Talk:John Gibson (American soldier)

Bad sources...

Some of the John Gibson information is derived from the historical fiction writings of A.W. Eckert. This should be removed and more reliable sources found. TruthBastion (talk) 23:50, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I beleive I have removed the content in question, thank you for pointing that out. The majority of this article is sourced from Woollen and Gugin, which are qutie reliable. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 12:31, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Still bad sources...

Any content that mentions Koonay is pure Eckert, or quoted or paraphrased from Eckert. Likewise the inclusion of Jacob Greathouse as a co-ringleader of the massacre is a modern fiction. Gibson was captured and adopted by Delaware, not Mingo Indians. I have never seen a period document that cites him as living in "southwest Virginia" during his captivity, which is made more unlikely by his being an adopted Delaware. There is a better bio of him, though a bit cleansed, in the biography of his nephew, John Bannister Gibson. The family did not want to acknowledge his Indian country wife and child. There is some better correspondence between he (JBG) and Draper about his uncle, though it is I believe still unpublished, and I suppose not any good for Wiki. TruthBastion (talk) 07:25, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Gugin states that Gibson's wife was killed in a massacre by white settlers, but give no names. It says his wife was the sister of Chief Logan, but mentions nothing about their children. It also reads like he abandoned his wife and returned to trading, it it was in that period that his wife was killed in a massacre by settlers. I think the article should at minimum reflect that. You are discounting Gugin as a poor source. Why? Do you believe that the Indiana Historical Society is not reliable? It seems to be acceptable by the standards of WP:RS. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 14:17, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I think you should find a better source or sources than Gugin. First, if you check the Wiki entry for Logan, in the discussion section, you will see that he was not a chief, so calling him "chief Logan" just perpetuates that myth. I have no idea where the "abandonded" his wife part comes from. See Rev. David McClure's diary for brief discussion of Gibson's relationship with his Indian wife, likewise missionary John Lacey in 1773. Gibson's wife was not Logan's biological sister, all of whom in 1774 were either dead or likely past child bearing age. This is an Iroquois kinship term. The other woman who died in the massacre is called his "mother", again a kinship term, as the Moravian records are clear on Logan's mother passing away in the 1740's. All close female relatives on your mother's side, such as aunts and cousins could be called mother or sister. I would rather see nothing mentioned about the "sister" if the other choice is modern myths by researchers who did not dig deep enough. TruthBastion (talk) 15:15, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I have to disagree here a bit. First, as it is now this paragraph has no reference at all, and is entirely Oringal research, as far as I can tell.

On April 30, 1774, a group of Virginia frontiersmen led by Daniel Greathouse murdered a number of Mingos, among them Gibson's wife, who was pregnant and caring for their infant daughter. These Mingo had been living near the mouth of Yellow Creek, and had been lured to the cabin of Joshua Baker, a settler and rum trader who lived across the Ohio River from their village. The Natives in Baker’s cabin were all murdered, except for Gibson's infant child, who was spared with the intention of giving her to her father. At least two canoes were dispatched from the Yellow Creek village, but they were repelled by Greathouse’s men concealed along the river. In all, approximately a dozen were murdered in the cabin and on the river.

