Talk:State of Deseret

message: This is a very interesting subject, I must say. Was there ever a flag proposed for Deseret? A picture of that would be very nice. Throw in some references and you shoul consider sending it to Peer Review.
Peter Isotalo 7 July 2005 19:37 (UTC)
This is just a link to a list of various flags of different states, including Utah:
http://www.worldstatesmen.org/US_states_S-U.html
If you scroll down to the bottom of the page, it shows three different flags of Utah, including one for the territory/state of Deseret.  Yeah, this would be a nice addition to the article.  --Robert Horning 00:42, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flags for Deseret/Utah 

message: I think perhaps a new title be created and this article be moved to it.  I was thinking something along the lines of Deseret (Historically Proposed U.S. State) would be much clearer and less ambiguous than the current title which is vague and not accurate in the sense that there is no state known as Deseret that currently exists.  --Champaign 08:46, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A redirect page with that name could certainly be useful, but you will find "State of Deseret" in most history texts dealing with the settlement of the American West and/or Mormon migration and settlement.  It may be that the title of the proposed independant state was actually "State of Deseret".  I have never heard any other title.    Best wishes.  WBardwin 01:29, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I changed it back. It really was called the State of Deseret, even though it wasn't actually a state of the U.S. Under WP:Naming conventions, we should stick with the most common name. COGDEN 04:36, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK. You guys were right. Sorry, my sincerest apologies! By the way, thank you for being so civil about it. Responses to my other article moves have not been such. --Champaign (talk) 03:41, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal to move [[State of Deseret]] article to a new title 

message: The article wording does not make clear that the boycott of the golden spike event by the LDS Church and the Territorial Legislature (which was strongly linked to the church) was caused by the delay &/or elimination of payments due to members of the church who had participated in building portions of the railroad at the request of Brigham Young. As written, it sounds like neither the LDS Church nor its members had any involvement at all with the rail project, which is not the case. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 19:04, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Boycott of [[golden spike]] 

message: If I remember correctly, I probably placed this disputed info about the Transcontinental railway in the article.  It was based on a reliable source, but it was some time ago.  I'll try to track it down, but I have always rebelled against these demands for sources, as I perceive them as insulting and almost a form of vandalism.  My viewpoint is generally -- if an editor questions a fact, that individual should take the time to research the truth.  Then the editor learns something as well.  And isn't that the whole idea here?  Best wishes.  WBardwin (talk) 22:57, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's a beginning -  Utah History Encyclopedia [http://www.media.utah.edu/UHE/g/GOLDENSPIKE.html}:  “No spike represented Utah, and Mormon Church leaders were conspicuous by their absence.” WBardwin and probably Allen, James B.; Glen M. Leonard (1976). The Story of the Latter-day Saints. Salt Lake City, Utah: Deseret Book Company.   (talk) 23:01, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Restored material

message: I hereby propose two edits to the map at the top of this page.
1.  The legend at the bottom of the map indicates that the proposed State of Deseret is orange, and the Utah Territory is pink.  However, as you can see, on the map the Utah Territory is pink and outined in thin orange, whereas the State of Deseret is outlined in thick orange.  This is confusing, especially where the thin and thick orange lines cross each other several times along the northern border of Nevada and Utah.  To make this more clear, the Utah Territory on the map should not be outlined in orange.
In other words, the only orange outlining should be the border of the proposed State of Deseret.
2.  In the far south end of California, the Salton Sea is clearly visible.  But the Salton Sea did not exist in the 1840s and 1850s!
Based on aesthetics alone, there is something appealing about having the Salton Sea at one end of Deseret and the Great Salt Lake at the other end.  But Wikipedia should choose historical accuracy over aesthetics.  So the Salton Sea should be erased from the map.
Any objections? — Lawrence King (talk) 04:52, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree about the orange border. I really don't care one way or the other about the the Salton Sea being included. The map includes current state borders that didn't exist back then either, but plenty of maps that large would leave out the Salton Sea anyway.Thatotherperson (talk/contribs) 02:20, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I created a new vector version of the map, and have added it to the article. Hope these edits are what were wanted.--Mangoman88 (talk) 08:34, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks!  The new map is easy to read and looks really good.  The only possible thing missing is the outline of the 1851 Utah Territory, so I have added a separate Utah Territory map later in the page.  That allows people to compare the two.  One fascinating thing is that the eastern boundary of the Utah Territory in Wyoming and Colorado seems to have exactly followed the border of the proposed State of Deseret.  I guess that part of the border is the continental divide, so maybe that's not so surprising. — Lawrence King (talk) 13:30, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

text:  And thanks again for the second map!  Now the reader can see the development of Deseret and then the Utah Territory chronologically.  It's a fascinating piece of American history that I was totally unaware of until I came across this page. — Lawrence King (talk) 01:06, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggested changes to the map 

message: What's the gain of showing the map twice?  --91.5.101.249 (talk) 07:12, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: The two maps in the article show different things, the original State of Deseret in one and the Utah territory in the other. Rollidan (talk) 03:31, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's not accurate. It shows Utah in one, and the original SoD in both. One of the maps is redundant.  --91.5.101.249 (talk) 04:11, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two Maps? 

message: I added the citation to the July 1850 report in the Deseret News. The linked database has cataloged this as being the July 5 issue, but if you examine the masthead you can see that it was dated July 6. At this point the Deseret News was publishing weekly and the previous issue was June 29, so July 6 would be correct. (The following week's issue is also mis-cataloged as July 12 instead of July 13, before getting on track with the July 20 issue.) -- Michael Snow (talk) 08:57, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deseret News citation