Talk:Utah/Archive 1

Percentage of Mormons?
What percentage of the population of Utah is Mormon?


 * About 65% of Utah's population is Mormon, although the percentage is lower in Salt Lake City (about 45%) and higher in places such as Cache County and Utah County (about 90%)
 * '70% Mormon' seems to be the most often repeated figure, but "a 2000 survey of American religious identification by the City University of New York found that only 57 percent of Utah's population belonged to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, down from 71 percent in 1990", so it's unclear which figure is correct BSveen 05:29, Oct 30, 2004 (UTC)


 * Don't they record these kinds of things in the census? bob rulz 09:03, Oct 30, 2004 (UTC)


 * I think it's illegal to ask about religion in the Census . BSveen 09:50, Oct 30, 2004 (UTC)


 * No its actually prefectly legal to ask about religion on the Census

I've not compared to the Census figures, but the latest figures (2003) I saw was between 50-60 percent "claimed" to be LDS. I think the 57 percent figure should be referenced, until something better is found, as it seems to be the most recent, accurate statistic available that is referenceable. -Visorstuff 20:30, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * There are no Census figures. It is against the law for the US government to ask Americans about their religious affiliations. See this page: https://ask.census.gov/cgi-bin/askcensus.cfg/php/enduser/std_adp.php?p_faqid=29. 70% seems to be the most agreed-upon figure, in the past few years there have been several sources that quote this figure. -BSveen 23:19, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC)

---The Salt Lake Tribune, in a story dated July 24, 2005 puts the percentage of LDS members in the state (2004) at 62.4 percent and declining. They say they obtained the information through a public records request to a state agency which obtains membership records directly from the LDS church.--Maylett 03:28, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Just keep in mind, there are many people who do not identify themselves as Mormon, but yet at some point have joined the LDS Church and are still counted by the Church as being members. -Sgthone12b 16:15, 9 June 2006

I noticed that we have gone to using the ARI's 57% figure - but I wonder if that is correct. The results in 2005, of polling data on political races regularly has LDS at around 65-68% (see this PDF for example. Of course that poll only surveys those that say they are likely to vote (but for both figures to be true, LDS would be 30-40% more likely to vote). The other problem with the 57% figure is that it is for adults - see the methodology of the report here - but is being used to claim a 57% of population in the article. Since statistically members of the LDS church have more children than members of other denominations, the % of the population that is LDS will be larger than the % of adults. -- Trödel 00:11, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Off topic
I know its kinda off topic, but I just saw Scott Matheson on the corner of 13th E and 21st S in Sugar House, standing with a group of supporters waving to passing cars... --Jon, Conqueror of Men 00:54, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Cool...that's only like...10 blocks from where I live. bob rulz 02:43, Oct 31, 2004 (UTC)

Test
The raw image is too big.

The image on the article page is too small to read the county names.



Economy?
Most states, including Montana, have a section about the economy of the state. Curiously, Utah does not. Perhaps one should be added? I do not know enough about the economy of Utah to contribute, but perhaps someone else could? 67.161.208.117 21:13, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Gambling?
It's an odd statement that "Utah is one of only two states where gambling is illegal." I don't know how they're coming up with that number... maybe they mean it's one of two without indian gaming reservations, or one of only two that doesn't allow bingo, or the lottery... ? We've gotta' elucidate on that statement, because it's so ambiguous it's patently nonsense.


 * Um...it seems pretty straightforward to me. "Utah is one of only two states to not allow gambling." I don't know how that could be ambiguous. It doesn't allow gambling. Simple as that. No gambling. If there's more to it then I wouldn't know. bob rulz 03:40, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

Inappropriate?
The recent inclusion (second paragraph) from user 67.182.132.142 about Utah being "higher than the national average for wife-beating, child (sex) abuse, and teenage suicide" seems innapropriate &mdash; maybe just an anonymous poster taking a jab. Half the states in the country are above or below the "national average" on any given subject. Assuming the statements are even true, unless they can be wrapped into a meaningful context that demonstrates how being only above or below average in these areas is worthy of special mention, I suggest deletion.


 * I've removed it. It was completely irrelevant and innapropriate. bob rulz 08:06, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps something can be mentioned about these under "Miscellaneous Information." The relevency of those statistics is that in all other areas of crime or quality of life, Utah tends to be much better than the national average.

Here's a cut from a Salt Lake Tribune (paid archives) article about rape in Utah: Article Last Updated: 8/12/2005 02:33 AM

Rape rate a huge danger to Utahns: Study says 90 percent of sexual assaults occur before victim is 18 By Stephen Hunt The Salt Lake Tribune

One in eight Utah women will be raped sometime during her lifetime. And one in three Utah women will experience some form of sexual violence - child molestation being the most common, according to a new report released Thursday by the Utah Commission on Criminal and Juvenile Justice. Rape is the only violent crime in Utah whose rate exceeds the national average. By comparison, Utah's rates for other violent crimes - such as murder, robbery or aggravated assault - are historically half to a third of the national average, according to the report, entitled "Rape in Utah: A Survey of Utah Women About Their Experience with Sexual Violence." The statistics cited in the article can be found at the [Utah Department of Heath - Rape & Sexual Assault] page

According to the [Utah Department of Health - Suicide] page: "The Utah suicide rate for young males is the highest in the nation at 22 per 100,000 population (the U.S. rate is 17.46)." Not just above the national average, but the highest.

I can't find any reliable statistic comparing Utah to other states regarding domestic violence, but the [Utah Department of Health - Domestic Violence] page does consider it to be a very large problem for the state.


 * Tyreseus 22:09, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

The information about rape and domestic violence is very interesting to read and would probably benefit readers. Therefore, I think you should include it on wikipedia. --71.104.119.230 07:56, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

The current Utah Department of Health pages say that the suicide rate for young males is "among the highest" in the nation. They also assume that suicides are underreported, citing the possibility that many deaths ruled accidental may actually be suicides. Rape and domestic violence statistics on their pages make no comparison with national rates; domestic violence statistics on that page are based on a 2001 anonymous survey given to 360 women at LDS Hospital. Rape rates on the page are also based on anonymous surveys and assumed to be vastly underreported.