Additionally, using diaries and memiors are Primary sources and their use is discouraged. Gugin is a good and reliable source, a product and numerous editors at the Indiana Historical Society and offer a well rounded look at Gibson's life. And given that is is less than three years old, it is probably the most recent book published about Gibson. Also, while I understand that sister had different meanings, in the source Gugin, the term sister is used and no other context is given. Woollen uses the same term. Unless you have a source that says otherwise, I suggest we just leave it "relative", and footnote "sister". You have also removed my statement that Gibson returned to trading, and was away while the massacre happened, which leave the reader wondering why Gibson lived, but his wife died. (This fact is suppoted by Gugin) You also have to leave in that Gibson was on the British side of the war, otherwise is not really clear, because why would he take the side of the murderers of his wife? While I do not have a source that shows you are wrong in what you are saying, I do have two sources to show what I am saying is correct. I have removed the information sourced from Ekart and reverte the article back to its state before those additions were made. At that time, the entire article was sourced from Woollen and Gugin. Woollen can be read online for verification, and I have Gugin available to me. Could you please add sources to the article to substantiate the paragraph of information you added that is above? I would like to be able to remove the accuracy tag from the article. Could you also please provide specific examples of what is currently in the article that is innacurate, and provide a source to show that is. Then we can try to resolve and descrepanies between the two sources currently used, and your new source. Thanks. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 15:31, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Gugin is not a good source. Gibson was an Indian trader. Like most traders, he had an Indian "wife" for companionship and defense while in Indian country. This did not mean he had a house and household with her, it means he slept with her when he was passing through and enjoyed the protection being married to a prominent leader's relative offered. Gibson's home and business were back in the Pittsburgh area. Gibson never lived at the Yellow Creek camp, he was not "away on business", he just plain did not live there. To state he was "away" when the massacre occurred is to imply he lived there. I don't know what you mean by the "British" side in the war? We, that is all "Americans" were British at the time. The American Revolution was still a year off. Gibson supported Lord Dunmore, the Royal Governor of Virginia, and his country, Great Britain, not "the murderers of his wife". And if you check, he did indeed however work side by side with those murderers while under Dunmore and does not appear to have been greatly bothered by her loss. You also reincluded the false information that he was captured by Mingo and lived in Virginia. And now you have included he spoke their language. If you don't like my rewrite, fine. But if you don't take out the error filled information you obtained from Gugin, I likely will. Find some other sources. Are those really the only two books you can find? Your sources are bad, no matter who wrote them. TruthBastion (talk) 19:51, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Again, I do not disagree with you that you may be correct in what you are saying. I am asking you, do you have a source for it. A book, a website? Something where what you are saying can be verified? I have two sources for what I am saying, and what is in the article. Can you please direct me to where I can confirm what you are adding, and properly reference it within the article? You are discounting Gugin as a poor source. Why? Do you believe that the Indiana Historical Society is not reliable? It seems to be acceptable by the standards of WP:RS. Also, In Lord Dunmore's War he was on the British side - American Independence was still years off. Woollen and Gugin both include information saying he was captured while trading on the frontier during Pontiac's Rebellion, and lived among them for years. It was in that time he married Logan's sister.. After time he resumed trading.. etc. Again, please just provide a source for you statements that way we can try and resolve the discrepancies. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 20:07, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I will try and direct you to better sources. And yes, if you are getting this information from Gugin, then in this particular case, Gugin is not reliable. Surely you are aware that even the best researchers and historians occasionally get sloppy, lazy, or make poor choices of source material? And no, I don't believe that being published by the Indiana Historical Society makes the writing or research behind it sacrosanct. Second, as I already tried to explain, yes Gibson, like Lord Dunmore and George Washington for that matter, was British. He did not side with "them", he was "them". I still don't understand what point you are trying to make about the "British", when all of the whites involved were British. Yes, Gibson was captured with other traders during Pontiac's Rebellion. He was not however captured by the Mingo or Logan. He was captured by Delaware Indians and adopted into the family of Neolin, the Delaware prophet. For news of his actual capture, see The Wilderness Trail By Charles Augustus Hanna, page 370. A speech given by Shawnee Indians in 1763 included the information, "Mr. [John] Baird and [John] Gibson were taken by the Delaware Indian called Sir William Johnson, [White Eyes] and his people at the Muskingum Town..." Please consult "The Tuscarawas Valley in Indian Days, by Russel H. Booth Jr. He quotes the Rev. Charles Beatty on his contact with Gibson and Neolin in 1766 and describes Gibson as being a trader "...who was taken prisoner in the late war, by the Indians, given to this Neolin, and adopted into his family." See Wiki on Neolin for who he was. It was not until some point after this that Gibson took a Mingo wife, and he may well have had a Delaware or Shawnee "wife" as well. Unpublished confirmation of some of this can also be found in the Draper interviews with Gibson's nephew, John Bannister Gibson. The first mention of any Indian wife comes from a 1772 entry in the Diary of David McClure, edited by Franklin B. Dexter and published by the Knickerbocker Press, "The greater part of the Indian traders keep a squaw, & some of them a white woman as a temporary wife. Was sorry to find friend Gibson in the habit of the first. They allege the good policy of it, as necessary to a successful trade." The first time a wife is mentioned as being related to Logan is a year later in 1773 in some of the Quaker diaries which are published in various sources. Since he was captured by and adopted by Delaware Indians, it is not likely he took a Mingo wife until after he returned to trading, when McClure's comments, likely a quote from Gibson himself, make sense. Logan himself did not live in the Ohio Country until after Pontiac's was over. What do Gugin's and Woollen's footnotes reveal their sources to be for information on Gibson? As for my description of the events across from Yellow Creek, it is a compilation from Jefferson's Notes, which include depositions from various parties, including some of the actual killers, associated with the Yellow Creek Massacre. I don't know what Gugin's sources were for that period of Gibson's life. Are they footnoted? TruthBastion (talk) 03:27, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

