Talk:Colorado

Article issues
This article is assessed as B-class. Part of the criteria is: The article is suitably referenced, with inline citations. It has reliable sources, and any important or controversial material which is likely to be challenged is cited. There are several unsourced sub-sections that surely should be referenced since they go beyond "the sky is blue". Otr500 (talk) 23:32, 27 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Not anymore. Wow (talk) 01:23, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Shouldn't abortion be mentioned?
Is any of this actually WP: Undue?

While abortion law may not merit mention pre-Dobbs, it seems obvious to me that abortion law now merits mention in state's articles. KlayCax (talk) 23:15, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Colorado's abortion law history has already long been in the article. It is not a crucial aspect of the state. ~ Pbritti (talk) 23:20, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for responding, . I'm aware that there was a general agreement to generally not include mention of abortion (particularly in leads) pre-Dobbs. However, that agreement was reached in circumstances far different than today. I want to note that I don't think abortion should be mentioned in every article. But Colorado legalizing abortion at every stage of pregnancy is notable (and not typical of the U.S.) — and has been been frequently mentioned in profiles of the state.
 * I would only mention abortion in around 10-15% of present state articles. (Those with near-total bans and legal at every stage of pregnancy) That doesn't seem undue to me. KlayCax (talk) 23:26, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
 * You're unilaterally changing consensus without consulting subject-matter experts on multiple state articles. Colorado is notable for a wide variety of reasons that don't bear mention in the lead. Many of these articles such as Colorado's, already mentioned their exceptional legal practices regarding abortion (going both ways) but you've added whole independent sections on the subject. You acted boldly, but these edits need to stop until you have a consensus to support this change in standard. ~ Pbritti (talk) 23:45, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
 * What do you think of this?
 * State's laws on abortion are mentioned in every article's body.
 * Abortion law is only mentioned in the lead of a state's article if:
 * 1.) It is legal at all stages of pregnancy (Colorado, Alaska, New Mexico, New Jeresy, Vermont)
 * 2.) There are near-total bans with no exceptions for rape, incest, et al. (Wisconsin, South Dakota, several other states in Deep South.)
 * 3.) Precendent setting (Idaho's "abortion trafficking" bill, Texas's Heartbeat Act, et al.)
 * I think guidelines similar to this would be an improvement on the status quo. Mentions of abortion would still be limited to a small minority of states; with Dobbs overturned, it seems to me WP: Due. KlayCax (talk) 00:07, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
 * You probably need to get consensus from each individual state's regular editors or from a community like WikiProject United States. Of these, perhaps only Texas bears mention in an encyclopedic lead. For what it's worth, these sorts of things are also covered far better and with the gravity they are due in other articles not exclusively on abortion (for example, List of Colorado ballot measures). These broad-stroke edits to relatively stable pages need far more nuance than has been exhibited. ~ Pbritti (talk) 00:12, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Would you personally be okay with it being mentioned in Colorado's article's lead?
 * Would a RFC be appropriate here? If so, I'm not sure where to exactly have it. This article? I'm not typically involved with Wikiprojects. I'll definitely ask, though. Thanks. KlayCax (talk) 00:17, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, an RFC is probably a good idea (on all of these). I highly doubt you're the only one who feels the way you do (I feel pretty strongly that, save for Texas, these mentions are undue). I think a single RFC at WikiProject US with notices on the relevant state articles and perhaps invitations to other WikiProjects is the way to go (I can help ensure cast a suitably wide and even net). ~ Pbritti (talk) 00:25, 7 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Creating one now, . KlayCax (talk) 00:52, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Colorado River and the state's name
The state of Colorado is not named for the Colorado River. While this seems like a simple enough explanation of the state's name–similar region, same meaning, same people doing the naming, etc.–the origins of the state's name are not usually described in modern reliable sources beyond that it is the Spanish word for "red" and "ruddy" (see Britannica and Colorado Encyclopedia). Two years ago, I asked History Colorado this question in order to put the matter to bed. Most of the 26 August 2021 response from Sam Bock, then a public historian and exhibit developer at History Colorado, is provided below (I've removed the polite greeting and send off from the email):

From what I understand, you are correct that the state's name did not come from the river, which was known as the Grand River until after Colorado was named.

I'm not sure that History Colorado has any documentation for this account, but I've always understood that the founders of Colorado Springs (previously called Colorado City) sent two lobbyists to Washington DC in the years leading up to statehood to propose the name "Colorado" for the territory as they thought it would boost tourism and migration to their town. The Colorado in "Colorado City" appears to have come from the spanish for the red rocks around CO Springs.

Dorothy Aldridge has a book on Colorado City that may have more information.

I hope we can put this persistent (and oft-repeated) misconception to bed. ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:31, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks to IP who corrected the incorrect material added during these revisions. Please discuss on talk and provide sourcing that substantiates claims. ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:28, 6 June 2023 (UTC)