Jump to content

Talk:History of Indiana/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Clark

After Clark's further repulse of the British forces in Fort Detroit the whole of Indiana was secured for the United States in 1783. Clark received large swaths of land in southern Indiana for his services in the war and today Clark County is named for him. Clark never made it to Detroit. Everytime he tried, something went wrong. What does this paragraph refer to? Mingusboodle (talk) 20:43, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I was refering to the repusle of the forces sent FROM fort detriot. I will make that more clear-cool10191 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.38.8.229 (talk) 12:58, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Civil War

The Civil War section seems mostly to repeat the story of Morgan's Raid, which has it's own article. While that is an important story that belongs here, I think it could be better summarized, and the details left to the article about the raid. What that section could use more of is the impact the Civil War had on Indiana, in terms of demands on industry, agriculture, development, etc. I've read that nearly 200,000 hoosiers served in the War, which means they were gone from their homes, farms, jobs, etc. Nearly 25,000 never returned. That's probably the pivotal point that needs to be made. Mingusboodle (talk) 04:54, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree adding that would be good. I added most of the civil war section, marogan's raid and a few other things are all I am familair with. I know alot of what indiana regiments where in what battles and who and where they died and in what numbers, etc, imight be able to come up with something on that but will take a little research in my libary for precise numbers. Morgan's raid was really the most impacting part of the war on the state though. Indiana did not receive alot of demands on it's resources really, not compared the eastern states and even Ohio. New England, NY, and PA, bore the brunt of the war costs and supplying the army with men and supplies Cool10191 (talk) 14:46, 8 March 2008 (UTC).
I researched a little bit and added my findings into teh civil war section. I sperated off morgans raid to be a subsection of the civil war. Cool10191 (talk) 16:03, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

There is hardly nothing here

OMG! This is the history for the great state of Indiana.. Well I must do something about this.Cool10191 (talk) 16:34, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for getting it started! I'm not very good with writing prose, but I'm very willing to help write this article. Reywas92Talk 18:01, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
OK so I wrote - colonial period, indiana terrotiry, statehood, and civil war.. I don't know very much about modern indiana though.. lol But I have a good historical background now to build on. I will do some more research and work on it more, need some pictures tooCool10191 (talk) 20:15, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
One other thing, i said Indian and Indians alot.. lol I should probably say native american or whatever is PC. So anyone who wants can fix that to however they feel is apropriate. I justCool10191 (talk) 20:25, 5 March 2008 (UTC) always called them indians is all.
'Indian' is ok. 'American indian' is better. When possible, use the tribal name. Any term you use, however, will offend somebody, so don't sweat it. See Native American name controversy. Mingusboodle (talk) 20:37, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
I believe Tecumseh was a Pontiac, (not the car) i will look into it. -cool10191 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.38.8.229 (talk) 13:00, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok! We have done a great job improving this artcile. Offhand, I don't know much more than is already added, so I am going to move on to something new, i will ad more as i discover it. Thanks MingusboodleCool10191 (talk) 12:20, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

AD or CE? Style question

When stating dates on wikipedia is AD (Anno Domini) or CE (Common Era) preferred? Also is BC or BCE preferred for early period dates? Cool10191 (talk) 03:54, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

From what I can tell, there's no formal policy. Either is fine. If you want to see people whine about it, look at the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/BCE-CE Debate. Mingusboodle (talk) 18:26, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

World War Memorial

I added a link to the Indiana World War Memorial Plaza under the caption for the picture. However, it should be noted that it was originally a World War ONE memorial. Pershing laid the cornerstone in 1927, long before the attack on Pearl Harbor. Today it serves as a memorial to both World Wars, but we might want to reconsider the placement of the picture. Mingusboodle (talk) 00:08, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm ok with moving to the WW1 section. I placed there because I was thinking of it in the context of a general "War" memorial, rather than a specific war, but you are correct, it was WW1 oringaly. I will try to word that in. Charles Edward 03:17, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

FA Nomination

Do you think this article would pass the FA review? My concerns are the reference formatting; im not sure how to the fancier stuff I see on some other articles like meta:cite. I am also not sure about the "Stable" requirement since it is relatively new. But otherwise i think it would pass. Do you think we should work on it some more or try the FA review? I am going to submit for a peer review for now. Charles Edward 17:26, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I see that one of the things you're concerned about is length. Something we can do is edit down certain topics and rely on links to other articles to provide more specifics. For example, there's an article on Indiana in the American Civil War, so we can probably shorten that section (in this article) down to the bare bones and make sure all the relevant information is on the other article. This is a time-consuming approach, but I think it would give us a better result.
The other option is to split the article into separate pages, like Pre-State History of Indiana, Indiana in the 1800s, etc. I don't particularly like this option, but if we had to do it, we could. Mingusboodle (talk) 02:53, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
I like the shortening the civil war section idea. I think it probably has most room to have things taken out, especially since it has it's own articles. I will try work on that today.
For what it's worth, the History of Minnesota was the featured article for 11 May 2008. I looked it over to see how it compared. It was at least as long as this article. Mingusboodle (talk) 01:11, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
And it has a very similar layout, thats interesting. I can try to copy the way their references are formatted, but on retrieved dates for sites, and properly format the book references like they have them and ad ISBN numbers. I think that will get it to what we need for FA. Thanks Mingusboodle. Charles Edward 12:57, 11 May 2008 (UTC)


I've went through what the peer reviews suggested. I have converted all the references to citeweb and citebook to standardize their format. I also expanded referencing in the sections with only a few - I tried to get each paragraph to contain at least one footnote. I don't think an article can be "over-referenced". I've redid any formatting that did not comply with the MoS. I've also expanded the smaller sections somewhat and the twentieth century section looks pretty good now I think. The infobox on the hoosiers contributions in the wars where removed with the comment they where not Indiana specific, which is somewhat true, so I have not added them back. So.. I guess I will submit for an FAC review sometime today. Charles Edward 15:25, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

This is just a minor issue... I know Wikipedia guidelines say that we should only link a word to an article the first time the word appears. In an article this long, though, I have absolutely no problem linking a word a second time if it reappears some distance from original link. I've seen that a few times in this article, and I don't have a problem with it at all. Does anyone else? Mingusboodle (talk) 16:58, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with it. I have remove alot of duplicate links back when I wikified it according to the MoS a couple weeks ago. But in some places the first mention is like twenty parapgraphs away from from the first link so if someone was jumping down via the table of contents they would miss the first link. Charles Edward 19:10, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Image for opening

