Talk:Utah War

Information Box
The information currently in the information box under "result" should be modified. I have changed it before, and it has recently been changed back. I am more than willing to come to a compromise, but let me state my objections.

The current tone of the information suggests a total US victory, and this seems debatable. While in the end the Mormons capitulated to American demands, in fact Buchanan was all but begging the Saints to take his deal. He was scared to death of an open conflict, and while the rhetoric of the pardon was very harsh, Buchanan's offer was rather conciliatory. He was also under incredible pressure from Congress to make a deal.

Indeed, the term "deposed" suggests that the army marched into Salt Lake City and threw Young from the Governor's chair. In fact, Young seemed quite willing to step down as governor, although he would have been perfectly happy to remain in that position. What he truly feared was the army. That being said, I propose that in the results column, Young was "replaced" as governor, that the army was allowed into Utah, and that the Saints were granted a global pardon. While indeed conditions existed, Buchanan's negotiators had also made significant offers to the Saints. I look forward to further discussion of this topic.Panbobor (talk) 19:17, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * "We have got a territorial government, and I am and will be governor, and no power can hinder it, until the Lord Almighty says, 'Brigham, you need not be governor any longer.'" "For a man to come here [as governor] and infringe upon my individual rights and privileges, and upon those of my brethren, will never meet my sanction, and I will scourge such a one until he leaves. I am after him." Defining his position further, and the independence of his people, he said: "Come on with your knives, your swords, and your faggots of fire, and destroy the whole of us rather than we will forsake our religion. Whether the doctrine of plurality of wives is true or false is none of your business. We have as good a right to adopt tenets in our religion as the Church of England, or the Methodists, or the Baptists, or any other denomination have to theirs."
 * Journal of Discourses, Vol. 1, p. 187-188.


 * So am I to understand that BY, stepped down from his high post (GOVENOR of the TERRITORY of UTAH, not because of an overwhelming military force, but because of a revalation from a higher authority? Possibly President Buchanan?75.167.186.10 (talk) 01:42, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Per info-box rules, only option is victory or Inconclusive. An info-box cannot have decisive victory, total victory, deflacto victory, etc. Expand more in the aftermath section. LuxembourgLover (talk) 23:56, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Brigham, like in many cases, spoke with fiery rhetoric, but when it actually came down to it, he was ready to take a more moderate course. In explaining these comments in 1855, he said,


 * "The newspapers are teeming with statements that I said "President Pierce and all hell could not remove me from office." I will tell you what I did say, and what I now say; the Lord reigns and rules in the armies of the heavens, and does His pleasure. He walks in the midst of the people, and they know it not. He makes Kings, Presidents, and Governors at His pleasure; hence I conclude that I shall be Governor of Utah Territory, just as long as He wants me to be; and for that time, neither the President of the United States, nor any other power, can prevent it."
 * Journal of Discourses 2:183

Wilford Woodruff records on July 24th, 1847 that Young proclaimed,


 * "if General Harney crossed the South Pass he should send him word they must not come into the valley. If the Govornor and officers wished to come and would behave themselves well they would be well treated."
 * Wilford Woodruff's Journal, 5:68

On several other occassions, Young expressed his willingness to allow the new Governor into Salt Lake City. He understood that a new governor would mean no diminution of his practical authority, as Cumming later found out. Young stated in 1855,


 * "Though I may not be Governor here, my power will not be diminished. No man they can send here will have much influence with this community, unless he be the man of their choice.  Let them send whom they will, and it does not diminish my influence one particle."
 * Leonard J. Arrington, Brigham Young: American Moses, 268.

