Jump to content

Talk:Mormon corridor

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Mormon Corridor)

Merge from Jell-O Belt

[edit]
See Talk:Jell-O Belt for some existing discussion on this topic -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 20:17, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Should the content currently found at Talk:Jell-O Belt be merged into this talk page? -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 16:56, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Boise, Idaho

[edit]

An area of the Western North America that was not settled between 1850 and approximately 1890 by members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, who are commonly known as Mormons. History of Boise 75.167.185.249 (talk) 15:38, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notice the section heading, "United States communities with ties to western Mormon history". Just because Boise wasn't founded by Mormons doesn't mean that community does not have significant ties to western Mormon history. Likewise it is found in the Mormon Corridor region. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 17:45, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Guidelines for inclusion

[edit]

(Tangental from the Boise discussion)

This article is turning into a list of random cities in the Rocky West/I-15 corridor.

I think we need a set of guidelines for what cities are included:

  • Cities that were founded as a Mormon settlement, with sources. This doesn't mean areas that were founded "by a mormon", but "as a mormon settlement"
  • Cities with significant Mormon population, with sources. What should this cutoff be? 40%?

Let me know your thoughts. tedder (talk) 18:36, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This cold get very sticky. For example....What about Genoa, Nevada, which was settled by Mormons, yet now, no LDS live there? Trasel (talk) 23:56, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The guidelines were intended to be 'OR', not 'AND'. So Genoa would meet guideline #1, assuming there are sources to indicated it was a Mormon settlement. In any case, it keeps the entry from simply being a list of cities that are in the Rocky West that might have Mormons in them and are unsourced. tedder (talk) 00:21, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think that we need look at what academics that study this field generally accept as the criteria for inclusion of a location in the Mormon Corridor (also called the "Mormon culture region"). I've put a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement#Mormon Corridor inviting members of that project to this discussion; I know of a least one professional historian that is part of that group, and there are otherwise several people that are part of that project that are likely to have good insights on this topic. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 16:18, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you are looking for map based religious demographics data to help with this topic, I know of a couple of useful sites for this. The first is at http://www.valpo.edu/geomet/pics/geo200/religion/church_bodies.gif which shows the "Leading Church Body" map for 2000, broken down by county. This does not give the granularity to the municipality-level, and the size and population density of counties (especially in the west with geographically larger counties) seem to cause some distortions. The Association of Religion Data Archives has an interactive flash-based map at http://www.thearda.com/DemographicMap/ that provides more graduated percentages (not just dominance in an area, but instead measures levels of predominance). There are some steps needed once at that site to find the specific material related to this topic. From the site link above select the "Religious Adherence Map" setting, then "Display Map". Once at that map, change the second drop-down menu from the default "% Adherance (adjusted)" to "Other Denominations", then in the third drop-down menu change the selection to "Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons)". This displays a zoom-able national map by county. Since that data is by county, entering a zip code will only help in zooming the map to that general area; it will not help display municipality level data. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk)

Any more thoughts on this? If you disagree with my guidelines above, what about "any included cities should have references showing they are somehow related to Mormon culture or history"? That effectively changes it from a list of random facts into a list of notable cities. tedder (talk) 00:43, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It should be enough that any location on the list (where an article exists for it) should have in that article a description about how it was founded by Mormons, has significant populations of Mormons, or are otherwise closely related to western Mormon history. If no article exists, or if there is a challenge to inclusion (such as the Boise inclusion), then a ref should be included in this article justifying it's inclusion on the list. Let's not make a 4inch+ thick section of refs for a simple list if it's not necessary. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 21:50, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One easy way to confirm that a community belongs on this list is if there was a tabernacle built there. These were only built in areas with high LDS population density, and were primarily build during the "Gathering to Zion" in Utah phase in LDS history (mid-to-late nineteenth and early twentieth century). Of course not having a tabernacle does not necessarily disqualify a community from this list (i.e. not useful as a negative test, only a positive one), as many early communities that did not become large enough need a tabernacle, but it's one useful guide for inclusion. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 16:36, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would concur that the presence of a tabernacle indicates a large population of LDS adherents during a particular time period. However, be aware that many architecturally modest tabernacles were razed and replaced by Stake Centers, Seminaries, or other church structures during the mid to late 20th century. So...... research on older architecture would be essential. I do quite like the two criteria listed above: i.e. "(1) Cities that were founded as a Mormon settlement, with sources. This doesn't mean areas that were founded "by a mormon", but "as a mormon settlement". (2) Cities with significant Mormon population, with sources. What should this cutoff be? 40%?" But I am concerned with item 2 - "significant Mormon population, circa 40%," - in what time frame? Some large and small communities were largely Mormon early in their history and are now welcoming larger non-LDS populations. In others, the pattern is reversed. So, 40% at any given time? WBardwin (talk) 07:44, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusion rules implemented

