Talk:Northwest Territory

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

Northwestern University[edit]

For some reason there was a large amount of information in the introduction about Northwestern University. I deleted it as it is completely irrelevant. Mbarry829 (talk) 22:35, 16 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Is there any reason this article can't be at just plain Northwest Territory so long as it retains the note at the top about Canada's Northwestern Territories? jengod 07:56, Jan 28, 2004 (UTC)

Moved. I don't see the confusion since that one is plural and this one is singular. the note at the top is more than enough. --Jiang 07:58, 28 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Fixed chronology problem[edit]

The Constitutional convention was in 1787 and could not possibly have been the motivating factor for events in 1780. By the time of the convention, the Western lands issue had mostly been settled.

Roadrunner 14:59, 20 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That was a mistake in the original. It should have referred to the Articles of Confederation. Maryland held out on ratifying the articles until states had agreed to cede their claims to western territories. olderwiser 15:36, 20 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Phantom categories are a menace[edit]

Near the top of the page, the following text appears:

Northwest Territory, 1787 Northwest Territory, 1803

Where the heck does that come from? I keep editing/searching the article, but I can't find it to either delete it or move it to the bottom of the article, where it belongs. Mingusboodle (talk) 05:01, 2 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think these were caused by a recent edit that linked dates in the infobox. olderwiser 13:43, 2 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for fixing that! Mingusboodle (talk) 17:23, 2 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The same size as France[edit]

Reading this article, I notice that the Old Northwest is just about the same size as France, and propose adding a phrase to that effect. This should help people visualize it, especially people from outside North America.

Suggest ending the second paragraph: "The area covered more than 260,000 square miles (673,000 km²), the same size as France." (talk) 16:43, 28 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Lithuanian Northwest Territory[edit]

While there may or may not need to be disambiguation between Territory and Territories, it is needed to distinguished at least between the Northwest Territory in the USA and the Northwest Territory in the old Russian Empire (which included Lithuania). Uranian Institute (talk) 20:24, 19 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If there were a topic on "Northwest Territory in the old Russian Empire", it would be possible to add it to the list of disambiguation comments. Tedickey (talk) 21:16, 19 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Russian Northwest Territory[edit]

According to the Encyclopedia Britannica entry for Lithuania, the term Northwest Territory was used not just for Lithuania but for a region within the Russian Empire that included Lithuania, "northwest" logically implying "Northwest Russian Empire". Wikipedia already includes an entry for "Northwestern Krai", a political entity created in the 18th century, and therefore probably Not the same as the "Northwest Territory" created after 1830 by the Russian Czarist government. Assuming the Encyclopedia Britannica as a credible source, this means a rather clear need to disambiguate at least between the US Northwest Territory and the Russian Northwest Territory -- even IF (and that is a big IF) the Russian Northwest Territory were identical to the "Northwestern Krai".... also it seems reasonable to me for people to include information published by reliable academic sources if such information is available in reliable academic sources. And also remember that Wikipedia is consulted by people all over the world who are reading material and references from around the globe. The disambiguation of "Northwest Territory" remains aside from the question of disambiguation with "Northwest Territories". Uranian Institute (talk) 21:54, 19 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Either way, you don't have a topic containing the information, and encyclopedia topics are not a good basis for reliable sources - suggest that you find the sources and construct a topic before deciding how to rewrite other topics to promote that one Tedickey (talk) 22:11, 19 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You state "encyclopedia topics are not a good basis for reliable sources" -- what 'reliable' sources do you recommend instead?. (talk) 22:49, 19 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Primary sources, of course. A good encyclopedia topic can point you there. Tedickey (talk) 23:06, 19 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, I was referring to the Encyclopedia Britannica... plus there are several other articles on the internet written by people with graduate degrees on the topic of the Russian Northwest Territory created as part of the 'Russification' policy of Czar Nicholas I... not to mention a revived 'Russification' policy by Czar Nicholas II. I added a Wiki article for "Northwest Territory (in Czarist Russia)" and it was removed shortly therafter by someone who apparently thinks is doesn't belong in Wikipedia for some strange reason. However, there is yet another reason to disambiguate the term "Northwest Territory"... several articles on American history on the internet indicate that after "Northwest Territory" ceased to be used for the region including Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, etc., that the term was revived and used to refer to what was also at one point called the 'Oregon Country' in the US Pacific Northwest, and included parts of the current states of Oregon and Idaho as well as adjacent regions. It seems to me that a specialist in American History might want to look into that and include it in Wikipedia. Wikipedia is an international source of information consulted by people around the world, and it seems reasonable to include all possible cross-references to disambiguate terminology. (talk) 00:51, 20 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, the place to start is by creating those other interesting topics, and then add/update disambiguation templates (hat-notes) as appropriate Tedickey (talk) 10:13, 20 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