I don't think that these statistics can be included unless it is confirmed that statistics from other states and nationwide used the same methodology; otherwise any comparison would be invalid. For instance, if the assumption that rape is underreported is correct, then a state that uses rape statistics only from reported cases may report a much lower rate of rape than Utah, which uses the results of anonymous surveys.

Given the nature and scope of the surveys, the statistics probably have little meaning beyond the communities in which they took place. This also seems to be the position of the Utah Department of Health, since they make little to no attempt to rank Utah relative to other states, rather they make goals for future improvement specific to Utah. If someone has statistics from national studies, then that might be relevant.

There's also been at least one study that showed that active members of the LDS Church were far less likely than the national average to commit suicide (a study out of BYU, I believe); also 8 of the 10 states with the highest suicide rates are located in the mountain states region, suggesting that the high suicide rate has more to do with the region than with a large population of Mormons. Aranhamo 18:56, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

New tables
I don't think that the inclusion of population estimates for these cities for the year 2050 is relialbe, necessary, or revelant in any way. If nobody objects soon, then I'm going to remove those figures. bob rulz 04:49, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Salt Lake CIty-Ogden Metro area
On the Navbox at the bottom of the Utah page, it lists the Salt Lake City-Ogden Metropolitan area as two seperate areas. The United States Census Bureau offically considers Weber, Davis and Salt Lake Counties in the Salt Lake City-Ogden Metro area, and the State of Utah Considers All of Weber, Davis, Salt Lake, Utah, and portions of Box Elder and Tooele Counties as part of one large Salt Lake City-Ogden-Provo Metro area. If you went by either offical definition the Ogden Metro area and the Salt Lake City Metro area are combined. (Hypernick1980 10:15, 8 January 2006 (UTC))


 * Actually, if you would check the most recent updates from the U.S. Census Bureau, you would find that in 2003 or so, they split the Ogden metro area and the Salt Lake metro area. Check the website. You'll find it. On another note, the U.S. Census Bureau, not the state of Utah, officially defines metropolitan areas. bob rulz 06:52, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing that up for me, I just looked at the U.S. Census site, I was aware that census bureau definted the MSA's. eventually the wasatch front (probably in 2010 I bet) will be one CMSA of the Ogden-SLC-Provo MSA's (Hypernick1980 08:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC))


 * It's certainly possible. bob rulz 03:33, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Misc questions:
What is LDS? Quote: "Beginning in the late 19th century with the state's mining boom, including what is now the world's largest open pit mine, companies attracted large numbers of non-LDS immigrants with job opportunities."


 * The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Does it not specify in the article? bob rulz 07:58, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Just to be more clear, the letters LDS stand for "Latter-day Saint", denoting a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Aranhamo 16:21, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Can someone check the dimension and size of the state? They cannot be the same in metric and imperial measurements.

Be-duh? Someone needs to re-check the numbers in the "Demographics/Age and Sex" bit... 9.4% + 32.2% + 8.5% = a little bit more than 50% of the state population. I'm confused -- did someone maybe inadvertently delete a number from one of the figures or something? Because that's definitely wrong. I would fix it, but I'm not sure what the numbers are... --71.219.51.225 15:31, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, presumably then the rest of the state would be between the ages of 18 and 65. In 2000, 9% of the population was between ages 0-4, 23% from 5-17, 22% from 18-29, 31% from 30-54, 6% from 55-64, and 9% over 65.  http://governor.utah.gov/dea/HTMLBriefs/Age%20Brief/State/%25Chart.htm  Aranhamo 21:28, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Meth
I've deleted the unsourced meth "fact", partially because the article on Meth simply states this:
 * The meth problem is most prevalent in suburban and rural areas of the Southwest and Midwest.

And partly because the information at this site makes it clear that Utah is not the biggest Meth state in the nation: http://www.kci.org/meth_info/national_trend.htm (having, in 1998, less than 1/3 the meth seizures as Missouri, and having had no "super labs" seized, where California had over 50). The Jade Knight 10:13, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

LDS Church
The statistics stating that Utah is 81% Christian and 60% Mormon seems to add up to 141% total--Mormonism is as alligned with traditional Christianity as Christianity is alligned with Judaism. Mormon doctrine is in some aspects contradictary to the Christian version of the Holy Bible; it relies at least as heavily upon the Book of Mormon as it does upon the writings of the Christian Apostles. Just because someone conceeds that Jesu of Nazareth existed does not necessarily denote Christian beliefs. Perhaps some research into LDS doctrine should be performed.


 * The listing of religious groups does not say "Traditional Christianity" it just says "Christianity". Any member of the LDS (Mormon) Church would describe him or herself as a "Christian" - and aren't these statistics reflecting a self-definition, i.e. what people in and of themselves describe and define themselves to be? For those who think they own the title "Christian" and are inclined to make judgments about who worships Christ and who doesn't, the percentage of Mormons is also given. LDS beliefs are aligned much more closely with so-called "traditional Christianity" than the latter is with Judaism, that is not a fair comparison. The King James version of the Holy Bible is an integral part of the LDS scripture canon.


 * Christianity uses the Hebrew texts in the form of the "Old Testiment" just as Mormonism uses the "Traditional Christian" Bible; does that make all Christians Jewish? What someone names themselves does not necissarily mean that classification is legitimate in the majority of people who maintain that viewpoint.  Is it not the right of the majority of the group to choose the requirements for membership?--Most Christains who understand Mormon doctrine (including more "radical" Evangelical sects) would not label them Chirstian.  Personally, I am not affiliated with either Christianity or Mormonism; however, I do respect the modern (definitely NOT the only true) concept of Christianity held by the majority of it followers.
 * P.S. Jesus was a Jewish reformer--How is this an unfair comparison?

