text:
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 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 There is some better correspondence between he (JBG) and Draper about his uncle, though it is I believe still unpublished, and I suppose not any good for Wiki.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 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 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 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 . (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 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 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 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 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, "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 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 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 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)

title: Talk:John Gibson (American soldier)


text:
Once Bitten

Once Bitten may refer to:

Music

 * Once Bitten (Annabel Lamb album) (1983)
 * Once Bitten (The Snakes album) (1998)
 * Once Bitten (Great White album)
 * "Once Bitten, Twice Shy", an Ian Hunter song from the 1975 album Ian Hunter, later covered by Great White
 * "Once bitten twice shy", a Vesta Williams song from the 1986 debut album Vesta

Film and TV

 * Once Bitten (1932 film), a 1932 British comedy film starring Richard Cooper
 * Once Bitten (1985 film), a 1985 American horror comedy film starring Jim Carrey
 * Once Bitten Soundtrack, the soundtrack released to go along with the 1985 film Once Bitten
 * "Once Bitten" (SpongeBob SquarePants), a 2006 episode of the cartoon series SpongeBob SquarePants
 * "Once Bitten" (Archer), a 2013 episode of the cartoon series Archer
 * Once Bitten (Family Guy), an episode of Family Guy
 * "Once Bitten, Twice Shy" (Ninjago: Masters of Spinjitzu), an episode of Ninjago: Masters of Spinjitzu

Literature

 * Once Bitten, Twice Shy, a novel in the Jaz Parks series by Jennifer Rardin.

Theatre

 * Once Bitten, English title of Le Procès Veauradieux, an 1875 farce by Alfred Hennequin and Alfred Delacour

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Once Bitten


text: User talk:69.193.50.45

title: User talk:69.193.50.45


text:
People's Artist of the USSR

People's Artist of the USSR, also sometimes translated as National Artist of the USSR, was an honorary title granted to artists of the Soviet Union. The term is confusingly used to translate two Russian language titles: Народный артист СССР (Narodny artist SSSR), awarded in performing arts and Народный художник СССР (Narodny khudozhnik SSSR), granted in some visual arts.

As those titles were granted by the government, honorees were afforded certain privileges and would often receive commissions from the Minister of Culture of the Soviet Union. Accordingly, artists and authors who expressed criticism of the Communist Party were seldom granted such recognition, if not outright censored. Each Soviet Republic, as well as the Autonomous Republics (ASSRs), had a similar award that would be held previously by virtually every receiver of the higher title of People's Artist of the USSR.

Performing arts
The title was bestowed for exceptional achievements in the performing arts in the Soviet Union. Its recipients included many of the most-acclaimed composers, dancers, singers, film and theatre directors and actors of every Soviet republic. In all, there were 1006 recipients of the award.

The title was introduced in 1936, replacing the earlier title of "People's Artist of the Republic". The first recipients of the title (6 September 1936) were Konstantin Stanislavski, Vladimir Nemirovich-Danchenko, Ivan Moskvin, Antonina Nezhdanova, Boris Shchukin, Kulyash Baiseitova and some other actors. The last persons to be honored with the title were Sofia Pilyavskaya and Oleg Yankovsky (21 December 1991).

Originally, the title was bestowed on theatre actors, ballet dancers, and opera singers only. Gradually, it came to be bestowed upon film actors (e.g., Lyubov Orlova), composers (e.g., Arno Babajanian, Dmitri Shostakovich), violinists (e.g. David Oistrakh), pop singers (e.g., Leonid Utyosov), comedians (e.g., Arkady Raikin), and even circus performers such as Natalya Durova and Oleg Popov.

Normally, a person was named the People's Artist of the USSR after 40 years of age. Exceptions were made for dancers, e.g., Nadezhda Pavlova, a ballet artist, received the title at the age of 28, and Malika Kalontarova, a famous Bukharian Jewish folk dancer from Tajikistan, received the title at the age of 34.

The youngest female persons to receive this title were Kazakh opera singers Kulyash Baiseitova (1936) and Halima Nosirova (1937) (at the age of 24). The youngest male person was the Azerbaijani baritone operatic and pop singer Muslim Magomayev (1973) (at the age of 31). Among the actors, the youngest recipient was Sergei Bondarchuk (age 32). The youngest actress to receive the title was Yuri Andropov's daughter-in-law, Lyudmila Chursina, at age 40.

Sofia Rotaru, for example, was named Merited Artist of the Ukrainian SSR in 1973, People's Artist of the Ukrainian SSR in 1976, People's Artist of the Moldavian SSR in 1983, an attained cumulation of People's Artist titles, and finally People's Artist of the Soviet Union in 1988, the first female pop-singer to be honored with this award and the only one with three People's Artists.

Visual arts
The title of People's Painter of the USSR (Народный художник СССР) was awarded for exceptional achievements in certain visual arts: painting, sculpture, drawing, and photography. The lesser title of Meritorious Painter of the USSR (Заслуженный художник СССР) was also awarded for achievement in these fields.

