Jump to content

Talk:Indian Territory in the American Civil War

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is a anachronistic title (Requested Move)

[edit]

Since the concept of "Oklahoma" didn't even exist until the 1890's, it's pretty ridiculous to use the name in reference to an event in the past. It's equivalent to "USSR in the Napoleonic Wars" or "Czech Republic in WWII". Meaningless. I'm requesting a move to "Indian Territory in the American Civil War" which is currently protected for some reason. BusterD (talk) 09:08, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose How many would know it was the Indian Territory back in the day? Oklahoma has been a term used for most of the time after 1865, and makes the information easier to find. It also keeps a consistent pattern of "STATE in the American Civil War".--King Bedford I Seek his grace 11:09, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirects are cheap. A consistent pattern would label territories as such, and redirect state labels to the correct page. This isn't about what's expedient; this is about what's encyclopedic. When I requested the page, I specifically requested Indian Territory in the ACW. As to other territories, my suggestion is that if the territory became a state before or during the war, the article should be titled STATE in the ACW. If the territory became a state long after the ACW, then the place name used during the war is most appropriate. I certainly didn't intend to insult you as using "nonsense," but instead was pointing out the anachronism. I'm very happy if you can get a few extra DYK's out of your (often superhuman) efforts in this process, but I'd like to hear what someone besides the article requester and the article creator have to say. BusterD (talk) 11:56, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I should also add we now are getting a few CITY in the ACW articles as well, so there's zero reason we couldn't have TERRITORY in the ACW articles as well. BusterD (talk) 11:58, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We've had the cities for a while now. (I might do Lexington, as it was the home of John Hunt Morgan and Mary Todd Lincoln.) Cities are not the same as states, and they have their own ACW template.--King Bedford I Seek his grace 12:08, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am asserting that territories are also not the same as states. Find me a single use of the term Oklahoma in the Official Records, Battles and Leaders, or Southern Historical Society papers. BusterD (talk) 12:15, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the Oklahoma article, the name was first proposed for the area in 1866 by a Choctaw chief (Oklahoma means "Red people" in Choctaw). So it isn't that anachronistic. You'll also note that I always referred toi the land as the territory, and never called it Oklahoma in the main prose.--King Bedford I Seek his grace 12:39, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
An article about Junipero Serra should say he lived in Alta Mexico not the U.S. state of California because the latter entity did not exist at the time of Junipero Serra. The Romans invaded Gaul, not France, and Thabo Mbeki is the president of the Republic of South Africa, not of the Cape Colony.
But also keep the Oklahoma redirect, and make it clear in the lead that the Indian Territory is now the U.S. state of Oklahoma.--Orlady (talk) 14:48, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move per WP:MOSPN. I've watched enough Civil War documentaries to know that Oklahoma's role in the conflict is always referred to under the heading of "Indian Territory", and that's simply because Oklahoma didn't exist in the 1860s. The pattern of "State in the American Civil War" exists because other states existed at the time of the conflict, or existed as territories under the same name. Unlike those instances, Oklahoma is not the continuation of "Indian Territory," which was not an organized Territory but an unorganized area designated for Native Americans. Thus, the entity that was to become the state of Oklahoma did not exist in any form during this conflict. This is an open and shut case; I propose that someone go ahead and move the article now. Okiefromokla questions? 15:50, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On the other hand, I'd like to thank Bedford for creating this article. Okiefromokla questions? 15:58, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ringing endorsement of this last. Bedford has certainly created quality pagespace upon which to build further. This could be a very good article of type, since the area was well involved in the conflict. BusterD (talk) 17:31, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moved and improved

[edit]

Alright, I moved it per consensus here and MOS guidelines. I also took the liberty of doing some fairly extensive work on the article. Thanks again to Bedford for the great start. Okiefromokla questions? 17:56, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome; you can take it from here.--King Bedford I Seek his grace 19:28, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Indian Territory in the American Civil War. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:56, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The map is labeled "Map of the Confederate States, including the Union-aligned border states [...]." with border states Missouri and Kentucky, which never joined the Confederacy, undifferentiated from the actual states of the Confederacy. The map is incorrectly drawn, and the label "Map of the Confederate States, including the Union-aligned border states" is a completely contradictory nonsequitur. If a state remained aligned with the Union, it wasn't a Confederate state, pure and simple. 99.111.255.214 (talk) 18:42, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Indian_Territory_in_the_American_Civil_War&oldid=1207710865"