Talk:Treaty of Greenville/Archive 1

Green(e)ville
The title of the page is incorrect. The spelling of the Treaty of Greenville has an "e" between the n and the v. The modern city of Greenville is spelled without the e.  However, the fort built by Anthony Wayne was named after his good friend and Revolutionary War General Nathanael Greene. Therefore, Wayne spelled the fort's name and the treaty's name with the e. I have already corrected the spelling in the article, but I am unable to fix the title and all of the other times the treaty and/or fort is mentioned in Wikipedia. I would be greatful for people's help in fixing this problem. I would like to respect General Wayne and honor General Nathanael Greene by correcting the spelling. LUL TROLLING IS VEWY FUN


 * Sorry, but the vast majority of sources cite the title as "Treaty of Greenville". older≠wiser 03:10, 14 December 2005 (UTC)


 * That's my impression as well. We can note in the article that the original spelling was different, but per Wikipedia practice we should continue to use the more common spelling in the title and elsewhere. --Kevin Myers | (complaint dept.) 14:49, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I am sorry. I figured that Wikipedia would want to be historically accurate. By providing inaccurate information you are not a credible source. I am astonished that any encyclopedia would want to have that reputation, but apparently I was wrong. It is a sad thing that you can not honor everyone involve in Fort Greene Ville and the Treaty by not having the correct spelling. It is extremely sad. It saddens me evenmore that you acknowledge the fact of its original spelling, but you choose to keep the incorrect spelling out of mere convenience and because that's how uneducated people have started to spell it. It is bad enough that the City of Greenville changed the spelling, and now the original spelling will be lost because of people like you.

The article's title and the entire article has a major spelling error. It is not Greenville, it is Greeneville. It is the historically correct way to spell it, and it is a major insult to those in the battles and in the signing of the treaty to not be accurate. It is true that the city of Greenville, Ohio changed the spelling, but that does not mean that it is ok to change the spelling of an important document. It is teaching kids the wrong thing, and showing them that it is ok to be wrong about their history. This needs to be changed in this article, or this article needs to be deleted and rewritten by someone competent enough to know their history. I am ashamed that someone thinks it's ok to do whatever they want. It is an insult to those who participated, their decendants, and every person in this world who likes it to be right. Please, for the sake of the said people, change it. It takes two seconds, and it would make a lot of people happy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.6.160.213 (talk) 22:15, 27 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Histrionics aside, the title of the treaty is A treaty of peace between the United States of America, and the tribes of Indians called the Wyandots, Delawares, Shawanees, Ottawas, Chippewas, Pattawatimas, Miamis, Eel Rivers, Weas, Kickapoos, Piankeshaws, and Kaskaskias. Treaty of Greenville is the common name used when referring to this treaty, and as pointed out above the spelling without the extra e is the most commonly used spelling. At Wikipedia we generally place articles at the most commonly used name of the subject. —Jeremy (talk) 18:42, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Which Greenville?
The article doesn't say where (presumably at somewhere called Greenville) the treaty was signed. Looking at Greenville, there are a lot of candidates. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 18:14, 18 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, Greenville, Ohio of course. older ≠ wiser 19:53, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

You say that the treaty was frequently disregarded by settlers, which is true; It was also frequently disregarded by Indians. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.2.167.184 (talk) 22:51, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Ceding Chicago
Was this just part of current Chicago or all of it? I requested the citation because the area is once again ceded: "The Ottawa, Ojibwa, and Potawatomi later ceded the land to the United States in the 1804 Treaty of St. Louis." - from the article on Chicago. Perhaps the citation will clarify. Pknkly (talk) 09:21, 29 April 2009 (UTC)UTC