In regards to Gugin, I am aware that historians make mistakes and that might well be the case - but unless another source shows that what is in Gugin is a mistake, as far as wikipedia goes, you can only say what a source says. (Check out WP:VERIFIABILITY for more info on that.) Gugin indicates that he was captured by the Lenape, and through living with them he came into regular contact with the Mingo and Logan. I don't see how this conflicts with your points.

As for explaining he was on the British side, as the article reads - he was captured by Indians, lived among them some time and apparently became their freinds, married one of them, had children among them, then his wife and child is murdered by settlers, and then he fights in Lord Dunmore's War. Unless you say he is on the British\American side, following that track of thought, it is not obvious to the reader that he was. Unless you don't come right out and say which side he was on, an uniformed reader coudl easily think he was fighting with the Indians against the British. If we put in, to make clear, that he "had returned and was living in Fort Pitt when hosilities broke out and joined Lord Dunmore's army", that would also be acceptable.

Gugin is not footnoted but provides a list of general references. Woollen is not footnoted either, but it is based in large part on first hand accounts from diaries. You can read it here [1]. (If he lived with Neolin, that would be a great thing to add to the article, since that gives another tie Tecumseh's War, seeing that Tecumseh's Confederacy had their religous beleifs based on Neolin's teachings. And Gibson being Harrison's agent in many of their meetings is an interesting twist - maybe that is where Harrison got information he used to refute Tecumseh in their meeings?)

In Woollen, It says he returned to Fort Pitt from living with the Indians sometime before 1774. In it, the lady is refered to as "Gibson's Squaw" and would fit with what you say, that she was an expedient for trading - but it does not come right out and say that. I suppose we could read between the lines, right? That would also fit with what Gugin says, which indicates he married her, lived with her some time, then left her to move back to Fort Pitt, and only saw her occasionally.

So the timeline looks like this to me - 1. He was captured and adopted by Lenape during Pontiac's Rebellion (c. 1765) 2. Lived with them awhile and became aquainted with the Mingo. (Before 1770) 3. Met and married a sister (relative) of Logan. (Before 1770) 4. Returned to Fort Pitt and resumed his trading buisness (c. 1770). 5. His squaq\wife and others are killed by settlers. (1773) 6. Hostilities break out, he joins Lord Dunmore's war and is used as a translator by Dunmore. (1774) It seems that decade of time is is were our contention appears to be. Is life is much more documented after the Revolutionary war begins.

