Talk:Treaty of Hopewell

message: The article omitted 2 of the 13 clauses of the treaty, and they were two clauses that benefited the Cherokee (the return of Indians held prisoner and the right to send a delegate to Congress.Poldy Bloom (talk) 23:13, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Clauses/Provisions of the Treaty

message: I changed "Colonials" to "whites" because in 1785 the US was an independent country and thus the inhabitants were not colonists.
:You missed the forest for the trees: we were colonizing Native American lands, a process that continued for a century after Hopewell. Sbalfour (talk) 16:59, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: A lot of tertiary sources repeat the folklore, and the  tag could as easily be fixed by choosing one of them.  However, I am unable to locate any authority (Clark, Harrison, Klotter) who can validate the folklore. In fact, a Cherokee chief Sequoyah, while attempting to invent a written language for the Cherokee in 1821, called his written syllabalary, talking leaves. That's way after the Treaty of Hopewell. The phrase is evocative, but until there's a colonial source, I think we ought leave it out at least with respect to this treaty. Sbalfour (talk) 18:12, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Talking leaves 

message: The gist of these treaties was the definition of boundary lines to reduce conflict between the tribes and colonists. A recitation of the treaty language in colonial terms for the Cherokee treaty is unenlightening.
A valuable addition to the article would be a vernacular description of the boundaries. The bullet point format for each of the treaties is at once, too much and too little. Most of the terms (perpetual friendship?) are meh. Boundary definition is so vague as to be useless. I'd suggest deleting the bullet lists, and adopting a narrative that emphasizes what matters about them. Sbalfour (talk) 18:21, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Partly done, though I've added to the incomprehensible verbiage with the boundary sections from the Choctaw and Chickasaw treaties to balance   the article. Sbalfour (talk) 22:53, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  The gist of these treaties 

message: All or nearly all treaty articles have the form Treaty of <place name> or Treaty with <sovereign>.  We don't say Two treaties of Fort Stanwix or  Five treaties with the five nations. Starting the article name with a number is an irksome inconsistency. I propose dropping the number from the article title, so that the title is Treaties of Hopewell. Sbalfour (talk) 15:59, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Moved to Treaty of Hopewell. However, I note that the page has previously been titled Treaty of Hopewell as well as Hopewell Treaty, Hopewell Treaties, Treaties of Hopewell and now, Three Treaties of Hopewell.  I've fixed up the few links that did NOT point to the page's original and longstanding name, Treaty of Hopewell, so that the other 4 redirect pages are moot, and can and should be deleted and somehow marked so we don't keep creating and recreating them. There's no need to keep trivially shifting this page around. Sbalfour (talk) 19:40, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Article title

message: The most useful addition to the article would be a set of 3 maps, possibly superimposed in one image, illustrating the old boundaries, the new boundaries, and coloring in any ceded lands.
Along with that a simple textual description which is usually something like "between some river and some other river" or other landmark, like a previous treaty boundary or a colonial charter boundary line of a colony. Sbalfour (talk) 19:56, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need a map