Talk:State of Deseret

Flags for Deseret/Utah

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)

Proposal to move State of Deseret article to a new title

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)

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)

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)

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)

Boycott of golden spike

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)

Restored material

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)

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)

Sources are pretty important! (This isn't a children's book.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.111.199.58 (talk) 04:21, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Suggested changes to the map

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Two Maps?

What's the gain of showing the map twice? --91.5.101.249 (talk) 07:12, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

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)

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)

Deseret News citation

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)

Pronunciation of the name

The lead introduces a supposedly historical pronunciation /dɛsiːrɛt/ dess-ee-ret (no stress?), claiming the Deseret-alphabet spelling 𐐼𐐯𐑅𐐨𐑉𐐯𐐻 to be an evidence of it. The Deseret alphabet doesn't show stress and vowel weakening; the spelling 𐐼𐐯𐑅𐐨𐑉𐐯𐐻 matches the "modern" pronunciation /ˌdɛzəˈrɛt/ just fine. If the pronunciation changed, we need a real source for that. One can gloss Deseret letters with IPA symbols, as the linked source does, but this is just a transliteration, not a phonemic transcription of the word's pronunciation. – MwGamera (talk) 08:01, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

There does seem to have been a change in pronunciation because the Deseret letter 𐐨 was a long /i:/ vowel, which doesn't match a reduced schwa (typically spelled of the modern pronunciation, and the voiceless 𐑅 doesn't match modern /z/. The dialect recorded in the Deseret print of the Book of Mormon has a number of distinctive vowel and rhotic features, as documented by Neil Alexander Walker in his book on the alphabet, available here:

https://www.chem.ucla.edu/~jericks/Historical%20or%20Technical/Linguistics/Deseret_Guide.pdf TheLateDentarthurdent (talk) 03:28, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

The idea that 𐐀 must be /ˈiː/ seems groundless to me. Walker's Guide is a good introductory text, but it only skims over the historical orthography. While he mentioned some common patterns around the /ə/ vowel, I don't recall there being anything that would be applicable here. (Page numbers, please?) As I mentioned, Deseret alphabet has no way to denote stress pattern or weak vowels. Is there any reason the letter 𐐀 couldn't stand for /ə/ like virtually every other vowel letter? Compare 𐐹𐐨𐐻𐐮𐑇𐐲𐑌 'petition' or 𐐰𐑍𐑆𐐴𐐨𐐻𐐮 'anxiety'.

The letter 𐐝 is used for potentially voiced consonant only in words with variable pronunciation like 𐐹𐐲𐑅𐐯𐑅 'possess' (𐐻𐑉𐐰𐑌𐑅𐑊𐐩𐐻 'translate' and 𐐻𐑉𐐰𐑌𐑅𐑀𐑉𐐯𐑅 'transgress' are commonly pronounced with /s/), so that might indeed be a clue about voiceless pronunciation and I won't argue against that. But in any case, this is all WP:OR that requires an actual citation for the pronunciation, not a citation that only asserts what the spelling was. The Deseret spelling itself without any secondary source is nowhere near sufficient to support the claim about it being pronounced with /ˈiː/. – MwGamera (talk) 14:05, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

I have an 1869 copy of an excerpt of the Book of Mormon printed in the DA.

it has this same table in the front of the book.

Deseret alphabet#/media/File:Deseret chart in Book of Mormon 1869.png

the pronunciation guide is printed next to the inside title page. The second “e” in Deseret uses “e” in eat.

I just noticed this pronunciation recently and was surprised to see a recent conversation on the topic. Rovewin (talk) 18:22, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out “petition” and “anxiety”. Those are great examples of the “e” being pronounced different than expected. I’m starting to question the pronunciation of 𐐀 as /ˈiː/ in deseret Rovewin (talk) 18:49, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

LDS scholar and author holds that the pronunciation is as follows “ The correct pronunciation should have been written dĕs-ē-rĕt (/dɛsirɛt/ in IPA) based on the DA spelling.” Found in his article here. https://journal.interpreterfoundation.org/say-now-shibboleth-or-maybe-cumorah/ Rovewin (talk) 20:17, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Note that what you quoted doesn't say what the pronunciation was, but how it should have been written as. If someone tried to use this as a source for the claim of pronunciation having changed, I would have exactly the same objections I have now. And it should be fairly obvious why if you read the rest of the article, especially the context of the sentence you quoted and the Limitations and Peculiarities of the Deseret Alphabet section. Even where it uses IPA symbols, it assumes the pronunciation model in which /ə/ doesn't exist as a phoneme at all. – MwGamera (talk) 23:57, 22 December 2024 (UTC)