Christians are Christians because they worship Jesus as their Saviour and follow His teachings recorded in the New Testament. Since Jews do not do this, they are not Christians. Many, if not a majority, of Christians "choose" this as a "requirement" for "membership" and acknowledge members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints as fellow Christians. What is the "modern concept of Christianity", if it is not worshipping Jesus and following His teachings? The comparison is not fair because, again, LDS beliefs are aligned much more closely with so-called "traditional Christianity" than the latter is with Judaism; "traditional Christian" and Latter-Day Saint belief accepts Jesus Christ as the Saviour of the world, Jews do not.


 * What makes Mormons Christians is that we believe in and worship Jesus Christ as the Son of God and Savior of the world, who came to this earth, lived a sinless life, died for our sins on the cross, and was resurrected, so that through Him and His sacrifice all mankind can be saved. We strive in our daily lives to follow His example.  And no, it is not the right of the majority of Christians to decide who is called Christian.  Nobody owns the word, nor is there some world body of Christians that decides who is a member and who isn't.  If the majority of Christians decided who could be called Christians, then the Catholics would be deciding who the Christians are and who the Christians aren't, since world-wide there are vastly more Catholics than any other Christian church.  Aranhamo 13:52, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


 * And that's exactly what the Catholic Christians did between about AD300 and AD600, when they had a majority and political power. They defined what heresy would be -- and so defined who would and would not be acceptable Christians.  LDS people do not accept the ancient Catholic distinctions on Christian, and view themselves as Restorationist i.e. seeking to return to the beliefs and practices of Christians during the first two centuries after Christ's death and resurrection.  So -- yes, LDS people view themselves as Christians, but not as Catholic, Protestant or Orthodox, and so would include themselves in the total number of Christians within the State of Utah.  Odd little topic for Utah history.  Best wishes.  WBardwin 00:26, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I hate to break this to you, but Jesus of Nazareth described and preached in the New Testament are NOT really the same person as Jesus of the Book of Mormon. Just because people use the same name and words on the surface level, doesn't make it the same thing in its substance. I can believe that Buddha existed and even strongly agree with some of his teaching, then does that make me a Buddhist? I can also agree and believe in Bill Clinton, but it doesn't make me a Democrat. Not a perfect analogy here, but you get the point. So the notion that one is a Christian simply because he/she believes in Jesus Christ as "the Son of God", "Savior", or "Lord", doesn't mean the person is necessarily a Christian. In fact, even Devil recognizes that Jesus is the Son of God, yet he has no personal relationship with Christ.

My main point: Do NOT assert that some group of people are Christian as a whole just because they say they are, especially not when they have unbiblical beliefs and incoherent views about Jesus.


 * Unfortunately for you, you don't have the authority to decide who can and can't call themselves Christians. Nor do you have the authority to dictate to others what is and isn't true, who Jesus Christ is or isn't, nor to determine who does and who doesn't have a "personal relationship with Christ".  We each seek truth on our own, and God tells us what is true and what isn't.  My personal relationship with Christ is just that; it has nothing to do with you.  When I served a mission for my church, not once did we tell people "Your church is evil" or "you people aren't really Christians because you don't believe what we do".  We just shared with them what we believed and asked them to inquire of God whether it was true or not, because there can be no surer response than one directly from God.  You have just as much authority to edit Mormon pages to say we aren't Christian as I do to edit Baptist pages to say they aren't Christians; in other words none at all.  Aranhamo 21:02, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I hate to break this to you, but Jesus of Nazareth described and preached in the New Testament are NOT really the same person as Jesus of the Book of Mormon. I hate to break this to you, but Mormons use the Bible, too. And I hate to break it to you, but they are the same Jesus. bob rulz 06:14, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

--Actually if you do research you would see that your own president stated that it is not the same Jesus!

Well, how nice. Now, instead of making us look it up, and since you're the one that apparently knows this already, how about you give us the link? bob rulz 04:42, 1 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Methinks he never found it :) --Lethargy 16:55, 6 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Methinks you're right. They're not the same, the latter was resurrected. But then again, he appeared in the Bible as a resurected being several times. Anyone who beleives in Christ is a Christian. Jaxad0127 23:12, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

History of Utah
It's hard to believe that there is no distinct History of Utah or Utah History article. With the length of this article, shouldn't we break history out and tie in all the big and little articles on Utah historical subjects? Ideas on how to organize? Be glad to help. WBardwin 00:26, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, we should split this article. We need a Geography of Utah article, as well, and I could easily create a comprehensive Climate of Utah article. I would have done this, but I would have been doing it alone. Now that we could probably get more people working on this, then I would be happy to help. bob rulz 00:57, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Created History of Utah article by copying all history material from this long article. Please provide input on organization schemes and outlines. Thank you.  WBardwin 06:26, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you for doing this, it's appreciated. When I have time (which may not be for a couple of weeks) I will work on cleaning up the article and also summarizing the section on the main page. bob rulz 05:20, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

If you are patient and give me time, I can find evidence of Gordon Hinkley, the head Mormon, saying that: The Holy Bible is secondary to the Book of Mormon and that he himself is a prophet. Mormons do not believe that Christ is God, as the New Testament declares. Mormons, by the definition of Christianity, can not be identified as Christian, but can be identified as a Self-Defined Christians or as Restorationist Christians. Based on the historical definition of Christianity, Mormonism cannot be defined as Christian. --71.104.119.230 08:27, 18 June 2006 (UTC)


 * No, to everything. The Bible and BoM are equals. He is a prophet. Mormons do not beleive in the Trinity. Beleiving in the Trinity is not a requirement to be Christian. Read before you type. Jaxad0127 03:52, 19 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I love how all these "good Christians" always have to come around to insult our beliefs and vandalize any page that has anything to do with Mormons. Just check out some of the reverts on this page.  You don't see me insulting other religions because their interpretation of scripture is different than mine.  So who's the real Christian?  Aranhamo 16:10, 20 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Well said. Jaxad0127 16:27, 20 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The statements are not meant to be offensive and they are not meant to be insulting (at least some of the responses above are not meant to be). They are simply observations, opinions and debates on the validity  of certain claims.  The intention, I don't think, was to disenfranchise one from the other--it was simply to clarify key differences between Christianity as it is popularily understood and Mormon doctrine (which no matter what side of the debate you are on, varies GREATLY from the majority of Christian religions).  --Also, how did we get back on this issue in a completely different topic? (And again in an entirely new topic?) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.228.201.231 (talk • contribs)