Other honored professions

 * People's Architect of the USSR: Народный архитектор СССР
 * People's Teacher of the USSR: Народный учитель СССР
 * People's Doctor of the USSR: Народный врач СССР

title: People's Artist of the USSR


text:
User talk:Marududshinki

Vandalism
Thanks for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks. --Maru 16:51, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

title: User talk:Marududshinki


text: Category:Atari 8-bit computer software

title: Category:Atari 8-bit computer software


text: Category:Neu! albums

title: Category:Neu! albums


text:
Category talk:Vanuatuan politicians

Untitled
A decision is pending on the name of this category. For now, it shouldn't be deleted. — Sesel wa  16:52, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

'Vanuatuan' is not a correct word. Something refering to a person or thing of Vanuatu is 'ni-Vanuatu'. Can a decision be made soon!!! Pete-k 04:07, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, Ni-Vanuatu is correct, but my attempt to move this category there a while ago was rejected. —Sesel 16:48, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I concur with what has just been said. The correct term is "ni-Vanuatu". Aridd (talk) 14:21, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

title: Category talk:Vanuatuan politicians


title: User:JFL2422


text:
Inga Falls

Inga Falls is a rapid 40 km from Matadi in the Democratic Republic of the Congo where the Congo River drops 96 m (315 ft) over the course of 15 km (9 mi). The falls are part of a larger group of rapids in the lower Congo River. Livingstone Falls are located upstream closer to the Pool Malebo. These falls have formed in a sharp bend of Congo River where the width of river fluctuates from more than 4 km to only 260 m.

With a median discharge of 42,476 m³/s (1,500,000 ft³/s), the falls could be considered the largest in the world, but it is not widely considered to be a true waterfall. Its maximum recorded volume is 70,793 m³/s (2,500,000 ft³/s). Inga falls is also the site of two large hydroelectric dams, named Inga I and Inga II, as well as two projected dams, Inga III and the Grand Inga Dam, the latter of which would be the largest (by power production) in the world.

title: Inga Falls


text:
Talk:The Secret of Skull Mountain

Linkspam
See [] for discussion about User FWDixon/Bob Finnan's link spamming and plagiarism.

title: Talk:The Secret of Skull Mountain


text:
Talk:The Sign of the Crooked Arrow

Linkspam
See [] for discussion about User FWDixon/Bob Finnan's link spamming and plagiarism.

title: Talk:The Sign of the Crooked Arrow


text:
Talk:The Secret of the Lost Tunnel

Linkspam
See [] for discussion about User FWDixon/Bob Finnan's link spamming and plagiarism.

title: Talk:The Secret of the Lost Tunnel


text:
Banzhaf power index

The Banzhaf power index, named after John Banzhaf (originally invented by Lionel Penrose in 1946 and sometimes called Penrose–Banzhaf index; also known as the Banzhaf–Coleman index after James Samuel Coleman), is a power index defined by the probability of changing an outcome of a vote where voting rights are not necessarily equally divided among the voters or shareholders.

To calculate the power of a voter using the Banzhaf index, list all the winning coalitions, then count the critical voters. A critical voter is a voter who, if he changed his vote from yes to no, would cause the measure to fail. A voter's power is measured as the fraction of all swing votes that he could cast. There are some algorithms for calculating the power index, e.g., dynamic programming techniques, enumeration methods and Monte Carlo methods.

Simple voting game
A simple voting game, taken from Game Theory and Strategy by Philip D. Straffin:

[6; 4, 3, 2, 1]

The numbers in the brackets mean a measure requires 6 votes to pass, and voter A can cast four votes, B three votes, C two, and D one. The winning groups, with underlined swing voters, are as follows:

AB, AC , A BC, AB D, AC D, BCD , ABCD

There are 12 total swing votes, so by the Banzhaf index, power is divided thus:

A = 5/12,   B = 3/12,    C = 3/12,    D = 1/12

U.S. Electoral College
Consider the United States Electoral College. Each state has different levels of voting power. There are a total of 538 electoral votes. A majority vote is 270 votes. The Banzhaf power index would be a mathematical representation of how likely a single state would be able to swing the vote. A state such as California, which is allocated 55 electoral votes, would be more likely to swing the vote than a state such as Montana, which has 3 electoral votes.

Assume the United States is having a presidential election between a Republican (R) and a Democrat (D). For simplicity, suppose that only three states are participating: California (55 electoral votes), Texas (38 electoral votes), and New York (29 electoral votes).

The possible outcomes of the election are:

The Banzhaf power index of a state is the proportion of the possible outcomes in which that state could swing the election. In this example, all three states have the same index: 4/12 or 1/3.

However, if New York is replaced by Georgia, with only 16 electoral votes, the situation changes dramatically.

In this example, the Banzhaf index gives California 1 and the other states 0, since California alone has more than half the votes.

History
What is known today as the Banzhaf power index was originally introduced by Lionel Penrose in 1946 and went largely forgotten. It was reinvented by John F. Banzhaf III in 1965, but it had to be reinvented once more by James Samuel Coleman in 1971 before it became part of the mainstream literature.

Banzhaf wanted to prove objectively that the Nassau County board's voting system was unfair. As given in Game Theory and Strategy, votes were allocated as follows:

 * Hempstead #1: 9
 * Hempstead #2: 9
 * North Hempstead: 7
 * Oyster Bay: 3
 * Glen Cove: 1
 * Long Beach: 1

This is 30 total votes, and a simple majority of 16 votes was required for a measure to pass.

In Banzhaf's notation, [Hempstead #1, Hempstead #2, North Hempstead, Oyster Bay, Glen Cove, Long Beach] are A-F in [16; 9, 9, 7, 3, 1, 1]

There are 32 winning coalitions, and 48 swing votes:

AB AC  BC ABC AB D AB E AB F  AC D AC E AC F BC D BC E BC F ABCD ABCE ABCF AB DE AB DF AB EF AC DE AC DF AC EF BC DE BC DF BC EF ABCDE ABCDF ABCEF AB DEF AC DEF BC DEF ABCDEF

The Banzhaf index gives these values:

 * Hempstead #1 = 16/48
 * Hempstead #2 = 16/48
 * North Hempstead = 16/48
 * Oyster Bay = 0/48
 * Glen Cove = 0/48
 * Long Beach = 0/48

Banzhaf argued that a voting arrangement that gives 0% of the power to 16% of the population is unfair.

