's classification. The re-write listed bordering Canadian but not American states (Canada has provinces instead of states anyway). I thought saying Fargo was the largest instead of "chief" was better as chief can can have more meanings than simply "largest population". There were some odd phrases like it is dominated by cereal (I know what it meant but it sounded strange). "Voted Republican since - " is true for certain elections but not for others; they've had a number of Democratic senators and so on. If raccoon hunting is indeed a popular activity, maybe it is... I guess I don't live there so maybe you are correct. I'm not saying the current one is perfect (I didn't like how the density and so on got rubber-stamped on to basically every intro) but the re-write, while like I said being a good faith one, had a lot of issues for which the talk page is a good place to discuss prior to going on to the article. AlexiusHoratius 16:44, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

First Mosque in North America

It is notable that the first mosque built in North America and the US was constructed in Ross, ND. I suggest adding this to the section on religion and possibly the history section as well. Any opinions? Diraphe (talk) 23:25, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Population

I've noticed that the population keeps getting changed back and forth. The current citation given shows 699,628 for the estimated population as of July 1st, 2012. If we want to show a 2013 number, we ought to change that citation as well.Unearthly Stew (talk) 14:15, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Images

We need more pictures of North Dakota's environment and cities. A picture of the Badlands, Bismarck, Lake Sakakawea, Sakawea herself, and maybe possibly some wildlife? Like the Nakota Horse for instance, Bison, ect.

I honestly don't believe that the main article needs any more images; There's plenty enough information on the article and in any case, the places that you have mentioned already appear on the article and direct you to the respective pages where you can see the images there. I am present here (talk) 04:34, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Recent history

Except for a quick mention of the 80s oil boom, there is no recent history. Take a look at http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/03/magazine/north-dakota-went-boom.html to see how much more there is.202.179.19.18 (talk) 11:43, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Is it a state now?

Because I can't find some information in the internet: Is North Dakota a state of the USA or is it still a territory? And how was the exact voting-result? Are there some sources? --Urgelein (talk) 16:11, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, North Dakota is actually a state not a territory. The entire North Dakota and South Dakota formed a territory called "Dakota" way long ago, but for some reason it split. So technically, North Dakota was always a state. Hope this helps. I am present here (talk) 04:30, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Ed Schultz is NOT a North Dakotan

Ed Schultz was born and raised in Norfolk, Virginia. He came to Moorhead, MN to play college football at MSU, and ended up a ND resident later. So, many of us would not claim him as a North Dakotan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.3.119.20 (talk) 02:21, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

WTF?

"having been admitted thereto"?? What is this, a legal document?
—Coder Dan (talk) 18:16, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Climate

There's no climate section? The articles for Bismarck and Minot both have climate sections. — Wdfarmer (talk) 16:15, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Construction

Addressed in the article are sections on "Agriculture" and "Energy" helping to boost the economy and such. Would it be worth having a "Construction" section because there is no doubt it is a significant contributor to North Dakota's economic success the past 7 years. There are a number of articles confirming North Dakota's personal income growth to agriculture (already in a article), energy (already in article) and construction. One article is here and another is here. I think it would be worth having its own section. Let me hear your thoughts. Best, Meatsgains (talk) 16:39, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on North Dakota. 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.

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:45, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on North Dakota. 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.

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:36, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Mandan extinct?

Hi,

just confused about the statement that Mandans are extinct as a tribe, and then further down seeing a link to their reservation. Contradiction or merely misleading wording? T 88.89.219.147 (talk) 01:43, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Native Americans

I don't see nearly enough information about the Native Americans on this article. Native Americans are the undisputed most interesting and the least recorded culture in North Dakota.

By chance, I read this - and you may have a point. Since "North Dakota" is the main and endless subject here, I will not add a lot, but some extra links to articles exclusively about Native Americans with a connection to the area will be fine, sure. Give my some weeks!Naawada2016 (talk) 07:55, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

intro

The intro needs work. It should have more of a summary of the state. A good example of the type of content it should have can be found in the overview of Colorado. Agassiz830 (talk) 19:46, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 18 external links on North Dakota. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 23:59, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

"Birth data"

What is the purpose of this table? The race of newborns? Seems like someone has an agenda to advance, though I'm uncertain exactly what it is. 2602:306:CFEA:170:9046:A7C3:8DB1:DF15 (talk) 02:08, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on North Dakota. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 14:43, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Error in lead

It says the mast is the 4th tallest in the western hemisphere, but KVLY-TV mast says it's the tallest mast in the world. One of these pages must be wrong; someone should check the source. 73.138.3.167 (talk) 08:49, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

"Norse Dakota" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Norse Dakota. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Steel1943 (talk) 22:47, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Errors in the infobox

The total of land and water areas in the infobox do not add up to the given total area. I'm not sure which data set is erroneous, therefore I didn't make any corrections. --Vihelik (talk) 19:35, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Broken HTML display in infobox

The "Website" field at the bottom of the infobox is appearing as [<span%20class="url">[1] www.nd.gov%20nd.gov]] - in other words, completely broken HTML. Can someone please figure out how to fix that? Thank you. – numbermaniac 03:20, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Southern Border Survey Error?

North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, and Kansas are each typically three degrees of north latitude, north to south. This is exactly so, with the exception of the southern North Dakota border, which is some number of miles further south into "South Dakota" territory. This would appear to be a surveying mistake. Some information as to why, how and when this mistake was made is an interesting part of North Dakota history--ideally, this could be included.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:North_Dakota/Archive_1&oldid=1149578316"