Is that how you see it? If so, could we say, that "he married a relative of Logan, gaining his protection." "Returned to Fort Pitt to live and resume his trade as a merchant between the British and the Indians." Then "His squaw and other Mingo were murdered by settlers as tensions rose on the frontier." After hostilities broke out, he "Joined the army that countered the Indian attacks during Lord Dunmore's War and served as an interpreter to Dunmore." I think those things would clear up my problems with the paragraph. Of course we could copy edit that to read well. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 12:55, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

You can call the statements about Koonay "pure Eckert", however, we can site the letter of William Crawford to George Washington that clearly states that a child taken from the Yellow Creek Massacre is the daughter of John Gibson. Also, I take issue with the racists and judgemental calling of the lady as Gibson's "country wife". This is the United States, not Colonial French Africa, and the general treatment of Native American wives is as full wives, and not as "country wives" who get abandoned at some point. On the same note, I think we need to avoid such weighted terms as "his squaw". We should say "his wife".Johnpacklambert (talk) 19:27, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

TruthBastion, your views on the Indian wives are not based on fact. Go read the book Many Tender Ties. Whatever else being a wife of a trader meant, they did establish a joint household. Also, the question with the mentioned diary is not so much "is it a primary source" but, has it been published. If it has been published, especially in an edited edition, that moves it into the established body of knowledge.Johnpacklambert (talk) 19:32, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Johnpacklambert, your issue is not with me, but historical fact. FIrst, I clearly stated that the child who survived the massacre was Gibson's. The name "Koonay" appears, as stated, to have been first used in print by Eckert. Second, if you check WIki's own definition of "country wife", you will see that I have used it entirely within context of Indian trader's common law wives. I don't know where you got "Colonial French Africa" from. The term is common among among 18th century American frontier historians. As for trader's wives being "full wives", perhaps in some cases this may well have been true. But for Gibson, he served with her killers during Dunmore's and after, and never denounced them or their act that I ever found. He had his Indian child cared for and raised by others, but he went on to have a White family, and she disappears from the historical record. Check out the life of William Conner, another Indian trader with a Native family who put them on the boat west during removal, waved goodbye and then shortly after married a white woman and raised another family. Check also John Anderson, another Fort Pitt trader, who also moved on after he left the Indian trade, leaving his Indian family in the west. His son William Anderson was a Delaware chief. If you want to hold to romantic notions of true love on the frontier, fine. But there are plenty of traders who did just as McClure, (not TruthBastion), stated in the period, and kept Native wives for economic and security issues, not as permanent soul mates. TruthBastion (talk) 21:31, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

And another thing, I resent the charge of being "racists and judgemental". Exactly how is acknowledging that during the 18th century some white men exploited relationships with Native women for economic gain, "racist", and more importantly, who is it being racist against, white folks? Would acknowledging that during the 18th century some white men exploited Africans for economic gain also be racist? Are all historians who acknowledge slavery existed then "racists and judgemental" as well? Check out the published diary of Nicholas Cresswell for a first hand account of exactly how easy it was to acquire a Native companion for a first time "trader" in the Ohio Country, (one who also left her and returned to England when he was done). You might also want to check the life of Richard Butler, Indian trader, agent and American general, who also had an Indian family, yet jettisoned them after he left the Indian trade and had a second white wife and family. John Johnston, the Indian agent, reported that one of the Indians suspected of having killed Butler at St. Clair's defeat was none other than Butler's own Indian son. How is that for a tender tie? And for the record, when the specific incident of Gibson and his "wife" took place, there was no "United States". Because the author of "Many Tender Ties" found loving relationships between some traders and their Native wives, does not mean that ALL did, especially when period evidence clearly shows otherwise. Accusations of racism because you don't like the notion that some Indian traders did not have a "full" relationship, or "joint household", with their Indian "wives" is a pretty cheap shot. TruthBastion (talk) 13:50, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I think the real problem here is, does a reliable, published, non-primary, third party source exist that says that Gibson's "marriage" to the Mingo woman intended by Gibson to be something to gain him protection on the frontier, and enhance his ability to trade? WP:RS is pretty clear here about what is an acceptable source for this kind of thing. We really do need a source that says the above, in order to add it to the article. So far, the sources we have do not rule out this possibility, but they don't say it either. We can't use "because person A. had a "country wife" and person B had a "country wife", therfore Gibsons had a country wife. And we can't use the diary of a person to establish a fact unless it is published and put into context by a historian, unless it is Gibson's own diary. We can say, according to "person C's diary account" Gibson had a "country wife". The problem in my reasoning is, he seemed to have married the girl while he was still living with the Indians and did not leave to return to trading until some time later. Which indicates, to me, that his reason for marrying her at that time may not have been soley related to trading. He also, from what I can tell, did not marry again until after her death - which at least indicates some sort of moral obligation to her. (But this is all just original research, and worthless without a source). The source provided below by Kevin Meyers also seems to follow the same though as Gugin and Woollen - which omits any information about her being a "country wife" to enhance his trading ability. It also describes her as a sister or sister-in-law of Logan. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 14:18, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