Today, the Banzhaf power index is an accepted way to measure voting power, along with the alternative Shapley–Shubik power index. Both measures have been applied to the analysis of voting in the Council of the European Union.

However, Banzhaf's analysis has been critiqued as treating votes like coin-flips, and an empirical model of voting rather than a random voting model as used by Banzhaf brings different results.

title: Banzhaf power index


text:
Peepshow (album)

Peepshow is the ninth studio album by English rock band Siouxsie and the Banshees, released in the United Kingdom on 5 September 1988 by Polydor Records and in the United States the following day by Geffen Records. It was their first record as a quintet. With the arrival of multi-instrumentalist Martin McCarrick and guitarist Jon Klein, the group recorded a multifaceted album with a variety of influences. It included the singles "Peek-a-Boo", "The Killing Jar" and "The Last Beat of My Heart". The record was a commercial success, peaking at No. 20 in the UK, and No. 68 on the US Billboard 200 chart in the week of 3 December 1988. It spent a total of 20 weeks on that chart. "Peek-a-Boo" reached number one on the Billboard Alternative Songs chart and "the Killing Jar" got the number two spot.

Praise centred around the unpredictability of the orchestrations and new nuances in Siouxsie's voice. The album was later remastered and reissued on CD with bonus tracks in October 2014. A 180g vinyl reissue, remastered from the original ¼” tapes and cut half-speed at Abbey Road Studios by Miles Showell, was released in December 2018.

It is the subject of the 2018 book Peepshow by Samantha Bennett, part of the 33 1/3 series.

Music
Music journalist Parke Puterbaugh described "Peek-a-Boo" as a "collage of sound that incorporates a backward percussion track" with the voice bouncing from channel to channel. "The Killing Jar" opens with "a faint splash of reggae" and then the music dissolves into a trancelike drone in the style of Brian Eno. "Scarecrow" has a "Middle-Eastern feel" and the first side rushes to a climax in "Burn-Up", with cello and drums "simulating a train's mounting momentum".

Critical reception
Q wrote in its 5 out of 5 star review: "Peepshow takes place in some distorted fairground of the mind where weird and wonderful shapes loom." Reviewer Mark Cooper hailed "Martin McCarrick's accordion that pokes its way into Peek A Boo... a carny piece of musical imagination". He noted that "the rest of the record bursts with similar acts of imagination", saying: "full honours go to the aforementioned McCarrick for all manner of shrewd decorations and drummer Budgie for endlessly inventive rhythm work that manages to pinpoint the tension inherent in each song without ever lapsing into an obvious beat". Melody Maker highly praised its first single, "Peek-a-Boo", and called it "quite the most astounding British record" of 1988, and "a brightly unexpected mixture of black steel and pop disturbance." The paper also praised the band for the ballad "The Last Beat of My Heart". Chris Roberts said: "The infinite pinnacle is their one joint effort, the bravura hymn "The Last Beat of My Heart"". As Martin McCarrick's accordion and Budgie's directly intelligent rhythms underlie its pathos, this elegy is translated by Sioux with capital beatitude. It's the Banshees' most courageous arabesque in some time." Record Mirror also particularly enjoyed that song when reviewing the album: "The highlight is the restrained 'The Last Beat of My Heart', where Siouxsie's voice explores new ground as she caresses a haunting melody." Reviewer Kevin Murphy concluded by saying: "Brimming with confidence..., Peepshow is the Banshees' finest hour." NME noted a change of approach in the musical direction: "Peepshow is the best Banshees record since A Kiss in the Dreamhouse because it's the Banshees deciding to be a pop band rather than a rock group".

Spin published a glowing review of the album in their November issue. Discussing "Peek-a-Boo", critic Tony Fletcher said that its "mood fell in perfectly with their beloved London's summer fascination with the sparsity and confusion that call Acid House, Psychedelic and how!" He described the music of "Peek-a-Boo" as "a crazed assortment of fairground accordions, abrupt horns, distant to-and-fro vocals-exotic, erotic, a dancefloor winner for sure and all of three minutes short." Fletcher also hailed the other tracks, noting "an almost lilting reggae feel to the beginning of "Killing Jar", a fragile, waif-like Siouxsie backed only by translucent guitar and a keyboard bass on the brief "Rawhead and Bloodybones", and a delightful, majestic ballad the likes of which it had been a safe assumption was beyond their reach on "The Last Beat of My Heart". [...] As Peepshow ends with the drawn-out "Rhapsody", Siouxsie's operatic flings seem to be a celebration of her reawakened capacity to thrill." Fletcher concluded: "She and the band sound as confident, abandoned and excited as when they started". In Stereo Review, the album was published in the column "Best of the Month". Reviewer Parke Puterbaugh wrote that the record was "a fascinating plunge into the subconscious" and was "Dream-like" and "hypnotic", further emphasizing, "Peepshow brims with nonlinear logic, compulsive rhythms, and icy, crystalline textures." The critic concluded his review, qualifying it as an "utterly unconventional and thoroughly intoxicating album"... "a transcendent feat: They are not playing music, the music is playing them". The readers of Best music magazine rated it the 6th best album of the year.

Writing in the 2004 edition of The Rolling Stone Album Guide, Mark Coleman and Mac Randall gave Peepshow a rating of 2.5 stars out of five, saying that the album mixes "synthesizers and a lighter pop touch with the Banshees' trademark howl", but the combination "lacks spark". A 2014 retrospective review in The Daily Telegraph praised the result, saying that "lush, folk-rock orchestration produced perfect pop".

