Talk:Pioneer Day (Utah)

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

Day of Deliverance merge[edit]

Pioneer Day it the common modern name for the holiday, where "Day of Deliverance" is an relativity obscure historical reference. --12.106.111.10 23:58, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I've never, ever heard Pioneer Day called "Day of Deliverance". Ever. Do you have any online refs that state this? ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 15:44, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
I haven't heard of it either, but it was just a stub article so I merged it in and made a redirect. We can deal with references now that it has been merged. Val42 03:36, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I have just ordered the Book from which the "Day of Deliverance" quote was sited as coming from. "This Day in Religion" I should be receiving it within the next couple of weeks. As I have never heard of Pioneer day being called the "Day of Deliverance" I would like to look at the source and what else the book says about this holiday. I will be honest, since I have never found any other references to this day being called the "Day of Deliverence" I would like to remove that portion, unless the book has a strong reference for it. 8 May 2012 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.195.66.3 (talk) 16:27, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Recent move/redirect of this article[edit]

I see that User:Gregbard has moved this article to Pioneer Day (Utah), and has redirected Pioneer Day to the disambiguation page, Pioneer Days. The move was apparently made without consulting with other editors, and I have two concerns about the move.

  1. To me, the move appears to have been unnecessary. The other events listed on Pioneer Days are all called "Pioneer Days" (plural); this one appears to be the only one to use the singular form, "Pioneer Day." Thus, the need for disambiguation is unclear to me. The old version of an article had a disambiguation template at the top referencing the Ohio festival; this could have been changed to reference the disambiguation page listing all of the "Pioneer Days" events without requiring a rename/move.
  2. The move was done improperly as a cut-and-paste move. Wikipedia's guidance on moves at WP:MM or WP:Move clearly state that the cut and paste method should never be used for moves because the page loses its edit history. Therefore, if it is decided to retain this move, we will need to get an administrator to move the edit history to the new page (and also move this talk page to the new page).

I'd like to ask your opinions whether the move of the article to "Pioneer Day (Utah)" be retained, or should we revert back to showing the article as "Pioneer Day"? I favor reverting the location of the article to Pioneer Day. BRMo 02:41, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

  • The Utah Pioneer Day is not the only one to use the singular form. The link Pioneer Day (Chico, California) also directs to the Chico article. Pioneer Day is the first Saturday in May in Chico. The events leading up to it are called Pioneer Days. The article is still a stub, and does not reflect the whole story yet. As much as I would love for everyone around the world to see Chico's Pioneer Day as the one and only, or even the primary or prevailing celebration of its kind, it is not. Neither is the one in Utah. I was not aware of the method of moving pages, so I apologize for that lost connection to the history. I hope that can be resolved. Be well. Gregbard 03:48, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
I merged the edit history of Pioneer Day and Pioneer Day (Utah). As a consequence Pioneer Day redirects here, now. Feel free to change that to whatever is best.
BTW, on using "day" and/or "days". The criteria should be correctness and ease of use for readers. I'd say most non-USA readers would not know of such subtelty in naming. I wouldn't... So I think the best may be to have a central disambiguation page - even better would be to expand it to a central article about the tradition nationwide, with links to specific day(s). Enjoy! - Nabla 19:53, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
I boldly moved the disambiguation to Pioneer Day with Pioneer Days redirected to it. PS:If you agree otherwise and need a hand to move/rename some page please tell me at my talk page as I'll unwatch this one. - Nabla 23:36, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok - thanks, Gregbard, for the explanation, and thanks, Nabla, for fixing the history and talk page. BRMo 02:55, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Pie and Beer Day[edit]

Recently a section on "Pie and Beer Day" has been added to the article and the latest edits have added several citations to Web pages that mention such a day. These references consist of the following: a parish bulletin inviting parishioners to a Pie and Beer Day party, a commercial advertisement inviting Summer Market attendees to a Pie & Beer Day Party, and three blogs that mention "pie & beer" or "pie & beer day." However, these are examples of types of sources that are generally not considered to be reliable. To be included in a Wikipedia article, an event should be documented by reliable sources. Examples of such sources would be newspaper or magazine articles or scholarly articles. BRMo (talk) 03:52, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

There is now mainstream coverage:
With this material published in major news outlets, "Pie and Beer Day" should be included in the article. -- 155.95.80.244 (talk) 17:54, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
However shortened this section and included in related events to make it the correct weight for what it is. VVikingTalkEdits 18:56, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Three sentences in a separate sub-section under Related events, and citing multiple sources to demonstrate notability (so if doesn't get deleted out of hand, as has happened before) doesn't create a weight issue.