What would be a good image for the first paragraph? I am trying to think of something that is definitively Hoosier, but nothing is really coming to mind. FA criteria says we need a image there. Charles Edward 20:52, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Does it count if we put it just below the intro? One thing I can't stand is a long TOC with nothing else around it. We could align an image to the right of the TOC to visually balance that part of the article.
I've kept my eyes open for a good image to use, and nothing has really caught my attention. We could just move one of the pictures from the article, especially from one of the sections that seem to have more pictures than needed. Another option- maybe not a good one- is to put the Seal of Indiana at the top. It would help identify the article as being about Indiana, and it represents the pioneer history of Indiana.[1] Mingusboodle (talk) 15:30, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Seal of Indiana sounds good. I added a bit to that article awhile ago to de-stub it and it's been in use since at least 1803. Or we could move on of them up like the war memorial or the race car crash. Of course an automobile accident may not be the best representative of Indiana (hahaha). And i dont think it would be against the rules to put it by the TOC because it would still be in the opening section. I am by no means an expert on wiki rules though. Charles Edward 15:41, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Apparently someone didn't like it next to the ToC because it got moved. No idea who... you cats have been busy! Seriously, I made one minor change during my lunch break, and by the end of the day there were more than 50 updates. Hats off to all of you! The big blank space next to the ToC is still a pet peeve of mine, but if it doesn't bother anyone else, I'll leave it as is. Mingusboodle (talk) 01:50, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
That was me. You can change it back if you really want, but I think it's better there. My reasoning is that 1) Images are in general the first thing on the right, 2) So you don't have to scroll down to the first pic, 3) If someone has the TOC hidden then the pic interferes with the next paragraph, and 4) I like pics to be at the top of a section rather than the bottom of the one above it. Reywas92Talk 02:08, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Failed FAC Review

Well the FAC review failed. Oh well. I was able to address all the referencing, sourcing and MOS issues . Pretty much the only thing I don't think I was able to address was the prose issues. I have made several attempts to copy edit the article and to me it reads fairly well now. There was also several comments about pronoun and article usage. And to be honest, I'm not perfectly sure what that means but I have went through and replaced many pronouns with nouns as the is the only thing i could think of to address the issue. As far as using articles, I don't have the slightest idea what to do about that. I am not sure what else to do? If it needs work on prose someone besides me is going to have to do it because that's pretty much as good as I get. But all in all I think it was productive. Even if it's not FA quality I am proud of it! :) Charles Edward 02:08, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

If it failed FAC, it's no fault of your own. You've put a great deal of work into this article, and you should be proud of how far you've brought it. I followed some of the FAC suggestions and realized that this article had some glaring issues that I can't see because I've read it too many times. My suggestion is that we step back for a time and return to this article when it's no so ingrained into out brains. Mingusboodle (talk) 02:57, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Your right! After reading it SOO many times you start to completely over look things. I still think is close to FA status and hopefully in a few months it can be submitted for a new review. And you should take credit too! You wrote a large part of the article yourself. :) Charles Edward 12:11, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