Legacy
Bloc Party later praised "Peek-a-Boo", which their singer Kele Okereke described: "It sounded like nothing else on this planet. This is just a pop song [...], but to me it sounded like the most current but most futuristic bit of guitar-pop music I've heard." DeVotchKa later covered "The Last Beat of My Heart" at the suggestion of Arcade Fire singer Win Butler. Colin Meloy of The Decemberists also mentioned "The Last Beat of My Heart" as one of his favorite Siouxsie and the Banshees songs. Peepshow was also one of the albums Nic Offer of the band !!! ("Chk Chk Chk"), listened to the most during his formative years. Emel Mathlouthi recorded a rendition of "Rhapsody" as a one-off for French Television, saying that the lyrics were close to her.

Personnel

 * Siouxsie and the Banshees
 * Siouxsie Sioux – vocals
 * Steven Severin – electric bass
 * Budgie – drums, percussion and harmonica
 * Martin McCarrick – cello, keyboards, accordion
 * Jon Klein – guitar

 * Additional personnel
 * Mike Hedges – producer, engineer

title: Peepshow (album)


text:
Talk:The Wailing Siren Mystery

Linkspam
See [] for discussion about User FWDixon/Bob Finnan's link spamming and plagiarism.

title: Talk:The Wailing Siren Mystery


text:
Talk:Behelit

"Be Hell It"?
I removed this line from the top of the article:

Behelit "Be Hell It" a cursed object.

I Googled this, and came up with no responses. While it may sound like an obvious pun, the article does state that the Syriac word for "Satan" is "Beherit." which was probably what Miura was going for. Also, if the pun was intentional, it can only be understood by English-speakers, since in Japanese, "Behelit" sounds more like "Befferit".--Marcg106 17:09, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

title: Talk:Behelit


text:
Talk:The Secret of Wildcat Swamp

Linkspam
See [] for discussion about User FWDixon/Bob Finnan's link spamming and plagiarism.

title: Talk:The Secret of Wildcat Swamp


text: Category:Health in Kenya

title: Category:Health in Kenya


text:
Talk:The Crisscross Shadow

Linkspam
See [] for discussion about User FWDixon/Bob Finnan's link spamming and plagiarism.

title: Talk:The Crisscross Shadow


text:
Talk:The Yellow Feather Mystery

Linkspam
See [] for discussion about User FWDixon/Bob Finnan's link spamming and plagiarism.

title: Talk:The Yellow Feather Mystery


text:
Jawhar Mnari

Jawhar Mnari (جوهر مناري) (born 8 November 1976) is a Tunisian former professional footballer who played as a defensive midfielder.

Club career
Mnari was born in Monastir, Tunisia. In 2005, Mnari moved from Espérance to 1. FC Nürnberg. In 2007, he won the DFB-Pokal in Germany with 1. FC Nürnberg and reached the UEFA-Cup through this. He moved to FSV Frankfurt in 2010.

International career
Mnari was capped 44 times and scored three goals for the Tunisia national team. He scored the first goal against Spain in the 2006 World Cup in the 8th minute to help Tunisia take a 1–0 lead. He was part of the squad that won the 2004 African Cup of Nations.

International goals

 * Scores and results list Tunisia's goal tally first, score column indicates score after each Mnari goal.

Honours
1. FC Nürnberg
 * DFB-Pokal (2006–07)

Tunisia
 * Africa Cup of Nations: 2004

title: Jawhar Mnari


text:
Talk:The Hooded Hawk Mystery

Linkspam
See [] for discussion about User FWDixon/Bob Finnan's link spamming and plagiarism.

title: Talk:The Hooded Hawk Mystery


text:
Erich Zepler

Erich Ernst Zepler (27 January 1898 - 13 May 1980), later known as Eric Ernest Zepler, was a German-born electronics expert, lecturer, and chess problem composer. He was a Christian, but of Jewish race. He fled Germany in 1935, with his family and most of his possessions. He settled in England, dropping the H in his first name, and adding an E to his middle name, to become Eric Ernest Zepler.

Education
Zepler studied physics in Berlin and Bonn before receiving his doctorate from the University of Würzburg.

He was a Doctor of Philosophy (DPhil) of the University of Würzburg (by research), and a Doctor of Science (DSc) of the University of Southampton (by honorary award in 1977), where he had been Professor of Electronics for more than a decade.

Working life
After completing his doctoral studies Zepler undertook further research at Würzburg University, before commencing work for Telefunken in Germany, eventually becoming head of the radio receiver laboratories. Having fled to England to avoid Nazi persecution, he found work with the Marconi Company.

In 1947 he founded the Department of Electronics at University College, Southampton (now the University of Southampton), one of the first in the world. In 1949 the post of Chair of Electronics was created for him. The department is now home to the Zepler Building, named after him. He wrote several textbooks on electronics, the best known being his first, The Technique of Radio Design. It is said that many of his radios were used in World War II (on both sides).

In 1980 a historic Telefunken T9W radio receiver, designed by Zepler in 1927-1928, and retained by the company in Germany as an example of pioneering work, was transferred to the School of Electronics and Computer Science at Southampton University as a heritage asset on permanent loan.

Chess
Zepler was also a very significant figure in the field of chess problems. One of the leading composers of the new German school (also known as the logical school), he mainly composed three- and more-mover directmates, and also produced a small number of endgame studies. In 1957 he became an International Judge of Chess Compositions, and in 1973 an International Master of Chess Compositions. He is the eponym of Zepler doubling, after his pioneer problem published in the Hamburgischer Correspondent, 1929.

Zepler often worked with another German problemist, Adolf Kraemer; Im Banne des Schachproblems (1951, revised 1971) is a collection of their best work and considered one of the finest of all collections of chess problems. The two also published Problemkunst im 20.Jahrhundert (1956), a compilation of what they considered to be the finest 20th century problems. Their friendship was remarkable, since Kraemer was a member of the SA, and possibly of the SS.

