Talk:Indiana Territory

message: This map is not completely accurate. When Michigan Territory was formed in 1805, the boundary extended through Lake Michigan from the southermost extreme to the northermost extreme. This moves the line in the northern peninsula west. The map also does not reflect the 30 townships transferred to Indiana upon formation of the state -- these were never a part of Indiana Territory. A much larger error, Illinois Territory was formed in 1809, reducing the size of Indiana Territory to roughly the size of the current state (less the 30 townships). The current map indicates that land was a part of the territory until statehood in 1816. older ≠ wiser 14:32, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The revised map is an improvement in accuracy, though perhaps a little difficult to parse. But it does make sense if you ponder it long enough, so it probably is not such a problem. One very tiny detail, when Indiana became a state in 1816, the middle portion of the UP technically became unorganized territory until Illinois became a state when the entire area was joined to Michigan Territory. Perhaps you may have seen this already, but this page has a pretty good dissection of the disposition of the various lands in the NWT. Cheers. older ≠ wiser 20:29, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I like the current map, and how it shows where the territory came from and how it was later divided.  I wonder, though, if it would useful to also include an image showing the undivided Indiana Territory at it's maximum, when it was just the western partition of the Northwest Territory.  There were no state lines in 1800, and it would have been a vast, uncontrollable territory to the people who first knew it. Mingusboodle (talk) 06:03, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, in 1800 there were only extremely sketchy and vague notions about the extent of the northwestern boundary -- the source of the Mississippi wasn't determined until about 1820. older ≠ wiser 12:25, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map accuracy 

message: The section contains the statements It also included the portion of present-day Ohio west of the Great Miami River. This latter parcel became part of the state of Ohio when it was admitted to the Union in 1803. However the map shows pretty much the reverse of this. The original boundaries according to the Act Creating Indiana Territory, 1800 were "all that part of the territory of the United States north-west of the Ohio river, which lies to the westward of a line beginning at the Ohio, opposite to the mouth of Kentucky river, and running thence to fort Recovery, and thence north until it shall intersect the territorial line between the United States and Canada." When the state of Ohio was formed in 1803, the western boundary was defined as beginning from the mouth of the Great Miami River. The gore from the point opposite the Kentucky river to Fort Recovery to the Mouth of the Great Miami river was thus included in Indiana Territory. However the current phrasing is sourced to "Jervic, 53–54" and "Jervic, 110" (which I think is a typo for Jervis, Cutler & Le Raye, Charles (1971). A Topographical Description of the State of Ohio, Indiana Territory, and Louisiana. Ayer Publishing). This should be sorted out. older ≠ wiser 13:26, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Fort Recovery is in Ohio, and several miles over the border. The bank oppoiste the mouth of the Kentucky River is in Indiana now. So the line started in present Indiana and ran diaganol across the present Ohio border and several miles into Ohio, and then due north to the Canadian border. When statehood was granted to Ohio, the border was changed, as you noted. So now there is a straight north south line from the northern border, due south to the ohio river, which is several miles west of the original line. So, the land east of that origina nort south line starting at recover, was taken from Indiana territory and given to ohio, and vica verse, the land that was west of that diagonal line from the kentucky river, was given to Indiana territory. So it is accurated to say that the territory held a slice of Ohio west of the miami river, because it did hold a narrow, about 250 miles long by 15 miles wide, strech that was given to Ohio. All of which was west of the Miami River Charles Edward 13:40, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes that is true, although the crude drawing you include rather grossly overstates the area between Fort Recovery and understates the size of the gore from the mouth of the Kentucky River to Fort Recovery. As it the article is currently phrased, none of this detail is apparent and on the face of it appears to contradict the map showing the change in boundaries. older ≠ wiser 14:16, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, that is why I call it a crude map. I reworded it to make more clear the orginal boundry was related to Fort Recovery, and not to the Miami. But how else would you summarily describe the land west of miami that was transfered to Ohio in 1803? Or, how do you suggest we reword it? Charles Edward 14:25, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the ambiguity is using the phrase "west of the Great Miami River" -- the larger portion of land that was transferred in 1803 was in the gore which went from Ohio to Indiana Territory. A thin slice that went to Ohio, which while technically "west" of the Miami, for the most part lies to the north of the river's headwaters. I suggest using the boundary descriptions from the original documents and then adding explanation as needed. A more detailed image might help. For instance, :Image:Indiana Indian treaties.jpg give some indication of the size of the gore. There are a couple of editors such as User:Kmusser who will sometimes create maps on request. older ≠ wiser 14:37, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

text: I've added a request for a better map at Wikipedia:WikiProject Maps/Requested maps. older ≠ wiser 14:48, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

text: Sounds good. I think the re-wording you made is also fine. I can see how someone unfamiliar withthe topic may be mislead by the wording of the original discription. It was here when I started, and hadn't given it much thought. Thanks for your help! This is my latest GA project, so any suggestions you ahve are appreciated.Charles Edward 18:09, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original boundaries 

message: There are several references notes for a source by "Dunn," but I can't find any anything to tell me what the source is.  Can someone help?  I could use note#33 for a requested citation in Siege of Fort Harrison. Mingusboodle (talk) 06:13, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added it, I just noticed your comment! :) —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 14:04, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Are we Dunn?

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Indiana Territory. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071102122109/http://www.americanheritage.com:80/articles/magazine/ah/1960/1/1960_1_28.shtml to http://www.americanheritage.com/articles/magazine/ah/1960/1/1960_1_28.shtml
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:48, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Indiana Territory. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080619173825/http://www.in.gov/history/6874.htm to http://www.in.gov/history/6874.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080619173825/http://www.in.gov/history/6874.htm to http://www.in.gov/history/6874.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:46, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Indiana Territory. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080619174831/http://www.in.gov/history/6214.htm to http://www.in.gov/history/6214.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:58, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: References section was out of date/incomplete; updated. Rosalina523 (talk) 16:23, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: References

message: Just as a casual reader, it seems odd to me that the "History" section comes after the list of officials and political issues.  It's a little jarring to read how the territory was formed after I've already been through the previous sections.  Would anyone oppose an effort to re-order the main sections?  I'd like to move the history to the top, and maybe incorporate the Geographical Boundaries as a sub-section.  That would give more context to Wikipedia readers when they get to the sections on government, elected officials, and political issues. Canute (talk) 14:19, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. I looked at several other U.S. territory articles, and they all have the history at the beginning of the article. Indyguy (talk) 14:38, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section order