There is also the counter-counter-culture "Pie & Ear" celebrations done by some local Mormon congregations: Saal, Mark (July 15, 2015), "Pie & Beer Day? Try Pie & Ear (of corn)", Standard-Examiner . Including "Pie & Ear" in it's own section would be a weight issue, since it's only one ref (there are a couple of others, including one at Vice.com, but they are not all that citable). 155.95.80.241 (talk) 19:49, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Comment: Not really sure I am advocating one way or another, but do have some comments to share. Practically, it probably doesn't deserve its own section and/or is more suited to being listed as a related event. At a minimum, it doesn't seem a need exists for 7 references. That is overkill and comes across as an over-the-top effort to establish or even "force" the idea of notability that doesn't really exist. That level of "coverage" (not automatic notability) is likely just because of the humor or irony the media found in this as good-natured participants in the state approach the day differently. ChristensenMJ (talk) 20:06, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
When I rewrote this article as 208.81.184.4 in August 2009, and subsiquently updated since that point, the rewrite was origionally prompted by the poor state of the article, the initial inclusion of Pie & Beer day, and the almost complete lack of references, which was part of the fight over Pie & Beer day back then. With the revised article then in OK shape, and no refs existing for Pie & Beer day, it was excluded. However there is now significant coverage in multiple reliable 3rd party sources, so Pie & Beer day now belongs, along with the references. With the Mormon "ownership" of a state holiday being a significant issue for non-Mormons and non-practicing Mormons in Utah, three sentences is hardly undue weight. ChristensenMJ, as you are well aware, there are significant disputes all over Mormon-related topics, and supplying multiple reliable sources is really common, in order to demonstrate that non-notability claims are invalid, based on WP notability standards. 155.95.80.241 (talk) 20:19, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Recentism arguments also don't fly, as the cited articles clearly describe an estimated 10-15 years of informal gatherings before 2014; however, yes the press coverage started with larger gatherings in 2014 & 2015. 155.95.80.241 (talk) 20:23, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Certainly understand the point about issues with Mormon-related activities, but in this instance, it's still more than is needed. ChristensenMJ (talk) 20:52, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I'm happy with the 3 listed currently. -- 155.95.80.241 (talk) 15:54, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Notification – Removal of day of deliverance.[edit]

Before removing “also archaically called the Day of Deliverance” I wanted to notify all that I will be removing this. Two reasons for removal, not a trusted source, and two if we are going to say this is a trusted source the book does not make clear as to what Day of Deliverance is referring to.

Not a trusted source - while overall Gross, Ernie. This Day In Religion. New York:Neal-Schuman Publishers, Inc, 1990. ISBN 1-55570-045-4 looks like a decently referenced according to the preface; there are not a lot of references throughout the book. Not a trusted source – there are blatantly obvious errors in the book, one such error is in how long it took to build the Salt Lake City Tabernacle. The book claims it took 40 years to complete the Salt Lake City Tabernacle. The author seems to mistake Salt Lake City Temple with the Tabernacle. As neither the entry of Brigham Young entering the value nor the Tabernacle entry is referenced we cannot show where the author got his information.

If we are going to treat this source as a trusted source (which I don’t think we should) the other thing wrong with using this book as the source for calling Pioneer Day the Day of Deliverance is it appears as though Day of Deliverance is only being referenced to the one day Brigham Young entered the valley (May 23). Not the holiday that has resulted from that event.

If there is no disagreement I will be removing Day of Deliverance within the next few days. Sorry I always seem to forget to sign--192.195.66.3 (talk) 11:29, 18 May 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.195.66.3 (talk) 11:24, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

As there were no objections to this action and there is no reliable source that can be found I have or will in the next few minutes remove “also archaically called the Day of Deliverance” along with the citation.--192.195.66.3 (talk) 11:22, 21 May 2012 (UTC)