The mate in four to the right is one of Zepler's numerous First Prize-winners, and demonstrates his logical style well. White would like to play 1.Ra2+ Qxa2 2.Qb4#, but the White queen is pinned to the king, making the mate impossible. White must therefore move his king to a different square; the direct approach with 1.Kf8 or 1.Kg7 fails to 1...Qb2!, and moves to the e-file allow 1...Qe1+, so instead the unobvious 1.Bxf5! is needed. After 1...Qxf5+ 2.Ke7 Qb1 (on any other checks, the queen is simply captured) we have the original position again except that the king is no longer on the a2-g8 diagonal, making the mate possible: 3.Ra2+ Qxa2 4.Qb4#.

Zepler was also a strong chess player being a member of Southampton Chess Club.

Private life
Zepler was married, and he and his wife had two children, Carole and Matthew, both born in Germany.

Publications

 * The Technique of Radio Design Chapman & Hall 1943, 1949
 * (& Punnet S W) Electronic Circuit Techniques Blackie 1963
 * Electronic devices and networks Blackie 1963
 * (& Havel J R P) The Loudness of Sonic Booms and other Impusive Sounds. J. Sound & Vibration vol.2(3), 1965, 249-256
 * (& Nichols K G) Transients in Electronic Engineering Chapman & Hall 1971

title: Erich Zepler


text:
Talk:Banzhaf power index

[Untitled]
I'm not quite sure how to write the math part. Someone with a little bit more math writing skills want to take a shot at it? --Zoop 16:55, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

History
The calculation is wrong. BC is not a majority coalition. I am removing this section, rather then redo it. No Info is better then wrong info! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.246.2.25 (talk) 16:23, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

My Bad. Added it back in Calc was correct after all!

Indirect voting systems
I think we need another section to explain the voting powers of citizens that elect delegates who then have to vote en bloc, as for example in the Electoral College (United States). I think, this is an important application as it also explains the fairness of the Penrose method for such systems. There, the voting powers (i.e, the Banzhaf power index) of people from polities of different sizes are equal if the delegations of each polity receive their voting weight according to the square root of the population they represent and if the vote en bloc. Obviously, the voting powers of the delegations are not equal then but reciprocal to the voting power of the people in their respective elections for the delegations.

In contrast to this 2-stage application, the article currently deals with 1-stage systems only, as applies to the Banzhaf indexes of people in referendums or the Banzhaf indexes of delegations in parliaments. It would be interesting to show how these indexes translate to the indexes of the people electing the delegations.

Please comment on this endeavor before I start introducing the new section proposed here. T om ea s y T C 23:24, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

 * I'd love to see this added! Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 00:49, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Banzhaf power index. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110719105103/http://korsika.informatik.uni-kiel.de/~stb/power_indices/index.php to http://korsika.informatik.uni-kiel.de/~stb/power_indices/index.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:41, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Banzhaf power index. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151121073351/http://hpcgi2.nifty.com/TOMOMI/index-e.cgi to http://hpcgi2.nifty.com/TOMOMI/index-e.cgi

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:12, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

title: Talk:Banzhaf power index


text:
Talk:The Clue in the Embers

Linkspam
See [] for discussion about User FWDixon/Bob Finnan's link spamming and plagiarism.

title: Talk:The Clue in the Embers


text:
Talk:The Secret of Pirates' Hill

Linkspam
See [] for discussion about User FWDixon/Bob Finnan's link spamming and plagiarism.

title: Talk:The Secret of Pirates' Hill


text:
Talk:Grouseland

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Grouseland. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090109121731/http://tps.cr.nps.gov/nhl/detail.cfm?ResourceId=20&ResourceType=Building to http://tps.cr.nps.gov/nhl/detail.cfm?ResourceId=20&ResourceType=Building
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081118182553/http://www.spiritofvincennes.org/rendezvous/historic/ to http://www.spiritofvincennes.org/rendezvous/historic/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 14:17, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Grouseland. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110719024751/http://www.insideindianabusiness.com/newsitem.asp?ID=28887 to http://www.insideindianabusiness.com/newsitem.asp?ID=28887

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:05, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Adding subheadings
I'll be adding subheadings to the article, along with additional content and citations, since it currently covers several topics related to the house's history, construction, and in habitants.Rosalina523 (talk) 20:43, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

title: Talk:Grouseland


text:
Talk:Hammond Circus Train Wreck

Animals
Did this train carry any animals? Does anyone know what the death toll was for them?

According to the article about Showmen's Rest cemetery, no animals died. God bless. CKB —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.147.241.223 (talk) 19:48, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

The Showmen's Rest cemetery article says nothing about the death count for the animals. It only says that no elephants were buried there, in contradiction of the claim that elephant noises heard in the cemetery are ghosts. 71.108.242.196 (talk) 07:39, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Hammond Circus Train Wreck Actually Took Place in Gary
The train was headed for Hammond, but the wreck happened in Gary, Indiana. There was a railroad tower "Ivanhoe" at the west end of Gary, near the Hammond/Gary city limits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hiawatha1995 (talk • contribs) 09:40, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Hammond Circus Train Wreck. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20050404193341/http://www.hammondindiana.com:80/history/circus.htm to http://www.hammondindiana.com/history/circus.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 07:32, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

title: Talk:Hammond Circus Train Wreck


text:
Talk:Indiana Territory

Map accuracy
This map is not completely accurate. When Michigan Territory was formed in 1805, the boundary extended through Lake Michigan from the southermost extreme to the northermost extreme. This moves the line in the northern peninsula west. The map also does not reflect the 30 townships transferred to Indiana upon formation of the state -- these were never a part of Indiana Territory. A much larger error, Illinois Territory was formed in 1809, reducing the size of Indiana Territory to roughly the size of the current state (less the 30 townships). The current map indicates that land was a part of the territory until statehood in 1816. older ≠ wiser 14:32, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