CE/AD changes

This was a bit confusing, but the first edit that indicated an era was [2] for 1100CE, and that established the useage by Wikipedia guidelines, so I'm reverting back to that. Doug Weller (talk) 06:43, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I personally don't care what system we use, I think both are acceptable. I just used the CE\BCE when I wrote most of the article, and have tried to use that so it stays uniform while I edit. An IP changed it to AD\BC, but apparently didn't get all the dates, so I just reverted. :) Charles Edward 12:50, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Definitely both are acceptable in an article like this, and guidelines are that the article should stay with the original system and be consistent. Problems arise when, for instance, you have an article on something to do with ancient history, an Old Testament related article, etc that starts off CE\BCE and along comes an editor, usually anonymous, and changes it without explanation (and usually as that editor's only change, or they change a group of articles). By the way, http://wikipedia.ramselehof.de/wikiblame.php is a great way to search an article to see which version has a specific change. Doug Weller (talk) 13:41, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Exactly, the article is so lengthy I didn't want to use to systems. If you note the above conversation between myself and Mingusboodle (we are the primary editors of this article) we agreed to go with CE\BCE, not for any reason other than to maintain uniformity, two editors using different styles within the same article would have been confusing. Charles Edward
I would like to suggest that we keep the BC/AD format due to ongoing debate of the controversial BCE/CE format. No consensus has yet been reached and I believe that we should stick to the more popular and most accepted format until the debate is over.--Rob carmack (talk) 16:46, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
As I understand it, the debate has been ongoing for several years (see Talk:Jesus) and editors have a problem with both styles, and is not likely to ever be resolved in favor of one or the other. While AD\BC is perhaps more used, I don't think it is more "popular" among the editors on wikipedia - I say this because most historians typically use the CE\BCE, (It has nothing to do with bias, it just that most people can understand what Common Era and Before Common Era means versus Anno Domini and Ante Christum - plus it looks more scholarly) and it is those types of editors who edit articles like this. Using either style is approved in WP:MOS. My only concern is maintaining uniformity throughout the article so it will pass the WP:FAC review when I submit it again. And there is a rule concerning using the original system. If you should change it again please make sure you get them all and link them properly as stated in the MOS. Also please be advised that if you revert something more than three times you are automatically alerted to the administrators as edit warring, which will bring down the wrath of the wiki-gods. (Can't say I didn't warn ya) :) Charles Edward 17:14, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. You need a very good reason to change from the original format (like the article is about a religion that doesn't use BC/AD but whoever started it used BC/AD). Consistency between articles is neither a good reason nor would it end up with anything but edit wars. I've reverted Rob (and have, before that, explained guidelines to him on his talk page). Rob cites personal reasons for wanting this change and that's simply not the way we work or at least should work. Doug Weller (talk) 17:42, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
I can't believe I didn't have this article on my watch list. As for the tag, I prefer BC/AD, but since the relevant history of Indiana is post-1600, save for Madoc, why are those tags even on here?--Bedford Pray 02:15, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
I only used them on the early history for the Hopewells and Mississippians. Charles Edward 02:17, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Since I already replied at WP:ANI I'll add a few words here. This sort of thing used to be a huge problem. It was an edit war from hell that raged across the whole project and was cited by the founders of Conservapedia as one of the primary reasons for starting their project. The relevant guideline can be found at WP:SEASON. The rule is, leave it the way you found it unless you have a substantive reason for change and/or consensus on your side; don't disrupt stable articles. Best to put a stop to any funny business before it gets out of hand and the editor sees the response (or lack of) as a green light to run riot through the project changing era styles. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 04:28, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
I agree with SJA. We have too many problems with this to let this particular article set a precedent -- I presume everyone has seen the edit summary that says "The Gregorian calendar/dating system has been the worldwide standard for almost 500 years. Any other changes are a direct assault on that precept.)". This sort of thing, as SJA says, has been a huge problem and is still something where you see IPs who do nothing but make changes in large numbers of articles because they don't like on particular system. By the way, I won't be around for a while because - I'm going to Indiana (via the Blue Ridge mountains where I won't have Internet access).
You don't "leave it the way you found it" if you've got inconsistent usage. SJA has now fixed that, although some years are linked and some are not, which doesn't make sense to me. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 06:28, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
There aren't a lot of good reasons to link years. Guidelines say "Make links only where they are relevant to the context". Which means some years might be relevant, others not. Are any of them relevant? Doug Weller (talk) 07:22, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Ask the guy who put the other links back. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 13:00, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
And ask him how linking 300 CE is any more relevant than linking 8000 BCE, since they are both round-number estimates. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 13:08, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
I changed the era usage to just the first section, it's only needed for the era change during the Hopewells, really. I also delinking the dates. Charles Edward 13:36, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Why did you switch the Indiana article from BCE/CE to "BC" a month ago? That just muddies the waters. [3] Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 13:46, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
I did redo the history section there to better summarize this article. As I said, I really have no preference over which style is used, It's my understanding that both are acceptable so long as uniformity is maintained within the article. On that article AD\BC was already in use, so I stuck with it. It's just the constant changing back and forth that is the problem as I perceive it. Charles Edward 14:03, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
I see. It was originally BCE/CE, but someone had changed it to BC/AD before you got to it. Given that, I'll change it to BCE, so there will at least be consistency between the articles. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 14:33, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
If you truly have no preference, then why not leave it BC/AD? I have a preference, and when I edited this page, made sure it conformed to wiki standards on the date format, and still got shot down. At first it was that I didn’t edit the format correctly, then when I did, the reason was given that someone saw no reason to change the date format, then it was, “well the page started that way, so let’s keep it”, now its, “changing back and forth, that’s the problem. Why should it change back and forth? I did it correctly, made sure that all formats were to spec, why didn’t you guys just leave it the way I had it? If you have a personal reason you are against the BC/AD system, just come out and say so. With all due respect to the ones who worked hard to put this page together, who are you to say that my reasoning on this is wrong. There is no consensus on the date format in the academic world and the reasons given here to use the BCE/CE format are subject to debate. Since both systems are fine, and some have stated repeatedly that they have no preference, could we please just use the BC/AD system? --Rob carmack (talk) 14:37, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Apparently there is consensus that if it starts BCE/CE or BC/AD, then it stays that way. This one started BCE/CE, hence there is no reason to change it other than the "I don't like it" axiom, which is against policy. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 14:42, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
I suggest we change all date formats to BW and AW, with 2001 being the pivot year.Mingusboodle (talk) 15:53, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
That's not a bad idea. We'll consult our lawyer. And if he advises us to do it, we'll get a new lawyer. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 16:02, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
OMG! That's the best idea I ever heard. Perhaps we could spread it wiki-wide. Maybe, "Anno Wikius" - "Year of the Wiki". Charles Edward 17:06, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Microsoft would argue for 1980 or so. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 17:16, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Great to see how all of you respond to a sincere request. What a great community this is. --Rob carmack (talk) 18:28, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
We're abiding by the principle that it stays with what it started with, which is BCE/CE. I don't much care for that, but it's the policy for now. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 19:13, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Notorious Hoosiers

Wanna add Belle Gunness and John Dillinger to the article, somewhere? Mingusboodle (talk) 19:11, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Thats a good idea. Maybe something with the Reno Gang too. First train robbery in the USA, maybe the world, happened near Salem. Charles Edward 19:54, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
More like Seymour, really. I've thought about improving their article for a long time.--Bedford Pray 19:57, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Me too I have a good source. Arville Funk has a book with a whole chapter on them. Sketchbook of Indiana History. Charles Edward 20:04, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Your right, just outside of Seymour, that's where the Reno's farm was. Charles Edward 20:06, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
I started a section but I have to run. Will be back later to continue. Feel free to. Charles Edward 20:36, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Hmm... I didn't even know about the Reno Gang. Nice addition! Given how long this article is already, though, we could probably summarize their story to a sentence or two, and let the article on the gang fill in the details. Mingusboodle (talk) 00:04, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
I cut it down a bit and added it into the previous section. Feel free to fix it up better if you can think of a way! Charles Edward 02:07, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Liberty Guard?

The Indiana National Guard was federalized during the War; many units were sent to Europe. To replace the absent troops, a new militia called the Liberty Guard was formed in 1910.

Why was the militia called up in 1910 when WWI didn't start until 1914, and the U.S. didn't get involved until after the 1916 election? Mingusboodle (talk) 17:24, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Good points - first account was wrong on numerous counts. I looked up more and corrected the text.--Parkwells (talk) 19:12, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
The info before was correct, just concise. There are two organizations, you may be confusing them. The Indiana regiments that were part of the federal army from the Civil War were changed to the Indiana National Guard, later on. That same organization, as the national guard, was sent abroad in WW1, so the state turned to the miltia. The militia was the Indiana Legion. It was also created during the Civil War, as a backup to the Indiana Regiments in the federal army. The Indiana Legion was renamed the Liberty Guard in 1910. The liberty guard was made official again during WW1 - and given a formal origination from the government - and renamed the Indiana Guard Reserve. Charles Edward 20:39, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
I have put a more detailed history on Indiana Guard Reserve article some time ago. Charles Edward 20:40, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Nevermind. I only put a history on the Indiana National Guard. Charles Edward 20:42, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

A road called Burger King?