promotional edits for Ohio University[edit] not improve this topic TEDickey (talk) 09:30, 17 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Essentially the same text was added to two topics which improves neither, being at most a secondary connection with this topic. TEDickey (talk) 10:19, 17 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Requested move 8 July 2018[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move the page to the proposed title at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 17:53, 15 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Northwest TerritoryNorthwest Territory (United States) – To avoid confusion with various other Northwest Territories, such as Canada's Northwest Territories. The rationale given back in 2004 was that a hatnote could be used for other Northwest Territories, but the hatnote is far too long by this point. Though I acknowledge that the singular "Northwest Territory" is likely to refer to the historical American territory, the potential for confusion does exist. ONR (talk) 01:01, 8 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Comment: Would an alternate WP:NATURALDISAMBIG approach be better, moving it to Territory Northwest of the River Ohio? Also, what would go in its place after a move - a new disambig page, a redirect to Northwest, a redirect to Northwest Territories (Canada), or something else? -- Netoholic @ 05:42, 8 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • SupportNorthwest Territory could easily mistakenly refer to the Northwest Territories of Canada and there doesn't seem to be any reason per guideline criteria that suggest the former territory of the United States is primary topic. CookieMonster755 05:52, 8 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose - The hatnote is sufficient, but if it's too long, trim it back. No other article has the exact same name, so this is the clear primary topic, and also the common name. - BilCat (talk) 06:21, 8 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • NeutralNorthwest Territory could easily be mistakenly - adding US would help readers. "No other article has the exact same name" is not relevant - it's the use in GBooks but in GBooks does seem to be the old territory. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:41, 8 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose per WP:OVERPRECISION. There is no other article that would use this precise name. Northwest Territories is not the same as Northwest Territory; the two terms are not properly interchangeable. Confusion between the two is best handled by the hatnote, which I've cut back because it was unnecessarily long, considering there is a dab page containing the more obscure or only slightly similar names. Station1 (talk) 08:14, 8 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose good faith nom. The term as expressed seems to be the common name for the US land area, and the hatnote concern seems to have been handled. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:44, 8 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Neutral It should be moved to Northwest Territory (USA). the move avoids confusion with Canada's Northwest Territories, but is not overly long. Caleb The Wipper (talk) 01:42, 10 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Moving it to a disambiguated title isn't being neutral. Also, USA is deprecated per WP:USA, so "United States" is wear it would go if moved. - BilCat (talk) 02:01, 10 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose the hatnote is sufficient for any confusion and isn't too long anymore. The historic American territory was and is called widely by this name, and I agree with Station1 here. —innotata 01:44, 12 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Weak Oppose I think the hatnote is sufficient, per WP:PLURALPT. Territory Northwest of the River Ohio is definitely not reasonable. As an American I may be more familiar with this topic than the average reader, so I note my oppose as a weak one. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:33, 13 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Excessive detail[edit]

WE have a large amount of detail for two items, education and government officials and sessions that are only two of the 37 laws in 8 areas that were the Northwest Ordinance, and zero text about the others (like prohibition of slavery). Since we have a separate article about the Ordinance, I think this article is most properly a place to summarize the Ordinance, and move or remove the details to the other article. And of course, add some exposition of the missing items. Sbalfour (talk) 14:51, 7 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Northwest Indian War[edit]

This section is obviously topical, so topical that it omits several of the critical incidents, or omits their names, so readers can't wikilink to the composite articles. So I've created a list of those article links, and placed them in a [Further] hatnote for reference. All should be detailed and wikilinked in the text, but until they are, it's an expository outline of what this war was about.

Sbalfour (talk) 17:03, 11 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wayne County included in St. Clair's original plan?[edit]

The text says Wayne County was one of St. Clair's original 5 counties. Wayne County was actually the 6th county created, in 1796. It seems unlikely that St. Clair was prescient 9 years into the future in 1787. Anthony Wayne, the county namesake, was retired from the army, and while not unknown, he was one among many Revolutionary heroes, and not too likely to be singled out to have a county named for him (unlike presidents). And at that time, the future Wayne County (northwest Ohio outside the Fort McIntosh Treaty Line, northern Indiana and Michigan) had no colonial settlers, no U.S. forts, and was solidly in control of either the British or Indians. St. Clair couldnt't know if or when any of those things would change. I think someone was confabulating. Nor is it at all certain that St. Clair envisioned 3 years into the future (i.e. the three counties formed in 1790) where settlements like Losantiville would be made, since one of the progenitors of a county is a structured settlement capable of becoming an administrative center. In short, the county structure of the Northwest territory wasn't planned, but evolved of exigencies on the ground. Sbalfour (talk) 23:10, 16 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK, I deleted the statement - it was unsourced, dubious, and I can't find a source. Sbalfour (talk) 19:11, 17 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Northwest Territory's bitter end[edit]