 * The revised map is an improvement in accuracy, though perhaps a little difficult to parse. But it does make sense if you ponder it long enough, so it probably is not such a problem. One very tiny detail, when Indiana became a state in 1816, the middle portion of the UP technically became unorganized territory until Illinois became a state when the entire area was joined to Michigan Territory. Perhaps you may have seen this already, but this page has a pretty good dissection of the disposition of the various lands in the NWT. Cheers. older ≠ wiser 20:29, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

mel gibson

 * I like the current map, and how it shows where the territory came from and how it was later divided. I wonder, though, if it would useful to also include an image showing the undivided Indiana Territory at it's maximum, when it was just the western partition of the Northwest Territory.  There were no state lines in 1800, and it would have been a vast, uncontrollable territory to the people who first knew it. Mingusboodle (talk) 06:03, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

 * Indeed, in 1800 there were only extremely sketchy and vague notions about the extent of the northwestern boundary -- the source of the Mississippi wasn't determined until about 1820. older ≠ wiser 12:25, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, the map is terrible. Perhaps show the initial boundaries of the territory only? This complicated map can be included elsewhere in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.78.30.220 (talk) 05:57, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Louisiana District
My addition of Louisiana District was reverted. I have it referenced and the article makes note that it was only nine months. The reverter said in the summary it was only temporary. Even it was temporary it is in sequence of events for the territory. The enabling legislation never said anything about it being temporary. The annexation is a source of considerable controversy and adds a lot to the notability of the territory. Americasroof 16:19, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

 * No part of the Louisiana Purchase was ever part of the Indiana Territory. The Governor and the judges were temporarily given jurisdiction, but the area did not become a part of the Indiana Territory. Including the map is misleading. Describing the sequence of events in the article is fine--I left that in. But the map is out of place here as it is tangential to the Territory itself. The acts which gave the governors and judges did make very explicit that it was for temporary government. older ≠ wiser 23:42, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

 * You're replacing referenced material with unreferenced material including a great deal about how the territory was governed. It's unfortunate but you're ruining the article.  Americasroof 23:48, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

 * P.S. I've cited my references. You cite yours and we could turn this into a pretty good article.  Just reverting is going to piss both of us off.  Americasroof 23:54, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

 * References below. Could you point out what specifically in the reference you've cited supports the notion that Louisiana District was ever annexed to Indiana Territory? I don't see anything there in that regard. My main objection is to the map, which is very misleading. older ≠ wiser 00:13, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

 * (after edit conflict) Relevant legislation:
 * The act of Oct. 31, 1803, which enabled the president to take possession was titled An Act to enable the President of the United States to take possession of the territories ceded by France to the United States, by the treaty concluded at Paris on the thirtieth of April last ; and for the temporary government thereof. (emphasis added)
 * The act of March 26, 1804, that created Orleans Territory and the District of Louisiana was titled An Act erecting Louisiana into two territories, and providing for the temporary government thereof. (emphasis added)
 * Section 12 of that act established the residue of the province of Louisiana as the "district of Louisiana". It did not merge or attach that to Indiana Territory. But rather stated that the "executive power now vested in the governor of the Indiana Territory, shall extend to, and be exercised in the said district." Similarly for the judges. They were to administer the district, but the district remained distinct from the Indiana Territory. Section 16, explicitly put an expiration into the act: the act was to become effective on October 1, 1804, and "shall continue in force for and during the term of one year, and to the end of the next session of Congress which may happen thereafter."
 * The act of March 3, 1805, which was among the last acts passed by the 8th Congress, established the permanent government of the district under the name Territory of Louisiana."
 * There is nothing in any of this to suggest that the district was ever "annexed" to Indiana Territory. older ≠ wiser 00:09, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

 * Thanks for the edits and explanation. The Houck reference which gives details of the governance refers to it as annexation.  Houck's book is the definitive book on early Missouri history (even if it's old).  I'm o.k. with the map being off.  My main focus was writing about the early governance of Missouri.  I think we're getting to a good article now.  Thanks.  Americasroof 00:40, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

 * The details about the complaints of the district residents really doesn't seem especially relevant in an article about Indiana Territory, as the complaints seem more about federal policies and actions in the region rather than any specific connection to Indiana Territory. Seems like those details would be more appropriate in the article about the District. older ≠ wiser 01:58, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

 * I don't understand the obsession with "temporary." The section clearly states that it occurred for only nine months.  Harrison et al was charged with creating laws in the district and met at least twice in St. Louis.  The fact these were the first time that folks west of the Mississippi came under United States law is notable (and it is notable that they resisted).  There were some heavy duty changes including the slavery.  These are all notable.  The District of Louisiana article as written focuses on the military commandant before Indiana assumed control.  During the Indiana period the district was definitely a part of Indiana and reporting up through its command.  You should definitely read the 15 pages of the Houck article giving the detail of governance.  This is all noteworthy for Indiana Territory history.  I put in headings to break out the Louisiana section from the rest of the Northwest Territories section.  All this information can coexist in the same article!!!  As a side note I don't understand the request for citations about French governance.  In Louisiana (New France), France claimed the entire Mississippi valley and all its tributaries (e.g., the Ohio and Missouri).  It was governed as Upper Louisiana by a commandant.  See: List of commandants of the Illinois Country. Americasroof 03:14, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

 * I emphasized "temporary" because your previous edits gave the impression that the district had been annexed to Indiana Territory, which it was not. It was NEVER a part of Indiana Territory. Whatever went on in the district certainly may have had some notability. But it had only tangential relevance for Indiana Territory. I have read Houck, and the complaints are quite clearly about federal policy--Indiana Territory is barely mentioned. I don't disagree that there should be some mention here of the district and the extension of Harrison's powers. But I don't see how all this detail about the district (which, recall was NEVER a part of Indiana Territory) is particularly relevant for an article about Indiana Territory.