Anti-depressants
The cite on anti-depressant use in Utah is from 2002. Last I heard, this wasn't true anymore (I don't have a cite), and I've read articles that cited problems with the first study. Also, I think it was in the article on the 2002 Winter Olympics or another related article that said that Hawaii surpassed Utah in Jell-o consumption in 2002. I also heard on the radio the other day that Utah is not first in foreclosures or bankruptcies anymore (don't have a cite for that either). Anybody have time to find some current cites? Aranhamo 15:21, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I do have a cite for the fact that Utah is not first in bankruptcies anymore. In 2005, the Beehive State ranked No. 3 among all 50 states and the District of Columbia with one bankruptcy filing per 39.5 households, according to the American Bankruptcy Institute.. bob rulz 05:18, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I did my best to incorporate that information in the page. Hope it's satifactory.  Aranhamo 16:26, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I've added more detailed information on Utah drug use. The article I have cited states that Utah leads in several types of drug use, and suggests that this is because Utahns are more medically aware in general, and are more likely to be diagnosed with anything for this reason.  I did not, however, incorporate this last suggestion into the article (someone else may if they wish).  The Jade Knight 00:39, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Definition of the word "Utah"
Would this article be an appropriate place to have a definition of the word? I understood it meant "top of the mountain" or some such thing, in some local native-american language. Wadsworth 16:48, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I've heard three different meanings for it:
 * low place in high mountains
 * home in high mountains
 * (can't remember)
 * The official site (utah.gov) says it comes from the ute language and means "people of the mountains".
 * Jaxad0127 15:49, 12 June 2006 (UTC)


 * According to InfoPlease, this is correct: (The origin of the name of the state of Utah is from) "the Ute tribe, meaning “people of the mountains”" 74.135.239.182 04:48, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Political Neutrality
We need to rework the first sentence of the politics section. It currently says (quite correctly): "Because of the influence of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Utah is one of the most Republican states in the nation." But this edit is equally correct: "In spite of the political neutrality of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Utah is one of the most Republican states in the nation." How about this: "Despite it's political neutrality, the influence of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has made Utah one of the most Republican states in the nation." Jaxad0127 05:12, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Uh...how is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints politically neutral? They seem very supportive of George Bush. Also, just because the LDS Church itself may be officially politically neutral (how do you judge that it's politically neutral anyway?) doesn't mean it's members are. The vast majority of its members are supportive of George Bush. Of course it's not universal, but most LDS members that I've met (which are many) support George Bush and despise Democrats. bob rulz 06:23, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The Church is politically neutral in that it does not promote any political candidates whatsoever. Church leaders are told not to encourage people in any way to vote for one person or another. Occasionally the church will make statements about certain bills (such as the recent marriage amendment) but they encourage people to study the issues and make up their minds for themselves. --Lethargy 14:33, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


 * But at what point does this "choice" become an urged "RIGHT choice"? What of the entire concept of "Choose the Right".  Furthermore, the research that Mormons are "encouraged" to do is strictly Church approved writings (believe me, I was Mormon once--I was told I was reading the wrong things).  If questions are raised in lieu of research, the response is usually that you were not reading the "right" books or reports--and you should, from now on, read ONLY Mormon reports and books (and thusly Choose The Right) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.228.201.231 (talk • contribs)


 * Church-approved writings? I'm Mormon now, and I have never heard of anything like "church-approved" writings. What "things" were you told were wrong and by whom? And what does choosing the right have to do with political neutrality? --Lethargy 03:32, 6 July 2006 (UTC)


 * There is not necissarily a section of "chruch-approved" writings, but there is an urging against reading texts contradictory to the way the church believes. I read certain books when I was younger, and I, of course, went to my Bishop for guidance.  The only response to my questions (and these were not especially radical questions, either) was that I was reading the "wrong" books and that they were simply not the "right" books to believe.  The choice is your to make--as long as you make the right choice.  And this relates in the sense that, living in Utah for a good part of my life, there is a strong urge (legally) for you to "choose the right".  There is the appearance of (and in LDS doctrine, quite a bit of historical and textual urging for) freedom of choice; the LDS religion is based upon a philosophy of liberal humanism.  However, that liberal humanism has repeatedly been only applicable to whites, men, and heterosexuals (just to name a few groups)--not only in doctrine but also in law.  THe overriding legal climate of Utah is influenced every-day by the viewpoints of the LDS church on what exaclty it MEANS to "choose the right"--be it indirectly or directly.  The LDS church may not openly proclaim edicts by which the state is to live by--but they don't HAVE to.  The workings of the state are already in their pockets. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.228.201.231 (talk • contribs)


 * You're the first person I've heard mention approved or disaproved writings. What does this have to do with the political neutrality of the church? Also, please sign your comments ( ~ ). Jaxad0127 17:38, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Seperation of church and state is a core belief, so political neutrality is obvious. Jaxad0127 15:08, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


 * No member of any church is politically neutral. The political views of its members does not have anything to do with whether or not the LDS Church is politically neutral.  However, how do we define "politically neutral"?  The Church does not endorse any party or candidate, but does take clear positions on issues.  If we define "political neutrality" as not supporting any party or candidate over another, then the LDS Church is politically nuetral, regardless of the neutrality of its members.  Do you have any evidence that the Church is more supportive of President Bush than it was of President Clinton?  As far as I'm aware, the Church has always been supportive of the US President (at least in the last few decades), regardless of his party affiliation.  The Church can be said to "be supportive" of Rocky Anderson, despite disagreements on many issues; the Church supports him in his authority as the mayor of Salt Lake City.  The Church may disagree with a politician's position on an issue, but this is only natural for those whose beliefs differ.  Aranhamo 22:46, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I think the first and third sentences are the most correct, with a preference for the third one. The Church may be politically neutral, but it is certainly due to Church doctrine and the beliefs of its members that the majority of those in Utah are affiliated with the Republican Party.  And there's nothing wrong with that; the beliefs of the Democrat Party are more at odds with Church doctrine than those of the Republican Party, or at least most members think so.  Aranhamo 22:50, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Right. The point I was trying to bring up was that the church itself wants nothing to do politics. Is anyone in disagreement with the third sentance?