[edit]

I removed the big lists of cities, and gave the four guidelines that cause a community to meet inclusion on the list. I left SLC in because it's obvious to me, even as a non-Mormon/non-Utahn. Removing them is a bold step, but it allows us to monitor new additions and ensure they meet the guidelines. Perhaps ref tags should be required even if a citation isn't given- it's a place to put the "why" and generally helps the encyclopedia if readers are curious. tedder (talk) 22:50, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So cities can return to the article if they come with citations to support the guidelines you set up?--StormRider 18:02, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, definitely. tedder (talk) 18:36, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think the population requirement is too vague, and might be unnecessary. Even if a city has never reached a threshold population, it might still be of historical/cultural significance (but no, I don't have a specific example in mind). Based on the first sentence of the article, I think the inclusion criteria should be "...Areas of Western North America that were settled between 1850 and approximately 1890 by members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, who are commonly known as Mormons." In other words, any location founded by Mormons during that time period. That would exclude Hawaiian locations, but include Mexican, US and Canadian ones.
At the same time, I think maybe the article is better off without a list. Doesn't the region stand for itself without including/excluding specific cities? For example, just because a city was founded in the 1900s, and has never had a large Mormon population, does that mean it is not part of a region that surrounds it? – jaksmata 19:09, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It might be a lot better off as prose- explaining roughly how Mormons settled Utah and the 'corridor' and fast-forwarding to now to show that some cities have remained very Mormon and some haven't (such as Las Vegas). That would keep it from being a laundry list of cities with some claim to Mormonism. tedder (talk) 19:28, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Source for Arizona LDS communities

[edit]

Per the documentation effort above, I've come across several references to: "Mormon Settlement in Arizona: A Record of Peaceful Conquest of the Desert" (1921), by James H. McClintock. Does anyone have access to a copy, perhaps in an Arizona library or LDS Family History Center? Thank you. 71.219.133.1 (talk) 05:25, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like there are two main versions, and they are in libraries all over the West. Not sure where you are, but it should be possible to get one directly or through inter-library loan. 1971 edition, 1921 edition. Good idea! tedder (talk) 05:47, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Google Books also has scanned copies of this book available; for example, a 1921 edition from Harvard library & a 1921 edition from the New York Public Library. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 22:13, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible...

[edit]

...that we could make a map of the Mormon Corridor that does not resemble an erect phallus? --Stealthy (talk) 13:47, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is obviously a joke, but the map of the Mormon Corridor is not a great one imo; it's worth changing. Just comparing it with the actually data-based population maps found further down in the article should show that it is not a good fit for the population it is supposed to measure.
I don't see much reason for it to extend into Southern California, for example. The Las Vegas area and western Arizona also don't make much sense. 198.160.139.101 (talk) 04:33, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I believe I could make a map given there is a trustworthy source. The current map is also bad due to the fact that it isn’t in a vector format. Sprucecopse (talk) 10:39, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~I added a new map, and restructured the article slightly. Sprucecopse (talk) 21:02, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mormon Corridor. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:00, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mormon_corridor&oldid=1209181928"