Could somebody please check this, under "Transportation". MichaelXXLF (talk) 20:50, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

The indians of Merom

A friend of mine who is passed away,his grandmother had a library full of old books,and i was browsing in there one day and found a book THE INDIANS OF MEROM:published in the 1700,s i would love to find it and share it. If anyone can stear me in the right direction? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.104.255.208 (talk) 02:46, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Ref 168 Northern Indiana Center for History

The authors discussion of the KKK lists reference 168 . The author should list a history text or a viable text. Ref 168 is not an academic source . — Preceding unsigned comment added by BillDunn544 (talk • contribs) 23:18, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

FA Review

I am thinking about giving this article another go FA status. I've worked through it to increase the sourcing as much as I can with my own resources, but I think that, and prose, will be the primary issues. Any help would be appreciated! Charles Edward 18:07, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll go through this section by section to copyedit and try to tighten up the prose. This reads heavy on the political, military, and economic history, so I'll suggest what might be added to improve it on social-cultural aspects of state history as I go along. Rosalina523 (talk) 17:32, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
I'll work on it too. There is far too much coverage of floods. (they are well covered in their own articles). Rjensen (talk) 19:00, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Interurban

The interurban was considerably more important than this article would suggest. Fort Wayne had the only full cloverleaf in the entire United States. Indiana Service Corporation was broken up into two parts, one of which became City light in Fort Wayne, and the other part developed into Fort Wayne Public Transit Corporation, City Light was mismanaged, and the physical plant allowed to deteriorate until the Ivan Lebamoff administration leased City Light to I&M Electric, in a deal that actually amounted to a sale.

South Shore was not an interurban, but a railroad. A railroad puts an engine in front of dependent cars, while each interurban car was motorized. The South Shore not only was a railroad, but it was double-tracked and heavily built. The New York, Chicago and St. Louis (better known as the Nickel Plate Road)_was lighter, and single-tracked, and competed by running fast freight such as mail, refrigerated beef, etc., at premium prices twelve hours a day in each direction. while the South Shore hauled heavy freight.more slowly, in both directions all the time. While the interurban hauled some freight, it was mostly small parcels such as a Greyhound bus might haul.12.193.238.99 (talk) 23:44, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Indy was never so remote.

Statehood - Founding

"In 1825, Indianapolis replaced Corydon as the seat of government. At the time, Indianapolis was in the wild and 60 miles (97 km) from the nearest settlement."

Not only does this claim lack a reference, but it's also just patently false. Mooresville was incorporated ion 1824 and is less than 20 miles from Indy. Waverly, the site of the Whetzel settlement had been permanently settled since 1818, also less than 20 miles away. William Conner built his two story brick house in 1823 also about 20 miles from the new Capitol.

In fact, Waverly, Conner's settlement and the confluence of the Fall Creek and White River were all finalists for the site of the new state Capitol. Fall Creek/White River (Indy) beat out Waverly by a single vote.

A sixty mile radius around Indianapolis would mean that there were no settlements from Bedford to Richmond to Terre Haute to Peru. That's just an insane claim to make and I can't believe no one has brought it up until now.

The only reason I'm not fixing it myself is because I don't have any references (these are all just things I've picked up over the years, being a resident) and I didn't want to just delete a big chunk without an explanation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wpmason (talk • contribs) 21:46, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Yeah; it wasn't exactly civilization, but it wasn't 60 miles from the nearest settlement either. I went ahead and removed that sentence. I tracked down when that statement first appeared in the article. The bulk of this article was composed over the course of 2008 by @Charles Edward:. Originally when he wrote that paragraph it said that Indianapolis was "in the wilds many miles from civilization." He changed it to the wording you were complaining about and I removed with this edit. I'm unclear as to what source he used for that or why he went with that other odd and erroneous wording. I've pinged him for whatever good it'll do - he hasn't edited in about a year. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 22:52, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
I am fine with your edit. The source for the statement is Handbook of Indiana History by Arville Funk. That book is nearly 70 years old, and I have found in the past it was not always accurate. In re-reading the source, I suspect the author was trying to say the closest road was sixty miles from Indianapolis. The team moving the capital had to literally cut the road as they traveled. Thanks —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on History of Indiana. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 01:18, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on History of Indiana. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 04:30, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on History of Indiana. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 07:32, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on History of Indiana. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 18:16, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Defaultsort name

There's currently a tag to sort this page as "Indiana, The History of". This seems unusual, but there's something to be said for sorting it under "Indiana" rather than "History". Comments? power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:13, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Native American Section

Hello, I have been largely researching and going through many of the pages & links regarding Native American history in the United States state by state. I would like to address incorrect info on the Indiana History page, but have had my pages deleted twice.

First off, I would like to say, I scoured the internet trying to find information-- particularly on archaeological sites-- and was only able to find a single article: cardinalscholar.bsu.edu/bitstream/123456789/194939/1/RoI61.pdf (it should come right up if you paste this into google.) It's mainly studying the mound complexes in Anderson County, but deals with virtually all known similar sites in Indiana. The conclusion was that, of all sites from which accurate info could be gleaned, they are a mixture of star-watching "temples" & burial mounds & were created around the time of Christ, when the Adena Culture was evolving into the Hopewell (Hundreds of years before the Mississippian Culture came into being) & they were still being used & reutilized for other purposes for hundreds of years afterward, until about 900 AD, well after the Hopewell were extinct. There were also, after a thorough search, no contemporaneous dwelling sites found in the vicinity of any of these sites, which rules out Mississippian who constructed most of their sites inside of or near their cities. Unless there are other sites I am unaware of-- in which case, I would like to know. Plus, the wiki page, here, makes note of copper weaponry being made which ceased afterward & following cultures were less advanced. While it has been known to happen, I rarely, if ever, have seen many examples of copper weaponry at all. Mostly, it was used to make jewelry & funerary goods & it didn't stop. One of the most important copper mines on the continent was in Michigan.