First off, the term Country Wife is loaded, and I think we should refrain from using it. Secondly, was Gibson's relationship with his Mingo wife and less "common law" than any other relationship held between a Mingo women and a man? Thirdly, I still say you need to go read Many Tender Ties, and do not say I am clinging to some romantic notion. There is a big difference between just sleeping with a women and what the relationship between traders and their Indian wives was. There was also a lot of open sexual contact between traders and Native women, and the book Many Tender Ties fully admits this, but the relationships such as those between John Gibson and his Mingo wife are deeper than that. My reaction is mainly against claims such as "they did not set up house".Johnpacklambert (talk) 19:43, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

The fact of the matter is that there are several historical relationships people engaged in. A question to ask is, Are McClure's objections to Gibson's actions based on racial or moral issues? The clearest thing that the McClure quote, which has been printed in a 3rd party source, is that Gibson openly acknoledged his relationship with his Mingo wife. He was open about it, however much his nephews and their descendants sought to obscure its existence in the 19th Century. My comments about French West Africa come from the fact that there was a long history of French traders abandoning their wives when called home. This also existed in parts of Northern Mexico with American mining engineers, and in the latter case the marriages had been fully solemnized, generally in the Catholic Church, so in cases like this even the full solemnization of a marriage does not fully explain waht is going on.Johnpacklambert (talk) 19:43, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Charles Edward has a good point about Gibson not marrying anyone else while his Mingo wife lived. The situation is even more difficult since I have not yet been able to find any evidence that Gibson ever married anyone else. This is a worthwhile avenue to explore. The facts of what other men did in no way justifies your assuming that that defines the relationship of Gibson with his wife. You have to focus on the facts at hand, which is much more the McClure quote, which remains by far the best statement related to the actual relationsip between Gibson and his wife. Anyway, as I thought I made clear, I reject loaded terms, especially the throuwing out of the term "squaw". Gibson is not a man who had two families at once, he saw to the education of his daughter who survived the massacre, and I can go on. In general, with the revisions based on the information that originates with McClure the article itself has been reactified.Johnpacklambert (talk) 19:43, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Changes

I removed some of the fictional elements, but John Gibson still needs help from some better sources. TruthBastion (talk) 06:39, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Gibson and wife at Logstown

The issue of who Gibson's Indian wife was in complexed. However, the fact that he had such a wife is easier to demonstrate. The source for this I will use for now is Charles Augustus Hanna The Wilderness Trail (1911) Vol. 1, p. 380. He cites David McClure as a source, and also references Pennsylvania Archives 4, 199. This author expresses the view that Gibson's wife was the "sister-in-law" of Logan.Johnpacklambert (talk) 19:41, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Interesting, that Hanna is the source for Gibson being captured by the Delaware. I think we need to rethink the phrasing connected with his marriage to the Mingo lady. The fact of the matter is that everyone agrees that Gibson's wife was Mingo. At least every source that I have seen. That Hanna both says that Gibson's wife was Mingo and that he was among the Delware as a captive suggests to me that these are flasely linked items. It apprears that Gibson's relations with the Mingo lady began AFTER his return to trading. I will re-write the article to reflect this fact, which is also supported by the view of Crawford expressed in his letter to Washington, which has been published, that the child was two months old. Wheather he was right or wrong on the child's age, there are multiple statements that it was John Gibson's child and his Indian wife being connected with his trading is the general view of the matter.Johnpacklambert (talk) 19:53, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Gibson in lore, legend and fiction