Now that it's been explained I have no problems with the sentences being there. bob rulz 03:54, 16 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Looks good. I agree with it (I didn't know this discussion was going when I changed it last).  Thanks for the input. Leon7 02:36, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Update
Now that I have a better understanding of Wikipedia's no original research policy, I think this paragraph will have to be backed up with some sources if we want to keep it. The closest I have found is this: Letter by LDS leaders cheers Utah Democrats, which clarifies the neutrality of the Church and does mention that Democrats feel that Republicans tend to give people the impression that they are church members and therefore the better choice. If we could bring the paragraph more in accord with this source (for instance, by stating that Democrats have accused Republicans of using religion to seem like they are the only good choice) we can avoid the original research problem. Anyone want to take a swing at this? --Lethargy 15:53, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Citation
It may have been done before (as I see from the discussion here), but I added a request for a citation on the "political neutrality" line. Given the amount of contention over that sentence, a link to some official statement clarifying the position on political neutrality should be provided or the claim should be dropped.

Justin 08:03, 3 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I had tagged that section as original research already, but see the "Update" section directly above this one for more info on how we can fix this. --Lethargy 15:45, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

LDS Church part of Christianity?
I noticed the Demographics section of the Utah article has Mormons as a subdivision of Christianity while the Demographics section of the Nevada article has Mormons separate from Christianity. This is not my area of expertise as well and I was wondering which one would be correct? SandBoxer 02:16, 23 June 2006 (UTC)


 * It should be under Christianity. Jaxad0127 02:36, 23 June 2006 (UTC)


 * There have been numerous debates about this flying all over Wikipedia (both here on the Utah article; look above, and I think on the religion article, too). My opinion (strong opinion) is that it should be under Christianity. Nobody can seem to agree on anything, though. Consensus on both of the arguments I saw was split almost 50/50. bob rulz 22:28, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

At best there should be noted (in both articles and any that contain such statistics) that there IS a debate on the issue and there should be some sort of acknowledgement of the fundamental differences of Mormon doctrine and (traditional / mainstream--even pentacostal) Christianity. Even though I have made my position clear (in favor of a Mormon - Christian Difference)within certain unmarked additions above, I do wish to note the importance of Mormon self-identification with Christianity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.228.201.231 (talk • contribs)


 * There is already an entire article on the subject of whether or not Mormons are Christians. It's already POV that such an article even exists.  That's enough.  Elsewhere, such as here, Mormons should be included under Christianity.  Aranhamo 17:22, 6 July 2006 (UTC)


 * But what of the differences between the Mormon doctrine and the large majority of Christian Religions. Whether or not they "belong" in their own minds or in the minds of others to the larger Christian movement, they ARE fundamentally different in doctrine.  Not to mention, why is it so important to "belong" to Christianity?; why is there such a rabid need to "belong"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.228.201.231 (talk • contribs)


 * Why is there such a rabid need on your part and others to exclude Mormons from Christianity? We all believe in the divinity of Jesus Christ and strive to follow his example.  Why must you persecute Mormons because we differ on points of doctrine?  Other Christian churches hold beliefs that we consider false, yet we recognize that they are sincerely attempting to follow Christ and thus are Christians.


 * This is all taken care of in the article Mormonism_and_Christianity. Most "mainstream" Christian churches define Christians as those who adhere to the Nicene Creed.  The only point on which Mormons differ from the Nicene Creed that I can see is that Mormons believe in the Godhead, rather than the Trinity.  There are, in fact, a number of "mainstream" Christian churches that do not subscribe to the Nicene Creed (the Southern Baptists are one; they do not adhere to any creed).  In addition, there are a number of versions of the Nicene Creed that differ significantly.  Mormons do not adhere to the Nicene Creed because it was written long after the church had fallen into apostasy and it contains false doctrine.  The core belief of the Mormon religion is that Jesus is the Christ, the Savior of all mankind, and that only through Him can we be saved; to say that Mormons are not Christians is to deny the very thing that defines our religion.  For someone to say that I am not a Christian I think is the most offensive and insulting thing that they could possibly say to me.  This is not a forum or a blog, but if it were, I would argue that Mormons are more Christian than any other church or religion.


 * However, there already exists an article that discusses this all at length: Mormonism_and_Christianity. There are not similar articles disputing the christianity of every other group that calls itself Christian.  Adding a disclaimer to every article that mentions Mormons, stating that some dispute that Mormons are Christian, would be extremely POV.  Should we then add similar disclaimers to every article on religion or deeply-held beliefs that some groups hold those beliefs to be false?  Aranhamo 18:36, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


 * How about a general disclaimer on every religious article? Jaxad0127 19:14, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


 * That would be ridiculous. Every religion has people who do not believe in it.  If that were not the case, then there would only be one religion in the world, or none.  Should we also add such a disclaimer to every article on political idealogy, scientific theory, and everything else that isn't a purely objective fact?  Aranhamo 19:29, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Life Elevated
"And now for something completely different" or should I say, related to the article? Given that this is a page to discuss Utah, I was thinking maybe discussions on Mormons and Christianity would fit better at either of those pages. I was hoping we could discuss Utah on this page.