Anyway, secondly, as for the tribes who lived in the state as of the year 1600, I am highly positive that there were two peoples I could identify-- the Miami & Mascouten. I now know the history is a little more confusing on that subject, but I did find a reference from a Canadian tribe of Iroquoian people called the Neutrals. They lived on the north shore of Lake Erie, were caught up in the Beaver Wars & the last of them were recorded as living in Ohio by the French. There, they once told the French that they had aided in the destruction of the "Fire Nation" who had lived just west of them & were larger than them & the Huron put together. Coincidentally, the earliest maps show a tribe there usually referred to as "Gen D'Feu,' which means the same thing. I can also direct you to this article-- www.ontarioarchaeology.wildapricot.org/.../oa51-2-steckley.pdf-- by a historial who was trying to date & understand an early map of New France. He came to the conclusion that Gen D'Feu is the same as Mascouten. I will also add (mainly because I, an Ohioan, didn't know this, so I assume people in Indiana may not either) that the French did explore as far as Wisconsin & the Mississippi River before the Beaver Wars & the Miami & Mascouten could not have been fully displaced before the Iroquois arrived in Indiana & Michigan after 1655. There was more info on that on the History of Wisconsin page, which was something I did not add. I know the tribes later came back & reformed as the Miami & Wea, which easily explains the confusion as to who should have been here during this time. I did find a timeline for 1660- onward that some historians had constructed on a PDF page entitled: An Anthropological Report on the Indians of the Kankakee River. Again, you would have to look it up. And, the Beaver Wars began in the 1620s-30s, not prior to 1600, as has been written on the page.

That being said, I admit it has been slow going, I am learning more info as I go & I no longer feel everything I included in the first update was entirely accurate either. I can no longer remember where I read the info regarding village form & am no longer certain whether or not I was mixing up articles in my head, or not. Secondly, the picture I included of a separate, eastern species of a Buffalo was clearly made by someone who had never seen one & looks more like an Aurox. Beyond that, any info on the page that I haven't covered, while somewhat bland, seems to be accurate-- including names of tribes & info on the creation of the Illinois Colony. I really just want the info to be as accurate as humanly possible. Sorry for the length. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobbotronica (talk • contribs) 17:49, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Your comment is unsigned, not good. Fortunately, SineBot figured it out. The animal you cite is an oryx, not an 'Aurox' (no need to capitalize). You can't do what you want here - a large number of editors have reached a considered consensus on this article, called GA, and we intend to maintain it. GA articles require scrupulous citation to scholarly sources. That would be to peer-reviewed publications or scholarly books - a citation for every paragraph and every factoid within it. What you know or think you know doesn't matter - what you can source does. If you're going to make a more than trivial change or addition to a GA article, the process is by consensus - make a talk page entry with the proposed change, then wait for other editors (like me) to chime in.
I concur with the reversion of your changes. Sourcing is one issue, composition and phraseology is another. But the biggest issue I think is proportionality. This article on history is primarily about recorded history of the state of Indiana. We give due recognition to Native Americans and prehistoric peoples. Because prehistoric peoples were very nomadic, and we have no written history only the archaeologic record, their history is best dealt with in an article focusing on archaeological evidence, and encompassing larger regions like the midwestern United States, or United States east of the Mississippi. In that sense, the prehistoric history of Indiana is little different than the prehistoric history of Ohio, or of Michigan.
That said, if something is inaccurate, go ahead and fix it, but check the original source - if the source supports the statement, you need to tread carefully, and have multiple scholarly corroborating sources to override. If a statement is unsourced, it may still be accurate, but you have greater liberty to change or remove it, and the replacement should be sourced.

Sbalfour (talk) 17:21, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Lead pragraphing

Those fat lead paragraphs are a bit daunting. Most GA and FA articles have 5 paragraphs for the lead, and 4-6 just seems about right for comprehensive articles. The existing 3 paragraphs could be split into 6 modest ones for readability. For a history article on the United States, I'd divide a summary into parts, one per paragraph, and the division would follow wars and other major events: prehistory (<1700); colonization thru the Revolutionary War; the frontier (thru 1813 Battle of the Thames for Indiana); settlement up to the civil war; Civil War and growth (to ~1895); industrialization thru WW2; post-War modern state. That's 7 paragraphs, a bit too many, but prehistory is a single sentence, so can be combined into the colonization paragraph. Doing that, it's apparent that we give short shrift to some things, like settlement and Indian removal. From the text, we'd not know there were any Indian wars! Just three years before statehood, the capital had to be moved from Vincennes to Corydon because Vincennes was threatened with being burned to the ground. At statehood, the northern boundary of Indiana was less than 50 miles north of the Ohio River. Most of Indiana wasn't actually acquired (i.e. available for settlement) until after the 1818 Treaty of St. Mary's. Some of this should go in the lead. I'm going so give it a try, post it here, and see what feedback I get. Sbalfour (talk) 21:06, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Illinois campaign

The text in section United States says "After the outbreak of the American Revolutionary War, George Rogers Clark was sent from Virginia to enforce its claim to much of the land in the Great Lakes region." There's a lot wrong with this. Clark wasn't in Virginia, he was in Kentucky at Falls of the Ohio. He never came near the Great Lakes - Lake Michigan was 240 miles from Vincennes, and Lake Erie an incredible 350 miles away. That's 10 days and 14 days travel on horseback across dense hostile woodland, if you're lucky. Clark followed the Ohio and Wabash River Valleys and never got more than a few miles from the rivers because he didn't need to. Virginia didn't claim Illinois Country (Illinois County, Virginia) before the campaign, but as a result of it - it was founded later in 1778, and encompassed most of what were formerly known as Ohio Country and Illinois Country. Clark's purpose wasn't to claim Illinois Country for Virginia, but to dislodge the British from Detroit by way of the Wabash and Great Lakes traverse. The intent was patently specious, because Clark had only 175 men, and Detroit was garrisoned with hundreds of men. I don't have the source, but if it says what's quoted above, we need a more accurate source, because it wasn't that way. Sbalfour (talk) 05:01, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Treaty of St. Mary's?

One of the most significant post-frontier events in Indiana occurred in 1818 with the signing of the Treaty of St. Mary's at St. Mary's, Ohio. Actually, it was 6 treaties, one with each of six tribes or groups of tribes in Indiana, to acquire Indian lands south of the Wabash from the Delaware and others. The area comprised about 1/3 of the present day area of Indiana, the central portion, and was initially called the "Delaware New Purchase" or just "New Purchase". Later, it was divided into two areas, the Wabash watershed in the northwest and White River watershed in the southeast, called the Wabash New Purchase and Delaware New Purchase respectively, which became Wabash and Delaware Counties in Jan. 1820. Eventually, 35 new counties were carved out of the New Purchase. Notably, an area like a large bite in the middle of the northern boundary, was reserved to the Miami, called the Big Miami Reserve, which was the largest Indian reservation ever to exist in Indiana.