 * I think that the wording needs changed slightly rather than an additional citation added. The treaty states that 6 square miles at the mouth of the Chicago River, were ceded. This clearly can not encompass the whole of the modern city that our article states to be 237 square miles, however it could have encompassed the original city boundaries as set in 1837. This map from 1795 appears to show the land ceded by the treaty, and, although the Encyclopedia of Chicago calls the map "geographically inaccurate", the area shown works out to be approximately 6 square miles. It appears though that the boundary of the ceded land was never worked out. Josiah Currey, in Chicago: Its History and Builders (Google Books link) on page 43 states that "before the government surveyors had reached the site, other treaties with the Indians had supervened, and thus obviated the necessity for establishing such boundaries." Perhaps the future site of downtown Chicago would be a more accurate wording. —Jeremy (talk) 21:56, 2 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the suggestion and the details. I hope you don't mind, I made the changes.  Pknkly (talk) 01:29, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Perfect. —Jeremy (talk) 13:20, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

The Treaty of Greenville date
The signing date of the treaty is wrong!

According to the document itself, it is dated as being signed on the 3rd day of August 1795. Please see the Article X (10) of the treaty itself at URL: http://www.earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/milestones/greenville/6.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joerinehart (talk • contribs) 15:24, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Pro-US Bias
A pro-US bias runs through this article (e.g. taking the basic perspective from 'the history of United States' rather than that of the Aboriginal Peoples - swollowed up by this expansionist state). Clearly most - if not all - the recorded documentation must come from a WASP source. While this is not itself reason for dispute over details, it could do with more critical treatment (compare with the broadly hostile criticism of Spanish American sources, expansion and influence .. in WASP sourced material).

The aggressive and violence-backed expansion of Anglo-Saxon settlers, and the state that supported them, cannot of course itself be justifed or criticised by the aggressively violent actions of the Aboriginal settlers, this sets the contexts nothing more. Similarly, the fact that Aboriginal settlers were in occupation first cannot alone justify their reaction to later settlers. Nonetheless, as with the other European colonial or imperial efforts at conquest in America, a healthy critique of the sources available (without uncritical apologetics for suppose 'victims' of this expansion) makes for a more balanced assessment or presentation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.137.45.109 (talk) 15:47, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Add Clarity - Conflicting Info
The article is unclear as to which land the Wyandot etc. ceded. The description of the line is extremely clear. However, one of the images states that land to the south and east was open to settlement. This seems to conflict with the idea that Chicago, Detroit, and "strategic areas" (presumably Lake Erie?) were what was ceded. Perhaps a larger regional map with color coding designating what land was allocated to whom would be the best approach here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.105.17.10 (talk) 13:34, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

More work needed
This article needs a lot of work, which I don't have time to do, only a copyedit removing the odd "History" section. I suggest combining it with the article concerning the 1814 treaty.Jweaver28 (talk) 17:33, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I have no idea what you're talking about - the Treaty of Greenville was 1795. The article is ok, maybe needs elaboration. Sbalfour (talk) 08:04, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

What's this article about?
%99 percent of the time "Treaty of Greenville" refers to the 1795 accord. It's barely worth a mention that there's another Treaty of Greenville in 1814. I suggest we focus on what matters here, and ignore what doesn't, or make it a footnote. Sbalfour (talk) 08:19, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Specifically, two completely different treaties have been rolled into one article, and there exists another article about the other treaty. The article needs to be split, and all reference to the other treaty removed from the article. Sbalfour (talk) 14:53, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

OK, I've substantially reworked the article, removing the spurious material from the 1814 treaty of the same name, a completely different treaty about different boundaries. Some additional content needs to be added to fill in the Terms of the Treaty (there were 10 articles). There's no mention in the article about exchange of prisoners, punishment of offenders, etc.

This article's history shows an extraordinary amount of threshing, and as I see it, much potentially valuable text has been lost. We need to stop here, and move forward by adding text, not deleting things. Anything about the 1814 treaty, though, needs to go in the other article. Please don't copy text from the treaty directly into the article - the treaty itself should go in the Archive portion of the Wiki. The article is about the treaty, not the text of it. Finally, if you're going to make a major change to the article, post it on the talk page first, and wait for others to chime in. Sbalfour (talk) 17:35, 5 January 2019 (UTC)