I like the new Utah logo, and the mention it receives at the bottom of the article is good, but I was thinking maybe if we could put the logo on the page (near the top) then that would be a nice addition to this article. –134.250.72.179 02:43, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The only discussions on the LDS Church are about the state's demographics and politics. See those disscussions for details. Which of the six logos do you want to use? Jaxad0127 03:15, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Utahan or Utahn?
Actually, dictionary.com says that both are correct. Aranhamo 04:41, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I checked Merriam-Webster Online, and it says that both are correct as nouns; "Utahan" is the adjective form. Despite the extra letter, they are both pronounced the same.  (It's English wonderful?)
 * I've only seen the shorter one used (before now). I did a Google search on both and got 116,000 for Utahn, 18,000 for Utahan and 496 for both.  I say that we go with the more common form.  What do others think? Val42 16:30, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I checked Utah.gov (using Google) and Utahn had 555 and Utahan had 16. I say we go with the common one and note that it can aslo be spelled the other way. Jaxad0127 17:17, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I actually think that "Utahn" looks better, and is certainly more common. dictionary.com says they are both correct as both nouns and adjectives, so I say we use "Utahn" for both.  Aranhamo 16:38, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Catholics and irreligious
An anon user has edited the page with info about an increasing Catholic population and Utah being the "tenth most irreligious state". There is now a link to the latter assertion, but no cite for the idea that the Catholic population is increasing significantly or that it is due to Mexican immigration (it's probably true, but a cite is needed). The article says later that Utah is 6% Catholic; is that significantly higher than before? I know that some places with as much as a 5% Mormon population don't even mention Mormons, since 5% is pretty small. Now it asserts that previous Catholic population growth was due to Italian immigration. Does anybody have cites for the growth of the Catholic population in Utah, as well as its origins/causes? Also, the anon's edit is poorly written and could use some cleaning up.

The anon also removed a sentence about Mormon splinter groups not deriving authority from the LDS Church, as well as mention of other religious minorities in the state (Jews). What do others think of putting those back in? Aranhamo 16:50, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


 * If we can find sources, we should include them all to stay away from POV. Jaxad0127 17:47, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


 * You should probably contact the anon at their talk page: User talk:144.35.254.12
 * --Lethargy 20:30, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I haven't and probably won't, becuase how would I even know that the person who made the edits will see it? I realize that the same IP has made repeated edits to this page, but still... Maybe he/she should just create an account.  Aranhamo 21:43, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Leaving messages for an anon works the same as a registered user: they will see an orange bar informing them they have new messages. Originally I didn't realize this happens, until I received a message myself as I was posting when I thought I was logged in. --Lethargy 01:40, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree that a source should be cited, but come on, we don't need four Fact tags in the same sentence. bob rulz 23:10, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * That was another anon. He actually put in 5, but I removed one.  So far I haven't been able to find cites, but I don't have a lot of experience researching these things.  Aranhamo 23:26, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Merge at Roy or Trementon?
Somebody reversed this part:
 * merging with I-15 at Tremonton and staying merged until Roy.

to say:
 * merging with I-15 at Roy and staying merged until Tremonton.

Umm, isn't that the same difference, depending on which direction you're driving on the road? Aranhamo 16:20, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, the way I put it before, if I can remember correctly, I accidentally did the wrong direction; I said "it enters from Snowville, merges with I-15 at Roy and stays merged until Tremonton..." I didn't even notice that until it was edited. I might be remembering wrong though. bob rulz 17:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


 * What if we just say that it is merged between Roy and Tremonton? That way, direction isn't a factor. Jaxad0127 08:59, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Looking at the edit, it seems the change was justified. It keeps the sentance moving northward (what a weird phrase) to match it's other additions. Jaxad0127 09:26, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * OK Aranhamo 13:35, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Mormons =/= Christians
Why are Latter Day Saints lumped in with Christianity in the "Religion" section? These are two separate faiths. Thanks Dubc0724 13:06, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Because they are Christian. This isn't the place to discuss it though. See Mormonism and Christianity. Jaxad0127 18:17, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Um, no. Big difference. And if the article has it wrong, this would be the place to discuss it.  I'm not trying to push any beliefs here.  Just pointing out that there's a difference between Mormons and Christians. Dubc0724 19:26, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Christianity means belief in Christ, which Mormons have. Please read the article I linked to and the existing discussion on this page: Talk:Utah. Jaxad0127 19:31, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) I've read it. I guess it depends on how loosely one is willing to use the term "belief in Christ".  Muslims may believe in Christ's existence, but that doesn't make them Christians.  But, other than noting my disagreement with this article's statements, I suppose it's best to leave well enough alone at this time. Dubc0724 19:36, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I'll clarify a bit more: belief in the divinity of Christ. Jaxad0127 19:38, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


 * This is not the place to discuss our personal beliefs as to whether Mormons are or aren't Christians. Edward Lalone 04:35, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. This has been brought up many times, though. &mdash; Jaxad  0127  06:24, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Famous Utahns?
How do we go about determining who is famous and who is not? Is there a way to quantify this so it's not so subjective -- maybe some guideline elsewhere on WP? Maybe it's just me, but it seems like there's more than a few Utahns that are more famous that the ones that are listed here.Leon7 21:41, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, feel free to add those people then. I don't believe that there's an official consensus on who's famous and who's not (since it's a subjective thing), but I've always generally considered it anybody who is famous enough to have an article on Wikipedia. bob rulz 23:48, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Logical end of christian vs mormon demographic.
Just delete Christian all together let each denomination stand on it's own. Easy. Look at it it looks fine it doens't impy the Chrstianity or lack thereof of any group.


 * Still, if we're quoting a source and they use that organization, we should as well. Jaxad0127 09:04, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I see the point but "christian" is a fairly generic term I mean if we are going to just use the umbrella term then why break it down at all why list lds as baptist catholics etc. as seperate groups ?


 * Christian is not a generic term. Mormons are Christians. bob rulz 11:01, 13 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok -- if Christian is not a generic term then is mormonism protestant, catholic-mainline, reformed catholic mainline, eastern, western, historic, transitional, evangelical, congregationalist or is it its own sub category ?