We elide this in the text, which just says "As the northern tribal lands gradually opened to white settlement, Indiana's population rapidly increased and the center of population shifted continually northward". Humdrum... Sbalfour (talk) 06:16, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Indianapolis sited where, why?

The text blithly asserts, "Indianapolis was selected to be the site of the new state capital in 1820 because of its central position within the state." They couldn't have selected a place or town named Indianapolis back then because there was no place with that name yet. Bzzzzt. Diction... history... what exactly was Indianapolis back then? The area of Indianapolis wasn't quite a wilderness at the time, there was a small settlement there, and the site had some notable geologic advantages: the settlement was on the west fork of the White River at the mouth of Fall Creek. Intersections of waterways were particularly good places for forts (and towns) on the frontier. Ya think? Sbalfour (talk) 07:04, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Miami were our 'allies'?

The text says: "After the treaty [Greenville, 1795] was signed, the powerful Miami nation considered themselves allies of the United States." Hmmmm... after Fallen Timbers, they weren't all that mighty: we built a fort right in their capital city. Does it matter what they considered themselves, or what they did? They maintained trading and friendly relations with Great Britain. When they (and others) beseiged Forts Harrison and Wayne in 1812, they certainly weren't allies. This statement needs reworked. Sbalfour (talk) 17:15, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Oldest cities in Indiana

I sometimes query the web, "oldest cities in <state>" to see how historically accurate popular media is. Not very, usually - such lists are about tourism, not history. They invariably omit unglamourous places like Connersville, Indiana (est. 1813). When a city was established can mean several things, too: when first settlers arrived, when it was platted; when it was incorporated, or when it first came under U.S. sovereignty if it's a very old city or a Native American settlement. Regardless, history happens around populated places, and where were those? Here's my list for Indiana. By the mid-1820's there were dozens of settlements with and without names, so that's a cutoff.

-- Northwest Territory --

  • Vincennes 1779 (U.S. sovereignty)
  • Clarksville 1783

-- Indiana Territory --

  • Fort Finney/Jeffersonville 1786 /1801
  • Lawrenceburg, 1802
  • Corydon 1808
  • Brookville, 1808
  • Charleston, 1808
  • Madison, 1810
  • Evansville, 1812

-- end of the frontier --

  • Vevay, 1813
  • Connersville 1813
  • New Albany, 1813
  • New Harmony, 1814
  • Salem, 1814
  • Princeton, 1814?
  • Washington, 1815
  • Utica, 1816
  • Rising Sun, 1816

—- Statehood —-

  • Richmond 1816
  • Mount Vernon, 1816
  • Terre Haute, 1816 (Fort Harrison, 1811)
  • Newburgh, formerly Sprinklesburgh, 1818
  • Booneville, 1818
  • Indianapolis, 1821

-- Cut at 20 entries or prior to 1822, whichever is less --

Most of these "unglamorous" places were founded considerably earlier than lists of touristy places collected from the web. I might update the list is I come across other obscure settlements. We might also remember, that nearby Louisville (1779), Cincinnati (Fort Washington, 1789), and Fort Dearborn/Chicago (1803) also had a profound influence on early Indiana.

Sbalfour (talk) 16:38, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

I don't understand your list at all. It's random and does not serve as a definitive list. For example, Evansville, Indiana (founded in 1812) would need to be included, and although it now carries a different name, Newburgh, Indiana (founded in 1818) would also make the list. Indeed, many more cities along the Ohio River ought to be included, which is not surprising given that the southern portion of the state was first developed.IndyNotes (talk) 16:53, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
I'm not claiming my list as definitive, just better. Thanks for you contributions - Ive added then to the list. Any yes, there were more along the Ohio, some without names initially. Feel free to edit my list yourself - it's a sandbox pending addition to the article, when editors agree we're accurate and complete. We only need 10-12 names reasonably, so maybe the list needs cut already. Sbalfour (talk) 17:31, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Listing the cities by date of founding is rather almanac-like, and not so useful as trivia. What I might want from this is a section describing early settlement: where they came from and where they went. There were four threads: from Kentucky north across the Ohio River at Falls of the Ohio, because river boats could go no further, and the settlements became Louisville and Clarksville. They also came northwesterly from Fort Washington/Cincinnati up the Whitewater and across the White River valleys, and became Lawrenceburg and Indianapolis. Along the Wabash were Vincennes, Terre Haute and Lafayette. And a few came westerly from southwestern Ohio via Wayne's forts on the Ohio border below the Greenville Treaty Line, and those settlements became Richmond and Connersville. We can say that "some of" or "among" the early settlements were these, so that we don't invite nitpicking or one-upmanship among editors. Sbalfour (talk) 19:32, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

No mention of 'The Gore' cession by Ohio to Indiana in 1803

The southwestern border of Ohio was set by the Treaty of Greenville in 1795. In 1803 at Ohio statehood, a sliver of southwestern Ohio comprising the Whitewater Valley watershed and lands south to the Ohio River called "The Gore" was ceded to Indiana and became Dearborn County, IN. Should be worth a sentence. Sbalfour (talk) 05:57, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Here's the complete spiel, don't know how much we want to keep:

The 1795 Treaty of Greenville defined the boundary in the Northwest Territory between Whiteman's lands in what is today southern and eastern Ohio and Indian lands in northwestern Ohio and eastern Indiana. The northwestern corner was set at Fort Recovery and ran a few degrees west of south to the Ohio River. In modern Indiana, the boundary ran south-southwest from a point 10 miles northwest of Greenville, Ohio (near Union City in Randolph County, Indiana) to the junction of the Ohio and Kentucky Rivers east of Madison, Indiana (and more specifically the tiny settlement of Lamb). When the Territory was divided in 1800, the southwestern boundary of the Territory followed the Treaty Line, forming part of the boundary with Indiana Territory.

