Talk:Logan
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
'Tachnedorus'? This looks like a Latinisation. Is there evidence for this being his actual name? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 20:39, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- In Blue Jacket, John Sugden writes: "John Logan (whose Indian name was Tachnechdorus, meaning Spreading Out)..." (p. 276). I notice Sugden spells it differently from the standard "Tachnedorus", so maybe I'll change that in the article, since I'd regard his version as pretty reliable. I don't know if Logan has an entry in the American National Biography series, but if he does, whatever name is given there might be regarded as the most authoritative rendition, unless another enthohistorian has since weighed in. --Kevin Myers 21:04, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)
- All I have to go in are my intutition that this is a Latinisation, and the fact that Google has about five hits for 'Tachnedorius', and pages for 'Tah-gah-jute'. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:09, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
-
- Alas, such is the state of American Indian history on the Internet, which is often based on history written before American Indian history was studied for its own sake, rather than as an addendum to Euro-American history, or as romanticized history (which is still as popular as ever). "Tah-gah-jute" was popularized in an 1867 book; since old texts are public domain, snippets from them tend to appear all over the place, regardless of current scholarship. (Personally, I regard the Internet as an unreliable source of historical information, and close to worthless when it comes to American Indian history.) That being said, you still may be right about "Tachnedorus" being a Latinisation; a phonetic rendering of his name might not have been preserved. I'll certainly keep my eye out for more info. --Kevin Myers 22:51, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)
[edit] name
his name may be talgayeeta
[edit] why does the article title use the term "chief"?
Is there any evidence, anywhere, that suggests that Logan held the title of "chief" in any sense whatsoever, other than in the eyes of white people who simply assumed he was a chief because they didn't know any better? As the article points out, historian Richard White states unequivocally that Logan was not a chief. I don't know what grounds White has for saying that (his explanation is flawed, and his footnote doesn't help), but I also don't know of any evidence demonstrating that White is wrong.
And apart from the question of whether Logan actually was a chief, is it appropriate to use "Chief" as part of his name in the article title? After all, wikipedia entries on US Presidents are not entitled "President so-and-so."
I don't know how to change an article title, but I strongly suggest cutting the word "Chief" from it. If someone has reason to believe that the title is appropriate, it should be spelled out in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Neurotic Nerd (talk • contribs) 06:26, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
- It looks like this article was named "Chief Logan" because "Logan" was already used as an article title. However, the article "Logan" is just a disambiguation page—there's actually no article called "Logan"—so I've moved to old page to Logan (disambiguation) and requested an administrator to move the mis-titled "Chief Logan" to simply "Logan". I've been meaning to do this for some time, but there's always so much to do. Thanks for bringing it up. —Kevin Myers 13:36, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] June 2008
Ya that's right that logan was a leader.But there is another mean is also for this word...A mountain peak in the St. Elias Range in the southwestern Yukon Territory in Canada (19,850 feet high).....that is also named as logan...so i think by these two example we can understand better,what logan actually means ??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bishnoimunda (talk • contribs) 12:16, June 5, 2008
- That would be Mount Logan, which readers can find by following the Logan (disambiguation) link. —Kevin Myers 12:46, 5 June 2008 (UTC)