 * Christian is a category, and Mormons are considered their own subcategory. bob rulz 04:57, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I'd disagree -- as a returned missionary, Melchezidek priesthood holder, I do NOT consider myself a Christian, and I know of no GA's who would call us main-line Christian either. M-BoyMor 03:44, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


 * There's the word "main-line" in there. I doubt anyone considers Mormons to be main-line Christian. Jaxad0127 15:39, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


 * That is completely opposite of what I've heard every other Mormon say. bob rulz 08:14, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Maybe it's a matter of prefrence. I had a lot of run-in's with "Christians" on my mission. We are different; I mean from Nicean Christianity. I can see the differential designation in a demographic context, but eh, no biggie. M-BoyMor 04:37, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


 * It could be. The vast majority of Mormons I know, however, consider themselves Christian. There isn't a big difference between Mormons and other Christian faiths. bob rulz 08:42, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Right, most Mormons would put the LDS Church in Christianity, but I doubt any one consideres it "main-line." Lets keep the Christian category and only list the larger denominations. Jaxad0127 17:59, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Religion
The article says: "Pentecostal, Judaism, Church of Christ, Non-denominational, United Church of Christ, Jehovah's Witness, Assemblies of God, Buddhist, Church of God, and Seventh Day Adventist, represent less than .5% of the population."

Does this mean 0.5% for all of those religious movements together, or for each of them? Andelarion 07:48, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Application for statehood
There is a sentence "When Utah applied for statehood again, it was accepted". I do not see where is it written when did Utah first apply for staehood and was rejected. can someone who knows add this information? Steve G 00:54, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * That would be the proposed "State of Deseret." Jaxad0127 04:01, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, they were rejected several times. In 1849 as the State of Deseret, but also after they were the Utah territory in 1856 and 1862&mdash;I have hard sources for those. |This online source says they applied in "1849, 1856, 1862, 1872, 1882, and 1887." Cool Hand  Luke  08:56, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Then add them. Only two attempts are listed in the article, the first was for Deseret. Jaxad0127 00:06, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Red links
I removed several red links from the see also section. Some of these merit inclusion in the article itself, but putting them in a see also section defeats the purpose thereof. Here is what I removed:

--Lethargy 00:39, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Ballet West
 * Pioneer Theatre Company
 * Ririe Woodbury Dance Company
 * Salt Lake Acting Company
 * Tuacahn Summer Festival of Theater, which takes place in the Tuacahn Amphitheater in Padre Canyon adjacent to Snow Canyon State Park, near St. George
 * Utah Ballet
 * Utah Opera

Link Suggestion
Here is a site that can give readers a good idea of how Utah really looks. It includes over 44,000 different pictures of areas around the state: http://www.UntraveledRoad.com/USA/Utah.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by SharonSmith (talk • contribs)


 * Please sign your comments ( ~ ). We already have enough pictures for this article. And their terms of use will need to be looked at by someone more knowledgable in that than me.
 * If you're talking about an external link, their credentials (or whatever it's called) would need to be checked. Jaxad0127 18:44, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

VisitUSA.com/utah is suggested as an external link it is a site that can give readers a good overview of the outdoor recreation- over a 100 photos and articles. While some sites have more comprehensive information the layout here is very well organized. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.209.140.21 (talk) 17:05, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Constitutional Amendments
I deleted the discussion of "recent" constitutional amendments (from 2004), and reorganized that part a little. A section on constitutional amendments might be a good idea, but it should focus on more than one election. Schmobag


 * While I agree it should have more info on the subject, incomplete info is no reason to delete. bob rulz 22:44, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Isnt this UTAH LAW Unconstitutional?!?
Ok, under my understanding shouldn't the following utah law be unconstitutional and theirfor be removed (certain parts anyway): 76-9-601.  Abuse of a flag.

(1) A person is guilty of abuse of a flag if he: (a) Intentionally places any unauthorized inscription or other thing upon any flag of the United States or of any state of the United States; or       (b)  Knowingly exhibits any such flag, knowing the inscription or other thing to be unauthorized; or       (c)  For purposes of advertising a product or service for sale or for distribution, affixes a representation of the flag of the United States or of a state of the United States to the product or on any display whereon the product or service is advertised; or       (d)  Knowingly casts contempt upon the flag of the United States or of any state of the United States by publicly mutilating, defacing, defiling, burning, or trampling upon it.[/b] (2) Abuse of a flag is a class B misdemeanor. It was my understanding that they could not enforce the part in section d because it fell under freedom of speach! Crashedata 10:47, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


 * As noted in the header at the top of this page, this is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject. --Lethargy 04:44, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Religion
This section has grown considerably, presents conflicting numbers, and is larger than comparable sections for other states. -- Trödel 04:52, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The section does need to be edited, particularly the stuff about the percentage of the population which claims membership in the LDS church in the state overall, and in the rural/urban areas. I'll try to get to it within the next day or two if I have time to look up the sources.  That list of denominations, with their respective percentages, probably could be removed as well.  I do think that Utah should probably have a larger "religion" section than most other states for obvious historical reasons.  However, I have a lot of problems with the unsourced claims that seem to permanently reside in that section.  I would favor a complete rewrite with all of the unsourced material left out until those claims could be verified.  - Justin 02:47, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

New Sports section added to updated WikiProject U.S. states format
The WikiProject U.S. states format has been updated to include a new Sports section, that covers collegiate sports, amateur sports, and non-team sports (such as hunting and fishing). Please feel free to add this new heading, and supply information about sports in Utah. Please see South_carolina as an example. NorCalHistory 14:01, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Famous native Utahns?
I see that we have recently started adding "famous Utahns" that are relatively recent move-ins into the state. I think, up until quite recently, this list has only included those that are natives, meaning that they were born in Utah (even if they moved out of state). I noticed that John Stockton is listed as a "Notable Spokanites" elsewhere, even though he lived in Utah for all of his notable 18 NBA career years (he now lives in Spokane again). Should he be listed in the Spokane article or the Utah (or both). I guess I'm asking for opinions of who should, and who should not be on this list.Leon7 21:15, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Is this true?
WARNING: "Fun" is illegal in Utah. People who have fun will be shot on sight.

???!!!?!??!?!? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.21.210.245 (talk) 00:46, 25 December 2006 (UTC).