I read an article a while ago, maybe from a local Indiana newspaper, that The Northwest Territory did not go out of existence at the time of Ohio's statehood, but that the legal entity lived on for a while as the detached sliver of Hamilton County west of the Treaty line. It eventually became Dearborn County, Indiana, before subdivision, possibly as late as 1816, the date of Indiana's admission to the Union. Locally, it was called "The Gore", and it was the remnant of the Northwest Territory, later designated Dearborn Territory, later attached to Indiana Territory. I can't seem to find that bit of fuzz now, but as scholars, we might want to take a look at that. Sbalfour (talk) 17:58, 14 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The synopsis of the book Early Settlers of Indiana's Gore, 1803-1820 ( states: "The Indiana Territory was formed in 1800 with the division of the Northwest Territory. At that time, Ohio's western boundary was the Greenville Treaty Line of 1795. When Ohio became a state in 1803, and its present western boundary was established, a wedge of land was ceded to the Indiana Territory from Ohio and named Dearborn County. It became known as the "Gore." The county seat at Lawrenceburg was the primary repository for records concerning inhabitants. Subdivision of Dearborn County began in 1811 with the formation of Franklin and Wayne Counties, followed by Switzerland in 1814." I used this Google search. Indyguy (talk) 18:21, 14 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The Indiana Territory article in the Indiana Historian indicates the same. I realize now that this is somewhat different from what you are remembering, so it maybe doesn't answer the question. Indyguy (talk) 18:30, 14 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Sbalfour: You may be misremembering what you read. There never was a Dearborn Territory. In 1803 a wedge of land was ceded to Indiana Territory at the time Ohio became a state and named Dearborn County. It became known as the “Gore” and slices through the present-day counties of Dearborn, Franklin, Ohio, Randolph, Switzerland, Union and Wayne. Cheers. Drdpw (talk) 19:18, 14 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, I'm not going to contest your exposition, or change the article without a good source. The article actually says the attachment to Indiana territory occurred within "a few days". I seem to remember it took quite a bit longer, and if it did, and that entity was (legally) the Northwest Territory, that's interesting. Game show interesting, but nonetheless. (My childhood home is in the Gore, so I know something of the local lore.) Sbalfour (talk) 19:51, 14 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Section 3 of An Act to nnable the people of the Eastern division of the territory northwest of the river Ohio to form a constitution and state government, and for the admission of such state into the Union, on an equal footing with the original States, and for other purposes states: 'That all that part of the territory of the United States, northwest of the river Ohio, heretofore included in the eastern division of said territory, and not included within the boundary herein prescribed for the said state, is hereby attached to and made a part of the Indiana territory, from and after the formation of said state...". Section 2 gives the boundaries. It looks to me like there was never a time when The Gore had an independent legal existence, although given how undeveloped the area was at the time, it may be that it operated somewhat independently for a while. Indyguy (talk) 21:48, 14 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That wording echo echos that from the 1800 Act creating Indiana Territory, "Sec. 5. And be it further enacted, That nothing in this act contained shall be construed so as in any manner to affect the government now in force in the territory of the United States north-west of the Ohio river, further than to prohibit the exercise thereof within the Indiana territory, from and after the aforesaid fourth day of July next: Provided, That whenever that part of the territory of the United States which lies to the eastward of a line beginning at the mouth of the Great Miami river, and running thence due north to the territorial line between the United States and Canada, shall be erected into an independent state and admitted into the Union on an equal footing with the original states, thenceforth said line shall become and remain permanently the boundary line between such state and the Indiana territory; any thing in this act contained to the contrary notwithstanding." It would appear that whatever was not included in the State of Ohio in 1803 automatically (de jure) became part of Indiana Territory. Drdpw (talk) 22:41, 14 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Of course, that brings up the question of why The Gore wasn't just included in the Indiana Territory already in 1800 since it was known already then that it would be eventually. I assume it was because most of what became the Indiana Territory was still legally Indian land, while The Gore was land that had already been ceded by the various tribes and was open to settlement. Indyguy (talk) 23:05, 14 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have re-inserted Northwest Territories into the hatnote, as (out of all the others) it seems the most likely to be confused with "Northwest Territory" (a case of singular versus plural). Yes, it can be reached through Northwest (disambiguation), but then so could Northwestern United States or Pacific Northwest, both of which are listed in the hatnote. Given that the articles' titles are so obviously similar, I think that including it in the hatnote is justified. --RFBailey (talk) 00:02, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Then they should be removed too. BilCat (talk) 00:08, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I note that the hatnote in the Northwest Territories article includes both Northwest Territory and Northwest (disambiguation). Prior to recently, the Canadian territory was listed in the hatnote of this article as well, but was replaced by the disambiguation page; I still think that having both is justified because of the similarity of the two pages' names. I'm less convinced by the need to list Northwestern United States or Pacific Northwest, but someone clearly thought it was worth including them so I left them alone (although they were added here, and the link to the disambiguation page was removed at the same time, but the reasoning given sounds rather like Americentrism).
I propose reinstating a much older version of the hatnote (see this version, for instance): This article is about the former U.S. territory. For the Canadian territory, see Northwest Territories. For similar terms, see Northwest (disambiguation). --RFBailey (talk) 00:49, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That would be fine with me, as the title has no mention of the US, unlike Northwestern United States. BilCat (talk) 01:09, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have made the change. --RFBailey (talk) 01:58, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Glad we could. finally agree.  :) BilCat (talk) 02:09, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]