While I probably was too quick to believe the factual basis of Eckert's writting, the fact that he has made Gibson one of the top ten chracters in That Dark and Bloody River, however factual that may be, maybe should be mentioned. However, Eckert is not the only one who loves to spin tales of Gibson. Chronicles of Border Warfare, p. 78-79 tell a tale of Gibson commanding a detachment of soldiers from Ft. Pitt in 1758 and killing a Mingo leader then. The notes in the 1895 version by Withers, Thwaites and Draper, I am guessing Thwaites and Draper edited the first text by Withers, point out that this story is pure fiction because the Brithish did not even take command of Fort Pitt until after Gibson was said to have lead a detachment from it. There are other points in the story that make some of its inferences even less likely to be true, and it is possible there is no basis in fact in the story, or if there is times, dates and who knows what else are wrong. My point in bringing it up is that John Gibson is a popular person to stick in stories, a man who fact and fiction almost blend in. We may want to create an "in literature" or similar section to deal with that.Johnpacklambert (talk) 20:14, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Why the article is lacking in John Gibson's Pennsylvania history

I think the main reason for this lack of focus on John Gibson's Pennsylvania history, including his Indian trading role, his role as a signer of the Delware Treaty of I think 1788 and so on is that this article was written about John Gibson the Indiana Territorial Secretary. His activities prior to his apointment there are treated as secondary and mentioned as after thoughts. We need to work to dig up materials not produced in Indiana that will give us good views of what he did during the Revolutionary War.Johnpacklambert (talk) 20:17, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Along those same lines, we should consider whether "John Gibson (Indiana)" is really the right name for the article. I've always thought it a bit off, since for most of his life he was a Pennsylvanian.

The only full biography of Gibson appears to be Charles William Hanko, The Life of John Gibson, Soldier, Patriot, Statesman (Daytona Beach: College Publishing Co., 1955). I haven't gotten ahold of it, but it may be useful.

As for scholarly encyclopedias, Gibson did not rate an entry in the modern American National Biography, but he does have an entry in the older Dictonary of American Biography. That entry, mislabeled and perhaps in violation of copyright, is online here. —Kevin Myers 22:31, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

You are correct about Indiana being the focus of this article. I wrote most of it as part of a series of expansions on the articles on the Governors of Indiana and the Indiana Territory. Gibson was acting governor of the territory on two occasions, totaling over a year. I also expanded it a bit when I did some work on the Battle of Tippecanoe related articles. Any ommission of information, or inaccuracy on my part, I do apologize for, but his early life just seems to lack much on sources, as far as I could tell. I would love to find some, as he one of the only Governor of Indiana articles I have not been able to raise to B quality. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 00:13, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Country Wife/Romantic Notions About Fur Traders

Noun country wife (plural country wives) (Canadian, historical) A fur trader's First Nations or Métis common-law wife. References “country wife” in the Canadian Oxford Dictionary, Second Edition, Oxford University Press, 2004.

