Talk:Lincoln (proposed Northwestern state)

United States: Idaho / Washington Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Idaho portal This article is supported by WikiProject Idaho (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Washington (assessed as Low-importance).

Lincoln in Texas

The article said that there was also a state of Lincoln to be carved out of the territory of Texas in 1869, west and south of the Colorado River. The problem with this that I'm having is twofold: (1) I can find no support for this anywhere and (2) as far as I can determine, in 1869, all of Texas was either west or south of the Colorado River (which sliced off part of the narrow strip that is now in northern Colorado and southern Wyoming). I'm not sure whether or not this should be sent to WP:BJAODN or not. Tom e r ^TALK 02:38, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's disputed and unreferenced, no need to subject it to BJAODN. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 19:00, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Except that I just found a reference: [1]. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 19:01, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. Not that Colorado River, but this Colorado River. WP is just chock full of information, wouldn't you say? Restoring the text, having been saved from overzealous deletion. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 19:06, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cascadia

hasn't the name cascadia been suggested?

Two things

One, a National Geographic map I have (I think it's the regional map of the Pacific Northwest from the series of U.S. regional maps they put out 10-15 years ago) suggests that the boundaries of the proposed state of Lincoln in the Inland Empire included a healthy chunk of eastern Oregon, but that doesn't appear here. Anyone know if NG got it wrong, or if we did? Two, to the anon who asked about Cascadia, I believe that name has been proposed for a possible state formed out of western Washington and western Oregon (leaving the eastern halves of both states to unite, presumably into Lincoln or something similar). User:Jwrosenzweig (editing anonymously) 71.112.36.202 06:08, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Based on my history books, you're correct on the abortive State of Lincoln proposed boundary at one point. I think that's what confused folks with the Inland Empire article where they incorrectly included part of OR and MT in the "Inland Empire", which they never were and still aren't considered a part of by people from there. The IE is bounded by the Cascades to the W, the crest of the Bitteroots to the E, the mightly Columbia to the S and Canada to the N, which translates to all of Eastern WA and N. Idaho, while the State of Lincoln was proposed to be slightly larger.

Also, spend any time in W. MT, NE OR, E. WA & N. ID and you'll likely see that even culturally/demographically, there are discernible differences between the Inland Empire (even as diverse as it is) with the neighboring regions of MT or OR (and especially with Oregon). The IE is of a heavily Bavarian/Nordic and Irish background with a large Catholic population, although admittedly it also has a lot of 'misplaced Montanans' given Spokane being the "big city" for the inter-mountain, Inland Empire region.

You're also correct on the "Cascadia" proposals back in the day. Honestly, I'm sure (like a lot of states with similar polarization) both W & E WA would be perfectly content to break apart, since the W-side arrogantly looks down on the 'country-bumpkins' of E WA and the East is tired of being taxed to death (like the recent 'sin taxes' and the highest gas & cigarette taxes in the entire nation) as the roads & general infrastructure literally crumbles in the E, and they have the privilege to pay for 2 state-of-the-art Stadiums and brand new beautiful highways over on the Westside while after 50 years the Eastside can't get a much needed N-S freeway that was authorized in the 50s (but never funded by Olympia). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.90.204.68 (talk) 02:20, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Named for any particular person"

The Article states that no state had been named for a particular person, then it lists several states named for a particular person. WTF? 66.41.104.197 (talk) 13:22, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed this claim from the article. Senator Pomeroy argued against "Lincoln Territory" by claiming that states/territories weren't named for distinguished men -- except Washington. He might've been mistaken or he might've meant in the context of naming in the west. Sen. Morton meant the latter when he argued against "Lincoln Territory" in the same debate. (See Congressional Globe, 40th Cong., 2nd Sess., p. 2794.) —Mrwojo (talk) 01:01, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Or perhaps he meant: although nine of the founding colonies inherited personal names, since independence it has not been our habit to put personal names on entities bigger than a county. —Tamfang (talk) 01:55, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed name for North Dakota as well

"Lincoln" was also a proposed name for North Dakota. See An Old-Fashioned Senator: Orville H. Platt of Connecticut, p. 140. —Mrwojo (talk) 23:08, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Whatcom County

The map of Oregon, Washington, etc. near the beginning of this article is missing Whatcom County, Washington; that area is simply omitted from the map.--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 12:28, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Too much in-universe

We should not be using {{Infobox U.S. state}} for an imaginary "state". It creates an illusion of reality that is inappropriate for an encyclopedia. The formatting, text, and organization used for infoboxes of real things should not be used to represent things that don't exist. Infoboxes are for summaries of uncontroversial facts. But this box is filled with "facts": imaginary statistics that would, in one person's imagination, apply to this imaginary thing. The presentation needs to make that clear.

Similarly, the use of one flag and seal creates an illusion of officialdom, and ignores the facdt that "Lincoln" refers to several proposed states. Why does the seal of only one of these proposals dominate the article? And where is the citation to support even this one flag? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:33, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Flag

What is the provenance of the flag at the top of the article? Nothing in the text mentions it, let alone cite where it comes from. It gives the impression of being the official flag of an organized statehood movement; if in fact it's nothing more than one person's idea, then it should not be in the article at all. If it has some kind of organized backing but is not universally used by advocates of statehood, then it should be further down in a section rather than at the top. Fishal (talk) 14:48, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

People keep adding the flag. To reiterate: I can't find any source for it besides this article itself (and sites that are clearly based on it). The flag needs some kind of text explaining where it comes from and who is or was using it, otherwise there's no way to distinguish it from a fictional or fantasy flag. Fishal (talk) 17:01, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A completely different user decided to add the, so this is not an edit war situation. Let's leave it here just so we're all clear what the offending flag looks like. To reiterate: there is no evidence whatsoever that this flag has ever been used by any real people trying to advocate for a real state here. It seems like an exercise in creative worldbuilding by a Commons user. It does not belong in the article until such time as a notable person or group decide to use it in real life. Fishal (talk) 18:11, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge the 2 Articles About the Lincoln State

NO MERGE

Consensus is that the two articles have nothing in common other than the name.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

There are 2 pages about the state of Lincoln. This article is about the proposed northwestern state beside bordered by Idaho, Montana, Oregon and Washington. However, there's another article about the proposed southern state. So I request this page to be merged with the other one. 4lepheus B4ron (talk) 18:04, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't make any sense. Although they share a name they are two separate proposals. Flameoguy (talk) 15:18, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. They are two completely different things sharing nothing but a name. jhpratt (talk) 03:38, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

U.S. State infobox usage here

There's some back-and-forth in the edit history about the use of the US State infobox here. I don't think it's a great idea to use it, because of its parameters that are specific to established states. Lincoln may never come into existence. I see that someone added "proposed state" to the top of the infobox, which helps with confusion, but there's still a lot of dubious information included within the box. For example, the population is listed as though it's a fact, but there are no hard-and-fast borders, so where is that number coming from? I wonder if a better solution wouldn't be to create something that is specifically tailored for proposed states, with information that actually pertains to that topic, rather than trying to fit a square infobox into a round article? Joyous! Noise! 00:54, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]