 * Re citations for similarities -- you make the statement that "This first attempt to govern the Upper Louisiana portion of the Louisiana Purchase was somewhat similar in how Louisiana (New France) had governed both sides of the Mississippi River as Illinois Country before France ceded the land east of the Mississippi to Great Britain in the Treaty of Paris (1763) the land west of the Mississippi to the Treaty of Fontainebleau (1762) (which was announced in a 1764)." What are the similarities in the governments? The basis of comparison is unclear. Making such a comparative statement entails some synthetic analysis, which if it is not to be considered original research, needs a citation for the comparison. older ≠ wiser 03:46, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The specific reference in the enabling legislation is [Section 12 http://rs6.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=002/llsl002.db&recNum=324] in which it specifically lays that the District of Louisiana "shall be organized and administered as follows" and then proceeds to say the Indiana Governor and Courts will have jurisdiction, that Indiana will draw up its laws and that the Indiana governor will organize militias in the district. The District of Louisiana is not self-governing.  It has no governor of its own and no capital.  So if its governors, laws, militia and courts are all governed from Indiana what territory is it a part of?  The nine months of Indiana governance of the west side of Mississippi is very notable.

 * P.S. I'm going to take the sentence out about Upper Louisiana. There's a point to be made about the courses of both sides of the river had dramatically changed since their unified government until 1763.  Americasroof 21:12, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

 * But that's just it. The district never became a part of Indiana Territory -- in other cases, Congress was explicit when it was  combining territories or expanding the area of a territory. Congress very clearly did not do so in this case -- the district remained a distinct entity from Indiana Territory. The Governor and judges were merely appointed to exercise temporary administrative oversight. Perhaps an analogy might help. Suppose a corporation buys up another company and the scope of the acquisition increased dramatically at the last stages of negotiations. The corporation had not determined what it was going to do with the entire acquisition. Rather than make a rushed decision, it asked the leader of one of its existing divisions to serve as a caretaker for a portion of the new acquisition while it decided what to do. By asking that leader to assume responsibilities for the new acquisition, it was not merging the new acquisition with the existing division. It was merely asking the leader to temporarily take on additional responsibilities.  That the district was not self-governing at that time is irrelevant. There are other examples of unorganized U.S. territories that were externally administered. older ≠ wiser 21:32, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

 * Since I see you're a big Michigan writer, I updated the Timeline of Michigan history to show how this history fits into the overall French control of North America and its subsequent governance. I was surprised the Royal Proclamation of 1763 and Quebec Act had not been included in that timeline.  The District of Louisiana is a subset of Indiana on the initial governance plan (and was a sore point as the District of Louisiana should be its own self-contained territory).  The District of Louisiana is clearly spelled out.  It is NOT unorganized territory.  The early attempt to govern Louisiana is notable and I see by your latest edit that you have knocked out that notable fact.  Americasroof 17:19, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

 * Since it was not an organized territory and it had not been added to Indiana Territory, it was by default unorganized territory as there were no other organic acts pertaining to it up to that time. I'm not sure what you're referring to in you're last sentence. My last edit to the article removed a sentence fragment that you had left behind. I was unable to discern any significance behind the fragment. NB, I am going to move the complaints by the District residents to that article, as it is by far more relevant to that article than to this one. older ≠ wiser 18:13, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, re-reading section 12, the act is in fact an organic act in that it organizes government of the District. But the District does explicitly remain a distinct entity from the Indiana Territory. Rather the powers of the Governor and Judges were temporarily extended to the District. older ≠ wiser 18:36, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

 * Before I did my edits adding details about Louisiana the article was unreferenced and would be considered either a stub or a start. The Louisiana portion is just a small but important piece of Indiana history and greatly adds to its notability.  The complaints give background to the discussion of the slavery issue.    The section is divided from the rest of the article.  Americasroof 18:32, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I can live with the various edits now. It keeps the history cleaner to keep them on either of the river (although mentioning where they mingle).  Thanks for the vigorous debate.  Americasroof 18:53, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Original boundaries
The section contains the statements ''It also included the portion of present-day Ohio west of the Great Miami River. This latter parcel became part of the state of Ohio when it was admitted to the Union in 1803.'' However the map shows pretty much the reverse of this. The original boundaries according to the Act Creating Indiana Territory, 1800 were "all that part of the territory of the United States north-west of the Ohio river, which lies to the westward of a line beginning at the Ohio, opposite to the mouth of Kentucky river, and running thence to fort Recovery, and thence north until it shall intersect the territorial line between the United States and Canada." When the state of Ohio was formed in 1803, the western boundary was defined as beginning from the mouth of the Great Miami River. The gore from the point opposite the Kentucky river to Fort Recovery to the Mouth of the Great Miami river was thus included in Indiana Territory. However the current phrasing is sourced to "Jervic, 53–54" and "Jervic, 110" (which I think is a typo for Jervis, Cutler & Le Raye, Charles (1971). A Topographical Description of the State of Ohio, Indiana Territory, and Louisiana. Ayer Publishing). This should be sorted out. older ≠ wiser 13:26, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