"First off, the term Country Wife is loaded, and I think we should refrain from using it. Secondly, was Gibson's relationship with his Mingo wife and less "common law" than any other relationship held between a Mingo women and a man? Thirdly, I still say you need to go read Many Tender Ties, and do not say I am clinging to some romantic notion. There is a big difference between just sleeping with a women and what the relationship between traders and their Indian wives was. There was also a lot of open sexual contact between traders and Native women, and the book Many Tender Ties fully admits this, but the relationships such as those between John Gibson and his Mingo wife are deeper than that. My reaction is mainly against claims such as "they did not set up house".Johnpacklambert (talk) 19:43, 8 August 2009 (UTC)"

I am not sure if you are trying to be funny, or simply can't admit you are ever wrong. Near as I can tell, you are the only person who has ever claimed the term "country wife" is "loaded". It is a common term used among historians, and perhaps more humorous, when I read through "Many Tender Ties", I found it laced with the same term, over and over. So the very author you are so fond of citing for your opinions, clearly must also have found no problem with it.

"There was also a lot of open sexual contact between traders and Native women, and the book Many Tender Ties fully admits this, but the relationships such as those between John Gibson and his Mingo wife are deeper than that."

Could you please site the historical evidence for this "deeper" relationship that John Gibson had for his Mingo country wife? I assume since you make that claim, you have found some reference that has evaded me all of these years. I can find only the following: She appears to have popped up in the historical record in 1772. She is dead by the spring of 1774. No one ever bothered to record her name. She was pregnant, and had a several month old child with her, in the spring of 1774. If both children were fathered by Gibson, we know he had slept with her at twice in the previous year. He is never recorded as condemning the murderers. He is never recorded as taking any personal revenge for the murders. He worked for Lord Dunmore, and against the Mingo and Shawnee within months of the massacre. He did have the child who survived the massacre raised and educated. She disappears from the historical record. He married a white woman after the Revolution and had another daughter with her. They are buried together in Pittsburgh, the Indian daughter is not. John Sappington, one of the killers at Baker's, who at minimum killed John Petty, Logan's brother, states he knew and served under Gibson in the Revolutionary War, practically as a character reference for himself. That is what I know. Can you point out to me where to find the evidence of this "deeper" relationship you claim Gibson had with her? I can't deduct one from his behavior before or after the massacre. The only historical evidence of any relationship I can find is that she was considered his "wife", and they had sex at least twice. I assume that by "deeper", you mean something more than the Ohio Country traders I already cited who had Indian families that they left behind when they were done trading? And the proof that she and Gibson "set up house" together? According to the diary of John Parrish, Gibson was living at Logstown in 1773, and she was living at the mouth of Beaver Creek with Logan. In 1774, Gibson's house was still recorded at Logstown, but she was living at a Mingo village at the mouth of Yellow Creek. If you check a map, you will see it must have been a mighty big house if they were under one roof. You provide the references for the "deeper" relationship, and I will gladly retract my claim that you are clinging to some romantic notions about Gibson and his country wife. Deal? And how about you throw in a retraction on your accusation of racism against me as well? TruthBastion (talk) 06:52, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Please, lets Assume Good Faith, and keep things Civil. It is really this simple, we have to have a published third party source for this stuff specifically, or a first hand account from Gibson. We cannot use Original Research. According to WP:RS, that is the only way we can put anything into this article. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 19:04, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

It is hard to assume good faith when someone makes false claims of racism and this other nonsense, all because they don't appear to like open discussion of historical fact that contradicts their preconceived notions, or to be pointed out as being incorrect on occasion. It sure appears to be a case of if you can't counter the argument, attack the messenger and change the subject. All I have done is ask for proof of claims and a retraction of false accusations. I don't believe that is un-civil, if your statement was aimed at me. I am really not here to debate someone who thinks they can tell from scant historical evidence a deep level of love between two long dead individuals who left no love letters, no eyewitness accounts of affection, no record at all of whether they shared some deep bond of love or merely some blankets and fluids on occasion. Can't we stick to historical fact and leave the romance to fiction writers like Eckert? If we are forced to choose between conflicting third party accounts that I believe we can all agree are of limited value, or original research we can't use, is there a precedent for merely acknowledging in Wiki that a topic is so hopelessly mired that there are no reliable, non debateable, accounts of his life during his period as an Indian trader, and wait until there is, hopefully, one day, to fill in the blanks? I personally would rather see no entry, than information I know is either misleading, incorrect or likely to eventually proven to be so. TruthBastion (talk) 21:40, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

You are exactly right, whatever cannot be established in third party sources needs to be culled from the article so the factual accuracy tag can be removed. Its verifiability that counts on Wikipedia - not accuracy (because that is subjective), although it is desirable.