Young was far more concerned about a federal army in Utah than one more appointee that he believed he could circumvent. He would no doubt have stepped down as governor even without an army at his door. However, I grant that the army certainly helped decide the matter.Panbobor (talk) 14:15, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I know this is an old discussion but I agree that defacto US Victory should not be used. I have not seen any other articles that have defacto vixtory used as a result. I think it should be simer to the result of the war of 1812, where it says incenclusive and add a aftermath section. I think the best way to say this would be:
 * resolution through negotiation LuxembourgLover (talk) 21:25, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, you replied to a discussion from over 15 years ago. The issue was already fixed, the infobox already states "inconclusive". Shearonink (talk) 19:40, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
 * My mistake on my reply above. You adjusted the issue yourself back in October. Why are you tagging an article today for something that was fixed/adjusted a month ago? Shearonink (talk) 19:58, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I cam back and noticed more problems. The main ones being the belligerent part of the infobox including units. If you have any questions please ask! I’m still new to maintenance. LuxembourgLover (talk) 00:36, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I applaud your enthusiasm for editing but "... more problems. The main ones being the belligerent part of the infobox including units" You stated in an edit summary :
 * only option is victory or Inconclusive. An info-box cannot have decisive victory, total victory, deflacto victory, etc. Expand more in the aftermath section
 * That is true but the infobox parameters also state:
 * result – optional [bolding mine] – this parameter may use one of two standard terms: "X victory" or "Inconclusive". The term used is for the "immediate" outcome of the "subject" conflict and should reflect what the sources say. In cases where the standard terms do not accurately describe the outcome, a link or note should be made to the section of the article where the result is discussed in detail (such as "See the Aftermath section"). Such a note can also be used in conjunction with the standard terms but should not be used to conceal an ambiguity in the "immediate" result. Do not introduce non-standard terms like "decisive", "marginal" or "tactical", or contradictory statements like "decisive tactical victory but strategic defeat". Omit this parameter altogether rather than engage in speculation about which side won or by how much.
 * Perhaps the logical edit at this point would be to delete the result completely from the infobox, not slap a maintenance template on the entire article for a single issue. A point of order about infoboxes - an infobox is supposed to be a summary of or a guide-map to the important points of the article. If the article states a verifiable fact then it can possibly be added to the infobox.
 * So when you mention belligerents...it seems somewhat disingenuous to claim in an edit summary “mormons” are not a belgerents", basically stating that Latter-Day Saints or Mormons in general weren't part of the Utah War. The church, its hierarchy, its members are mentioned numerous times in this article and this article is considered to be a sub-article of what is commonly known as "the Mormon wars". Church members, not just the Nauvoo Legion, participated in the various events of the War, and, for instance, directly participated in the Mountain Meadows Massacre and, the general membership, absolutely participated in that event's aftermath & its coverup. I can perhaps see that not every member participated in the Utah War but the overwhelming majority did. If interested editors want to come to a consensus of how to describe how/when members of that faith in that area battled against the US government and decide what the wording should be...ok. Find the reliable sources that state that and incorporate the information into the article. Shearonink (talk) 01:40, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Like I said I am new to repairing/fixing pages. I believe that “Mormons” should not be in the belligerents but they can be in the unit area. I need all the help I can get, this was messy and complicated so I fell like it would take a long time to fix the pages. However I fell like we are getting there.  LuxembourgLover (talk) 02:08, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
 * What do reliable sources state about who fought in, who participated in, who supported the War by providing combatants and supplies and arms? The lead section of this article states "... was an armed confrontation between Mormon settlers in the Utah Territory and the armed forces of the US government." The church and its members, and not necessarily members of the Nauvoo Legion are mentioned time and again in this article and its sources. I don't understand why the church/Latter Day Saints/Mormons or some similar wording shouldn't be used to describe belligerents,
 * Also, have you gone through any of the various "teach-ems" that show new editors how to get started editing WIkipedia? They can be a big help when getting started around here. I've posted some on your user talk page. Shearonink (talk) 04:08, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

This article is messy
I made a {multiple issues} temmplate because this artical is mess. I will continue to add more resons why. The first example as started above was the infobox. Also another problem was the belligerents, I attempted to fix it in this edit. LuxembourgLover (talk) 14:42, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Recent edit/s - adding maintenance template
A maintenance template was added to this article including this edit, this edit, and this edit. In my opinion, this template is unneeded & is in error. The infobox issues are outdated & the article itself has C B quality ratings according to the Military history, US/Old West-Utah, and Latter Day Saint movement projects. Of course, the article isn't an "A" or of Featured Article quality but in my opinion it does not deserve a maintenance template/mark of shame either. I am, therefore, removing the template. If other editors disagree or want to discuss my edit, this is the place to do it. Shearonink (talk) 23:25, 6 November 2023 (UTC)


 * After many months of working in this article, I fell like it's significantly improved. I want others opion if we should removed the current templates on AI and the lead. LuxembourgLover (talk) 20:10, 16 June 2024 (UTC)


 * The editor who placed the tag is the best person to judge the continuing need of it. The Banner  talk 23:53, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I only placed the AI-generated tag, with regards to LuxembourgLover's change to the lead summary which they said on their talk page was written with the help of an AI (I was looking at a newspaper and gave it to the AI, I wrote the original information but I used AI for spelling and grammar check). If a person more familiar with the Utah War can verify that this is an accurate summary of the event and hasn't made any false assumptions, the template can be removed. Belbury (talk) 08:35, 17 June 2024 (UTC)


 * lead too short is absolutely still applicable. It doesn't adequately summarise the article's contents. Words cannot describe the depth of antipathy I have for the notion that this very selective editorial issue can be resolved by feeding articles into a chatbot. Editors labouring under the impression that cleanup tags are "marks of shame" should consider not treating works of common good such as Wikipedia articles as their pets or loved ones. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 21:45, 17 June 2024 (UTC)