Talk:Utah

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article nominee Utah was a Geography and places good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
July 13, 2012 Good article nominee Not listed


External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Utah. 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 19:25, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

1830s migration[edit]

"In the 1830s, thousands of migrants traveling from the Eastern United States to the American West began to make stops in the region of the Great Salt Lake, then known as Lake Youta.[citation needed]"

As far as I understand, until the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo of 1848, the "American West" was just the Oregon country. Salt Lake City does not appear to be a part of the Oregon trail, possibly because it was still in Mexico. I'm not sure if a citation exists for this one... maybe it should be removed? --Keith (Hypergeek14)Talk 03:41, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

pornography in utah[edit]

i just deleted the pornography text in the economy section because it has nothing to do with the utah economy. if anything, it's sociological. if someone wants to add a new section about culture or whatever, and add it, that'd be fine - but it's not part of utah's economy.

anyone want to add their two cents? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prefetch (talkcontribs) 20:47, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes. What people in Utah spend their money on is part of the economy, and being the largest consumer of any product is inherently notable. Restoring sourced content. ScrpIronIV 21:07, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
that study has many problems with it (eg. wasn't adjusted for population age) and it was pretty well discredited by the more recent 2013 pornhub study where utah came in 40th place in pornography consumption, as well as the google search term study. additionally, the standard deviation between "largest consumer" and "smallest consumer" in that study is tiny. so, help me understand why you think that a discredited study should be part of the economic section here? no other state wikipedia page has a section on pornography consumption - why do you think utah should have one? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prefetch (talkcontribs) 03:50, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
Simple - see above. It is notable, and reported as such. Now, if you want to add other data, that's fine - but removing appropriately sourced notable content is disruptive. Wikipedia does not perform the sort of original research as you have described to determine the viability of the study itself. ScrpIronIV 15:44, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
forget the original research. my contention is that this single, non-corroborated, contradicted source that likely has near zero effect on the actual utah economy should not be in a list characterizing utah's economy. i disagree with your declaration that it's "inherently notable". please explain why this disputed trivia should qualify to be part of utah's economy in wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prefetch (talkcontribs) 16:37, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
Restored to Status quo per WP:BRD - you are edit warring to remove sourced content. Please read the appropriate guidelines. ScrpIronIV 17:20, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
edit war is more than 3 edits in 24 hours. i haven't done that. are you willing to discuss this and answer my questions above, or not?
Clearly we disagree. You have provided no source that states this is a "disputed" study, or that it has been discredited. Your pointed to no specific evidence that it has been contradicted - just vague references to their existence. If there are newer studies, cite them, and add them. Start an RfC to gain a new consensus for removal. In the meantime, the status quo is maintained. ScrpIronIV 17:52, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
my primary point, that i stated at the very start of this thread, is that this is not relevant to the economy of utah, and as such, shouldn't even have a place in the economy section of this article. adding additional sources that contradict the source doesn't solve the issue. your only response so far has been that it's "inherently notable" and so it should be included, and it appears as though you aren't willing to discuss your assertion any further than that. i'm inviting you to do so. i'm happy to have a third opinion come in on this topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prefetch (talkcontribs) 18:00, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
I read through the arguments here, as well as read the Utah article again and articles for other states. After all that, it's clear to me that this portion does not make sense to be included on this page at all, let alone in the Economy section. It was originally added on 9 Jan 2010 by an anonymous user under the Entertainment section. The inclusion of this disputed assertion appears to be subjective and have been done by someone with a personal agenda. It is not noteworthy, nor does it appear to be a credible fact. - Mozmac —Preceding undated comment added 22:33, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
okay, so we've got a WP:3O here that believes the pornography text does not belong in the economy portion of this article. as per wikipedia guidelines, i'm considering this dispute resolved and i'm going to go ahead and remove the text. if you disagree with 3O, you can escalate it with an admin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prefetch (talkcontribs) 19:32, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
ScrpIron please stop reverting this edit and please use the talk page to discuss this. simply reverting the edit is not productive and is not in line with the spirit of wikipedia. Prefetch (talk) 15:18, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
Indeed, start an RfC or an ACTUAL WP:3O. In the meantime, the status quo is maintained. ScrpIronIV 15:23, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
i would have hoped we could have discussed it more, and since you've ignored the informal third opinion and refuse to discuss it further, i've gone ahead and requested a formal WP:3O. Prefetch (talk) 15:34, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
I agree with Mozmac. This shouldn't be included here, and certainly not in the economy section. I doubt pornography consumption has any appreciable effect on Utah's GDP or economy. If it did, I'd like to see a reference saying that first. Until then, this random trivia tidbit shouldn't be here. It shouldn't be included in the Utah page at all. Perhaps it might warrant a mention in some American pornography page. FuriouslySerene (talk) 15:50, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
I just came across this by accident. This is the main article on Utah, for heaven's sake. Take it out. Zerotalk 18:41, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
3rd Opinion Request Greetings, all. A third opinion was requested on this dispute; however, since there are four editors substantially involved, I'm afraid I have to decline the formal request. If more formal dispute resolution is required, I would suggest using an WP:RFC or posting at WP:DRN. I would make two points in passing, however; first that this should be turned into a binary dispute over inclusion/non-inclusion, but should discuss how something is presented (or not); second, that all parties would do well to read WP:DUE, which I would paraphrase as saying that "all points of view in reliable secondary sources should be presented duly weighted" (emphasis mine). Regards, Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:51, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
thank you Vanamonde93. we now have 4 editors that are in agreement, which i think is reasonable to call a consensus. if ScrpIron continues to dispute this we can escalate to a WP:RFC but it hardly seems necessary when we have a clear consensus already. i'm taking the section out as agreed upon by Zero, Mozmac, FuriouslySerene and myself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prefetch (talkcontribs) 19:05, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Agree with removal - unless it's a major sector of the state's economy it doesn't belong on a general article about the state. (Even if it's true... and that's a big 'if' considering the methods of this "study"). AlexiusHoratius 19:31, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and removed the content. There appears to be consensus here it shouldn't be included. FuriouslySerene (talk) 20:06, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

  • Do not include as WP:UNDUE: porn fruition that's slightly higher than other states (the article itself states, with source, that the study's authors are "quick to admit" there isn't really a significant difference among various US states) does not really warrant a mention, nevermind a long paragraph, as part of a state's Economy section. LjL (talk) 21:05, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Utah. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:05, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Vandalism[edit]

See 'Nazis in Utah' section.

Looks like the first line has been modified or added, as the rest of the paragraph and following paragraphs have nothing to do with this nonsense. tharsaile (talk) 15:19, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Also, the caption of children reading books has apparently been modified to mention Nazis. tharsaile (talk) 15:26, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

@Tharsaile: Reverted. —C.Fred (talk) 15:33, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, sir. tharsaile (talk) 15:20, 27 September 2016 (UTC)