• Here is the direct quote from Gugin, 2006, p. 29 - "Gibson has been a trader for several years in southwest Virgina—learning their language and customer—after his capture and near execution. He was about to be burned at the stake, along with several other white men, when an old squaw intervened on his behalf and promptly adopted him. Gibson was also married for a time to a sister of Logan, the renowned Mingo chief, but eventually left his life with the tribe and his wife to resume his business as a trader." The footnoted references are Frontier Indiana, 1996 by Andrew R.L. Cayton, National Cyclopedia of American Biography, 1906, and Biographical and Historical Sketches of Early Indiana, 1975 W.W. Woollen. The author of the chapter on Gibson is John R. Bierly, and the editor is Gugin. Now, while this does not rule out anything mention above, it does not mention or elude to it either.

• Woollen does slightly elude to it, if you read between the lines somewhat and take a little liberty. He says on page 11, [2] "During his residence [with the Mingo] he maintained conjugal relations with a sister of Logan." A little futher down, "The life he lead among the Indians did not suit Gibson, and he determined to abandon it." Which again give the impression that at first, when he married "Logan's sister" he intended to remain living with the tribe, not to return to trading. It also says his wife was known as "Gibson's Squaw" and was killed by the Greathouse family. It also indicates that Gibson blamed Col. Crespat for the massacre and did attempt to bring him to justice, but it was Logan who exonerated Crespate two years later (Woollen, p. 12).

• The Encyploedia of American Biography, as noted above says [3] Some of the captives were put to death, but Gibson is said to have been saved, Pocahontas fashion, by an Indian squaw, and carried as a prisoner to the Great Kanawha River in southwest Virginia. During the year spent as a captive he was given the sobriquet "Horse-head." He may also have acquired an Indian wife, described as a sister or sister-in-law of Logan, the Mingo warrior. When Col. Bouquet secured his release in 1764 Gibson once more returned to Fort Pitt to engage in the Indian trade. Which again indicates his relation with the Mingo girl was not trade related at the time of its conception, but again taking the liberty of reading between the lines one could assume it became that.

In my opinion, adding information along that line of what Gugin says would be ok. We could then add anything additional to it as new sources can be located. Gibson's relation with the Mingo girl is pretty obscure really, and none of those three sources elude to him having children with her. Obviously he married (in some fashion) and spent time with her and had a household with her during his time as a prisoner, later he left her and returned to trading. It is really hard to say what his motivation in it all was, since there appears to be no personal account of it, and none of the sources I have makes speculations at it either. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 03:08, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Factual accuracy tag

As we have thus far been able to find any reliable source that contradicts the information as it is currently in the article, I propose we removed the factual accuracy tag. If anyone remains objected to this, could you please give a specific quote from the article that is inaccurate, and provided a source to show that it is innacurate. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 17:43, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

No objection from me. 174.100.54.60 (talk) 18:47, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Why does it say he had no children?

There are at least some sources that state he had a daughter by his Mingo wife. Even if this is not provable, it seems there is not consensus that he had no children. To make things more fun the article on William Harvey Gibson says that he is a grandson of this John Gibson. That would require Gibson to have had a son that was born, or his daughter to marry a Gibson, either of which are possible, but it would help if there were more sources on the matter. That link maybe should go to a different John Gibson, I do not know. However it currently goes here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:48, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Probably the "none" under children in the infobox was just an editorial oversight, since the article mentions a daughter. I believe you are the only editor to cite Hanko's biography on Gibson. If you still have access to it, what does it say about children? —Kevin Myers 21:04, 5 April 2011 (UTC)