Weather
Would this be an accurate link for the record high in Utah? In the article, it says "citation needed". Here's the link: http://www.weather.com/outlook/health/general/wxclimatology/monthly/graph/USUT0222?from=36hr_bottomnav_health

Mr. Kevin James 02:22, 13 January 2007 (UTC)Mr. Kevin James

POV about LDS-Republican connection
The following statement in the Politics section needs to either be re-worded to be neutral or a credible and reliable source needs to be provided that makes this conclusion. Conclusions made by editors is in violation of Wikipedia policy. This is the statement: Despite its political neutrality, [18] the influence of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has made Utah one of the most Republican states in the nation and as a result is thought to be very conservative.

The source used states the political neutrality of the Church but the rest of the paragraph is unsourced and attempts to draw a conclusion about the influence of the Church without providing a source. Edward Lalone 03:50, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think we're going to find anything. This was already discussed and no sources were found. There is certainly a relationship between the LDS Church and politics in Utah, but it's much more subtle than LDS therefore Republican. I'm in favour of removing the statement entirely.
 * Better would be to write about (1) how the LDS Church tends to official support traditionally social conservative positions regarding alcohol and gay marriage, (2) how credible commentators note that the Republican Party markets itself as the superior party for Mormons, and (3) how Utah is among the most Republican of the states. Such statements are verifiable without leaps of logic or original research. Cool Hand Luke 04:16, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I concur with removing the statement. It makes more sense to do as you claim which is to assert the position of the Church on certain issues with verifiable sources, then assert that the Republican Party of Utah markets itself as representing Mormons using reliable sources that point to the positions of the Church and the claims Republicans make base on these positions. It also true that Utah is one of the most Republican States in the country. I would also think that it is important to keep the link to the Church neutrality position. This information is verifiable and allows people to draw their own conclusions. Edward Lalone 01:24, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I re-worded this paragraph and attempted in an effort to make it more NPOV. What I have done was re-write the paragraph to say: "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the religion of the majority of Utahns and hence the majority of politicians in Utah from both political parties are members of the Church. While the Church maintains an official policy of neutrality in regards to political parties and candidates [18] Utah is pre-dominately Republican and some believe that the positions of the Church on issues has made the state one of the most Republican states in the nation." Edward Lalone | (Talk) 06:17, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Lead Section
Hey all, how's it going. A few weeks ago I noticed the tag asking for an extended lead section and modified it. That was before I joined, so you'll just see my IP address. I'm glad to see someone cleaned it up and changed some of the poorer word choices! Heh heh...anyway, I'm interested in getting that tag off the article, so is there anything else we can do to improve it? I read a whole bunch of other state articles' lead sections to get an idea on what to write, but it could probably use some more info, as well as clearer sources. The one I used for St. George's population growth, for example, is useful only if you have the patience to scroll through a list of every city and town in the United States, and the table graphic they use is somewhat confusing. Yovinedelcielo 12:29, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

John Stockton a Utahn?
Just cause you play basketball in the state, I dont know if you that means your a utahn. I would say anyone born in utah would be considered a utahn to put in the list...John is washington (whatever they are called) through and through. Thats just a thought though..what do you guys think about only having people born in utah on that list for famous utahns? - —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.232.151.218 (talk • contribs).


 * (I moved this discussion to the bottom of the list to avoid trampling on previous discussions, sorry for any confusion) I would agree that the list of Famous Utahns should only include people who were born in Utah, or who currently reside in Utah.  John Stockton doesn't meet either of those criteria.  - Justin (Authalic) 23:45, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I browsed through the list of "famous Utahns" and I have questions about the following people. What criteria are we using to claim these people are Utahns? - Justin (Authalic) 00:03, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * John Stockton
 * Karl Malone
 * Tal Bachman
 * Scott Wolf
 * Aaron Eckhart
 * Mitt Romney
 * Jim McMahon
 * Steve Smith (NFL wide receiver)
 * Jamal Anderson
 * Keith Van Horn
 * Johnny Miller


 * Update: I removed a number of people from the Famous Utahns list. (See the diff here ).  From what I could track down, either in each individual's article, or through other sources, none of these people were born in Utah or currently reside in the state.  Please feel free to add any of these names back to the list if my information was not correct.  - Justin (Authalic) 03:28, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

There might be a third case for people who were not born in Utah and are not currently living in Utah, but who spent most of their life here. These three criteria should be used to patrol the list, as you've done. At minimum someone must have (1) been born in Utah, (2) currently reside in Utah, or (3) spent more than about half their life in Utah. Some of these were absurd, Like Mitt Romney, who has spent more time in Michigan and Massachusetts than Utah (as no one seems to recall, he was tapped to run SLOC because he was an "outsider" with clean hands). Cool Hand Luke 04:04, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: Brandon Flowers is an example of this third category. Good work, Justin. Cool Hand Luke 04:07, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I can agree with the Brandon Flowers case.  If somebody was raised in Utah, but born somewhere else, they could be considered de facto Utahns.  The list should probably be expanded with more historical figures, but I can't think of anybody off the top of my head except for maybe Marriner Eccles and Stein Eriksen. - Justin (Authalic) 07:36, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Demograph
The picture on the demograph section is blocking the text. Is there any way that this can be fixed. Soda player talk  contributions^_^ 02:23, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't see any problem with the images in that section, or anywhere else in the article. Remember, different browsers, skins, etc, will cause different results. You could try moving the image around to see if it improves things for you without disrupting the page too much. &mdash; Jaxad  0127  06:56, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Photos
Most of the pictures on this article look really good, the only problem is that many of them are in odd locations considering the sections that they are under - examples - bryce canyon picture under 'law and government' or an autumn forest in 'sports and recreation' AlexiusHoratius 09:10, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Motto
Pinus ville? Is this accurate? -- drumguy8800   C   T  07:52, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

utah
before utah became a place there was salt lake city and thn they made utah with salt lake city. 198.94.221.66 00:22, 16 May 2007 (UTC)