The Ohio Enabling Act of 1802 defined the western boundary of Ohio beginning in the south where the Great Miami River flows into the Ohio River and extending due north to the latitude of the southern tip of Lake Michigan. That left a triangular wedge of land along Ohio's southwestern border 140 miles north-south and 54 miles wide along the Ohio River between Ohio's western border and the Treaty Line to the west, called "The Gore" which was formerly part of Hamilton County of the Northwest Territory. 'Gore' is a term for a triangular piece of land in the metes and bounds survey system.

When Ohio attained statehood in March, 1803, "The Gore" became one of the last remnants[1] of the Northwest Territory, and was attached to Indiana Territory at that time. The Gore encompassed most of the Whitewater Valley which would become a critical corridor for settlement of Indiana Territory. It was initially attached to the existing Clark County. March 7, 1803, Dearborn County of Indiana Territory with seat Lawrenceburg was formed encompassing "The Gore". The county was named after General Henry Dearborn, at that time the Secretary of War under President Thomas Jefferson. In 1809, the old Greenville Treaty Line was superceded by the Treaty of Fort Wayne which included a strip known locally as the "12-Mile Purchase" whose boundary was 12 miles to the west of the treaty line. Between 1811 and 1818, all or most of 8 modern counties of the state of Indiana were carved from "The Gore": Dearborn, Franklin, Ohio, Randolph, Switzerland, Union, Wayne and Fayette.

It occurs to me that mention of this could/should be made in quite a few articles, and they should link to wherever the main text is inserted. It's really most part of history of Dearborn County, Indiana. But someone looking for it might look in a number of places: Indiana#History, History of Indiana, Ohio#History, History of Ohio, Northwest Territory, Indiana Territory, Treaty of Greenville#Aftermath, Enabling Act of 1802, Dearborn County, Indiana#History, Hamilton County, Ohio#History, Lawrenceburg, Indiana#History. A link to the main text should be added to the disambiguation page for 'Gore', and possibly a redirect page for 'The Gore (Indiana)' created. Right now, I don't see the information anywhere, and a search of the term doesn't find anything relevant. Sbalfour (talk) 20:00, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ along with the eastern half of the lower peninsula of Michigan

[lead]Jump shift in history

The article lead jumps from statehood in 1816 to, "The newly-established state government laid out on an ambitious plan to transform Indiana from a segment of the frontier into a developed, well-populated, and thriving state." That wasn't until the Mammoth Internal Improvement Act of 1836. The lead sounds like it started just post-statehood in 1816. A lot happened in that skipped 20 years, like settlement and Indian removal. That's cognitive dissonance, and ought to be filled in even if it's only a sentence. Sbalfour (talk) 02:39, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Indiana Territory boundaries?

The text says, "Indiana Territory initially comprised most of the present-day state Indiana, all of the present-day states of Illinois and Wisconsin, parts of present-day Michigan and Minnesota, and a narrow strip of land in present-day Ohio." NO! The western boundary of Ohio was set by the Greenville Treaty Line in 1795, and included a wedge of land in present day Indiana known as "The Gore". The Boundary of Indiana Territory in 1800 followed that treaty line, until Ohio became a state in 1803, and that little wedge of land in Ohio was ceded to Indiana Territory then. No part of present day Ohio was ever a part of Indiana Territory. Sbalfour (talk) 07:22, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Fixed. Sbalfour (talk) 21:29, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Early settlement

We don't say anything about early settlement, acquisition of Indian land by Treaty and concommitant Indian Removals prior to 1830. Where did settlers come from, where did they go (i.e. earliest settlements and towns), and how did they get there? Which places grew fastest? It's worth a paragraph or two, maybe a whole level 3 subsection.

For the record, there were four vectors here: northerly up the Wabash via the Ohio River and Vincennes; westerly from southeastern Ohio via Gen. Wayne's western forts and settlements; northwesterly from points east via Cincinnati and the Whitewater and White River Valleys; and northerly across the Ohio River from Kentucky via Falls of the Ohio. There were also later settlements along the shores of the Great Lakes. So we have a settlement pattern of perimeter inward. Later, when the National Road reached Indianapolis and beyond, the state grew center outward around the capital. Sbalfour (talk) 22:40, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

History trivia?

The text says "[Re: Indianapolis]The city founders assumed the White River would serve as a major transportation artery; however, the waterway was too sandy for navigation." Of all the things omitted from this article worth writing about, why this? Are we quite certain we know what they assumed? And if that really mattered, they would've moved the site, but they didn't. I think I'm going to delete the speculative factoid. Sbalfour (talk) 22:22, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

James H. Madison - 2014 states: "Navigating the shallow White River proved impractical: only one steamboat got as far north as Indianapolis (in 1831), and it got stuck on a sandbar. The town's poor river access was a serious disappointment..." etc James H. Madison (2014). Hoosiers: A New History of Indiana. Indiana UP. pp. 78–79. Rjensen (talk) 22:38, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
Ok; I know about the White River (and Whitewater River - not navigable because of rapids), I lived in Indiana. The statement is history buff trivia, but I'll leave it; it's sourced. Sbalfour (talk) 03:59, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Mammoth Internal Improvement Program built canals and railroads?

The text says "State founders initiated an internal improvement program that led to the construction of roads, canals, railroads," Hmmm... canals didn't get started until about 1847(?), and railroads didn't arrive in Indiana nearly 1950, I think. The MIIP was busted by 1841, and the first RR's didn't start until about that time, so I wouldn't say those things resulted directly from it; they grew in spite of it. Sbalfour (talk) 21:01, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

yes indeed it was a mania in late 1830s. Planning began about 1827--see Ronald E. Shaw (2014). Canals For A Nation: The Canal Era in the United States, 1790-1860. p. 137. Meyer states: "In 1836 Indiana entered into the construction of a complete system of internal improvements, comprising canals, turnpikes, and railroads, designed to open up the remotest corners of the state to communication with the Great Lakes and Ohio and thence to the Atlantic seaports." BH Meyer and CE MacGill. History of Transportation in the United States before 1860 (1917) p 506-9 with elaborate detail. online free at https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.224433/page/n1 Railways were part of the original plan, but the first one was only finished in 1847. The state appropriated $10 million in 1836 for canals and railroads, and the first canal opened in 1836, the Whitewater Canal. the plan was a disaster as the legislature required that work would begin on all parts of the all the projects simultaneously, and very few were finished. Rjensen (talk) 22:17, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
Ah, ah, ah... I live In Connersville, where the Whitewater Canal was HQ'ed. It was started in 1836, but only minimnally operational by 1842-43, and not finished until 1847. It was abandoned in 1849. Most of the work didn't get done until 1842 and later, when the MIIP was kaput. Those funds didn't come from the MIIP. Sbalfour (talk) 04:12, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Indiana Territory not equal to State of Indiana

