Talk:Land Rush of 1889

message: The process of a land run described by this article is somehwat vague. Where were people lining up? Did they rope off sections? Simply sit on a rock and call it theirs? This article and its parent, land run, need expansion.  It's a bit of request, since I don't know the answer myself and would like to. Methylsoy 23:22, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Specificity

message: I don't want to be overly PC, and maybe it really doesn't belong here, but shouldn't there be some kind of mention of the fact that before the land run, this land belonged to Native Americans?  calling it one of the best 'uninhabited' parcels of land is completely incorrect.  Oklahoma was considered 'Indian Territory' for years before the land run.  It was the destination of the Cherokee people after the Trail of Tears.  so it seems only logical to mention that in a discussion of the Oklahoma land run. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Geeksquad (talk • contribs) 
: That is incorrect as well. The Oklahoma Land Rush was only for a small section of the state. A section that was not Indian Territory was designated for the give away. All the major tribes that resided in Oklahoma Territory were allocated land for their own tribes. The section that was given away in the land rush was clear of and tribes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.160.19.15 (talk • contribs) 
:: There was a total of 5 land runs, not just one.  See land run for a list of them (ultimately I would like an article on each one).  Ash Lux 22:12, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe you are confusing the Land Run of 1889 with the Land Run of 1893.  The 1893 land run involved the Cherokee Outlet, whereas this land run involved the Unassigned Lands.  The Unassigned Lands were actually not inhabited by any Indians.  Even if Indians did inhabit these lands, people still considered them the best unoccupied public lands in the US (in which case, the wording seems right and we would want to say they were wrong).  If any complaints could be had, it would be with the Creek and Seminole who sold this land to the US so it could be settled by other Indians and/or former black slaves.  In the case of the Cherokee Outlet, it was also sold to the US by the Cherokees. I would agree that this article needs to be expanded to help clarify this. Ash Lux 22:12, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's important to remember that there were inhabitants of Oklahoma prior to the resettlement of the "five civilized tribes"--the Quapaw, Comanche, and Kiowa come to mind, and I am sure there were others, too. Nevertheless, by the time of the Land Run, the lands were effectively uninhabited, since no one had legal title.--Curtis Clark 00:33, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Unassigned Lands makes it pretty clear the US had the title by buying it from the Creeks and Seminoles. Ash Lux 01:04, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Legal title, but arguably no justification. A counterpoint needs to be made. Methylsoy 23:19, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Stolen land

message: No doubt Far and Away deals with a land run, but I am disputing which land run.  I've seen 1889 mentioned as well as 1893.
* amazon mentions 1893
* half.com mentions land run of the 1890's
* imdb.com user mentions 1893 in his plot summary
Honestly, it seems the real date is 1893 and not 1889.  This error may also be present on the page Far and Away. Ash Lux 17:58, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm the one that included the film here — I didn't check if it is the one anywhere else but the Far and Away article, so it might be very likely wrong. Todor Bozhinov  → 18:13, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm going to go ahead and remove the reference as well as change the Far and Away article. Ash Lux (talk | Contribs) 14:03, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disputed 

message: I removed [sic] after April 22d, as that is an acceptable abbreviation in English and is not an error.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.52.140.252 (talk) 16:24, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minor edit 

message: It seems that the article would be more accurately name Oklahoma Land Rush of 1889. Is there a reason that "Oklahoma" is not included in the title?
Thanks!--CaroleHenson (talk) 19:55, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article name 

message: An editor added a new section on Native American tribes. I started doing some copy editing on it; some of the new material was confusingly written. However, reflecting on the title of the article, I think that all this material needs to be removed since it isn't really pertinent to the article. The 1889 Land Rush was into the Unassigned Lands, which were unassigned precisely because none of the tribes occupied them. Unless someone comes up with a good reason not to, I will delete the new material in the next day or so. Indyguy (talk) 02:24, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Even if true that the lands were unoccupied at the time, the article deserves an explanation of why lands were empty when Oklahoma has been inhabited for thousands of years.  Sources describe the lands as ceded by the Muscogee and Seminole nations after the Civil War, and they in turn were forcibly relocated there earlier that century to areas that had had prior indigenous inhabitants.  Looking back a few decades to account for the land's availability does not seem like a stretch. Cephal-odd (talk) 21:21, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  New section on Native American tribes 

message: In the section titled "Rush for land", we have this sentence: The rush did not last long, and by the end of the day nearly two million acres of land. </br>
Two million acres of land what? --Joshualouie711talk 02:30, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing words?