 * Fort Recovery is in Ohio, and several miles over the border. The bank oppoiste the mouth of the Kentucky River is in Indiana now. So the line started in present Indiana and ran diaganol across the present Ohio border and several miles into Ohio, and then due north to the Canadian border. When statehood was granted to Ohio, the border was changed, as you noted. So now there is a straight north south line from the northern border, due south to the ohio river, which is several miles west of the original line. So, the land east of that origina nort south line starting at recover, was taken from Indiana territory and given to ohio, and vica verse, the land that was west of that diagonal line from the kentucky river, was given to Indiana territory. So it is accurated to say that the territory held a slice of Ohio west of the miami river, because it did hold a narrow, about 250 miles long by 15 miles wide, strech that was given to Ohio. All of which was west of the Miami River Charles Edward 13:40, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

 * Yes that is true, although the crude drawing you include rather grossly overstates the area between Fort Recovery and understates the size of the gore from the mouth of the Kentucky River to Fort Recovery. As it the article is currently phrased, none of this detail is apparent and on the face of it appears to contradict the map showing the change in boundaries. older ≠ wiser 14:16, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

 * I agree, that is why I call it a crude map. I reworded it to make more clear the orginal boundry was related to Fort Recovery, and not to the Miami. But how else would you summarily describe the land west of miami that was transfered to Ohio in 1803? Or, how do you suggest we reword it? Charles Edward 14:25, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

 * I think the ambiguity is using the phrase "west of the Great Miami River" -- the larger portion of land that was transferred in 1803 was in the gore which went from Ohio to Indiana Territory. A thin slice that went to Ohio, which while technically "west" of the Miami, for the most part lies to the north of the river's headwaters. I suggest using the boundary descriptions from the original documents and then adding explanation as needed. A more detailed image might help. For instance, Image:Indiana Indian treaties.jpg give some indication of the size of the gore. There are a couple of editors such as User:Kmusser who will sometimes create maps on request. older ≠ wiser 14:37, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

Original counties
When Indiana Territory was first created in 1800, it consisted of the following counties with creation dates in parentheses:
 * Knox County, Indiana (June 20, 1790)
 * Randolph County, Illinois (October 5, 1795)
 * St. Clair County, Illinois (April 27, 1790)

Wayne County, Michigan (18 Aug 1796) remained a part of the original Northwest Territory until the boundaries were adjusted with admittance of the state of Ohio in 1803. A portion of what became Indiana was a part of Hamilton County, Ohio (January 2, 1790) until creation of the state of Ohio. However, before that happened, Clark County, Indiana (February 3, 1801) was created in the gore that what was then still part of Northwest Territory. In 1803 upon Ohio statehood, besides the addition of Wayne County to Indiana Territory, Dearborn County, Indiana (March 7, 1803) was created. older ≠ wiser 22:18, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

 * Do you have a source for that? The map in my book is different. Perhaps we should just remove that part? I am going to to look at a couple more books to see what I can dig up for certain. Charles Edward 22:23, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

 * You can check the articles on the counties here, but for a convenient external reference see FamilyHistory101.com (although currently somewhat cheesy-looking, the information is pretty solid as far as I have been able to tell--and I've checked quite a lot of the Michigan info independently). The formation map timelines are especially cool. Here are quick links to some of the more relevant items:
 * Illinois County Formation Maps
 * Indiana County Formation Maps
 * Michigan County Formation Maps
 * Ohio County Formation Maps
 * Illinois County Facts & Information
 * Indiana County Facts & Information
 * Michigan County Facts & Information
 * Ohio County Facts & Information
 * Cheers. older ≠ wiser 22:35, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

 * I have found a source too. . Looks like you are right! Thanks. Charles Edward 22:37, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

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

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Indiana Territory. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071102122109/http://www.americanheritage.com:80/articles/magazine/ah/1960/1/1960_1_28.shtml to http://www.americanheritage.com/articles/magazine/ah/1960/1/1960_1_28.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 07:48, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Indiana Territory. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080619173825/http://www.in.gov/history/6874.htm to http://www.in.gov/history/6874.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080619173825/http://www.in.gov/history/6874.htm to http://www.in.gov/history/6874.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:46, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Indiana Territory. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080619174831/http://www.in.gov/history/6214.htm to http://www.in.gov/history/6214.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:58, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

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

 * I agree. I looked at several other U.S. territory articles, and they all have the history at the beginning of the article. Indyguy (talk) 14:38, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Indiana Territory


text:
Talk:Lawrence Watt-Evans

Expanded
I've expanded Ethshar (which was a tiny stub) a good deal; take a look and see how you can improve it. --Jim Henry | Talk 16:57, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

I've edited this entry to remove inaccuracies. Last time I did this, Friendly Neighbour reverted it without bothering to check on anything, which I find very annoying -- I like to think I know more about myself than he does. Rest assured, my version is correct, and anyone who wants a reference can ask me, at lwe@sff.net. -- Lawrence Watt Evans

 * How could I know it's you? Actually, I cannot be sure even now but I take your word for this. Thanks for your great books! Friendly Neighbour 22:11, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

bug
Crosstime Traffic links to something by Harry Turtledove. I think the LWE story collection may be Crosstime Express but I no longer have a copy. —Tamfang 01:24, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The author's page says "Crosstime Traffic" is correct. —Cryptic 01:37, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Split
For splitting. Like Anne McCaffrey and before the revert, this needs also to be splitted into a List of works by Lawrence Watt-Evans. I am for it. The Mad Hatter (talk)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lawrence Watt-Evans. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110723034125/http://www.boingboing.net/2005/05/11/wattevanss_next_nove.html to http://www.boingboing.net/2005/05/11/wattevanss_next_nove.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:53, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Lawrence Watt-Evans