The text in second paragraph of the lead says "The Indiana Territory grew in population and development until it was admitted to the Union in 1816 as Indiana,...". NO, it wasn't, or Indiana today would include all of Michigan, Illinois, Wisconsin and part of Minnesota. We can't compress things so much we make them false. Indiana Territory was subdivided in 1805 and again in 1809, and the remainder of Indiana Territory became the state in 1816. Sbalfour (talk) 02:25, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Fixed. Sbalfour (talk) 16:51, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Good Article Review

I'm glad to pass this article as GA. Although it is somewhat lengthy, the History of Indiana is skillfully written, shows no bias, is accurate factually, has verifiable sources, and has innumerous images that assist the article greatly. To improve this article to FA status, I suggest that the tasks in the To-Do List Infobox above, more information regarding modern-day Indiana and infoboxes for Indiana's contributions and losses during the American Civil War and both World Wars, should be completed. With a little time and effort, this article should become a FA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Laurinavicius (talk • contribs)

Fort Miami rebuilt??

The text says "Fort Miami at Kekionga was occupied by the United States, who rebuilt it as Fort Wayne." No, they didn't. The old Fort Miamis was burned to the ground by the Indians some time after it was abandoned in 1763. Fort Wayne was built in a different location after the Battle of Fallen Timbers, in Sept.-Oct. 1794. My gosh, my gosh, I better read the rest of this article carefully. Sbalfour (talk) 05:19, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Fixed. Just say we built Fort Wayne. Exactly what happened to old Fort Miamis is historically a little fuzzy, and we don't need to say. Sbalfour (talk) 17:00, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Administrative evolution of Indiana

There's no information here or anywhere presented systematically about the administrative evolution of Indiana by counties. At statehood in 1816, the northern boundary of Indiana was no more than 50 miles from the Ohio River, which was the boundary between Whiteman's lands and Indian lands, even though Indiana Territory/Indiana State was nominally under U.S. sovereignty. There are 92 counties in Indiana; the effort would be tedious, and are we going to do that for all 50 states? An article List of counties in Indiana exists with a column 'Origin' giving the predecessor county or other land area. But that's almanac-like, isn't complete or entirely accurate, and doesn't give a picture of settlement and fill-in of the state. We need pictures and maybe something like a cladogram to show how unstructured Indian land was divided into counties and counties were divided into smaller counties. Indian land divisions were by Treaty (Indian Removal Acts and purchases). County divisions were administrative according to Indiana law: whenever an area exceeded population 3000 (I think), that area was divided into a new county, with borders often set rather haphazardly.

There were two counties formed in 1790 as part of the Northwest Territory: Knox and Clark. The rest were formed between 1800 and 1844 in Indiana Territory and state filling in the land area border to border, and one county was divided in 1856.

Is this a worthy addition to the article, or too book-like? It's be a significantly large section.

Sbalfour (talk) 16:41, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

I've added a very brief summary of this to List of counties in Indiana. Sbalfour (talk) 16:56, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Vincennes region territory?

The text says "[Re: Clark's conquest of Fort Sackville] Virginia governed the region as territory until it relinquished its control of the area to the U.S. government in 1784." Hmmm... what's the extent of 'region'? The Vincennes Tract in Indiana was never any kind of political entity. Indiana was originally part of the French Province of Canada. That province was informally divided between Ohio Country and Illinois Country. A large chunk of central eastern Indiana was part of Ohio Country, and the region below and to the southwest and southeast of Lake Michigan was Illinois Country. Early on, maybe 1725? the province of Quebec was split off and Indiana was divided between them by the Wabash River. In 1779, Clark claimed the lands west of the Alleghenies between the parallels of the state of Virginia as Illinois County, Virginia, and it had a formal county government under the state. It was ceded to the United States in 1784 and became unorganized territory. In 1787, it became part of the Northwest Territory. There never was a Virginia territory which included Indiana; Illinois Territory didn't exist until 1809 and it didn't include Indiana, either. So if the 'region' Virginia ruled as territory implicitly includes Indiana, the statement is vague and imprecise. Somewhere, part or all of the above evolution of Indiana's sovereignty should be detailed. Sbalfour (talk) 03:46, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Fixed. Sbalfour (talk) 16:52, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Filling in article to feature length

This GA article is of modest length for a GA article, and much shorter than most Featured Articles. There are some significant items not covered.

  • 1. the period 1800-1830 or so, post-frontier or settlement period (other than mechanics of statehood)
  • 2. history of towns and places: there are only 5 places in the state older than 1800: Ouiatenon, Vincennes, Clarksville, Fort Wayne (the fort, not the city), and Jeffersonville which began life as little known Fort Finney in 1786. These places all have colorful early histories, but if we mention them at all, it's only a sentence or two.
  • 3. Even at Statehood, there were only 15 named populated places in the state (see Oldest cities in Indiana above); we could cover each one or events in its region, separately (some of them nothing much happened for the first 20 years or so)
  • 4. Kekionga and Prophetstown, Native American capital cities
  • 5. Great Miami Reserve and other Indian reservations in Indiana
  • 6 forts in Indiana; unlike other states, Indiana has only a handful of forts (8), and most people only know half of them: Benjamin Harrison (1906), Ouiatenon (1717), Wayne (1794), Miamis (1742), Vincennes (1732 and later renditions), Harrison (1811), Finney (1786), Clark (1783)
  • 7. administrative evolution (how counties were formed)
  • 8. there's not much technological history here: when did we get the first commercial railroad (not 1838; more like 1847 at the earliest), steamboats, telegraph, telephone, gas lighting, electric lighting, paved roads & cars,
  • 9. In the 1920's, Indiana made a lot of cars; in fact, Connersville was called "Little Detroit".

Sbalfour (talk) 22:32, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:History_of_Indiana/Archive_1&oldid=1083404942"