Talk:Toledo War/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Merge with Toledo Strip?

Should this article be merged with Toledo Strip?--Inonit 20:27, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

I think this would be best merged, since the information overlaps, and some of the timeline in the Toledo Strip article would be useful to this article. Hotstreets 02:42, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I think this is the only thing anyone paid attention to in my Michigan history classes back in middle school

recent edits

  1. Land in Indiana did not play any role in the "Toledo War". Additional land was transfered from Michigan Territory to Indiana many years before this conflict took place. And as can be seen by the slight difference in northern borders between Ohio and Indiana, the land used different survey lines which were done independently.
  2. The J.Q. Adams quote is out of place. I don't doubt that he said something like that, but he was most definitely not a representative at the time of the conflict. The quote needs to be better contextualized for it to be of use here.

older≠wiser 11:49, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)

Moved from User talk:Bkonrad

Your edits on the Toledo War are mindboggling. You need to take a moment to read John Quincy Adams' bio. When is it you think he was a member of Congress, and where are you finding this information? (Do share your source here.) His quote on the matter is one of the most compelling comments on the War.

I'd suggest you contact a historical society in the area if you truly believe your changes to be correct and warranted; any will have ample information on the War. I have done this myself--thus my confidence in reverting to the last edit on 01:58, Oct 25, 2004.

And be careful when you edit not to introduce syntax errors.

John Quincy Adams represented Massachusetts in Congress from March 4, 1803, until June 8, 1808. The Toledo War took place in 1835-1836. You tell me how he can be called a member of Congress at the time. Now, disputes over the boundary predates the actual "war" by many decades--since the time that Ohio became a state in 1803. Perhaps Adams' comment is from that period, but there is insufficient context provided to tell.
I am quite familiar with many different accounts of this conflict. If you'd like to discuss something specific, please do so. If you simply revert my changes, I will also revert unless you can provide some better evidence here. Your edits about Indiana are completely off. older≠wiser 12:20, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)

Fine then, we'll take it one fact at a time.

From John Quincy Adams: Rather than retire, Adams would go on to win election as a Democratic-Republican to the House of Representatives beginning with the 22nd Congress, serving from March 4, 1831, until his death. John Quincy Adams (July 11, 1767–February 23, 1848)

Again, your contradictory source is?

And have you contacted a historical society to check your assertions? What sources are you drawing upon?

My apologies on the JQA quote, I neglected to read further down for his second period in Congress. Although the quote still needs some better contextualization. As for contacting a historical society, what, specifically, are you referring to? older≠wiser 12:55, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)

Military Conflict Infobox

I'm not entirely sure that this isn't overkill, but when I added to the introduction, I also added the military infobox since this was, in a way, a military conflict, complete with militias, and it resulted in territory changes. Any opinions? Hotstreets 04:12, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I think the box is grand. It should stay. Fishal 05:44, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Constitutional issues

The US Constitution says, "No state shall, without the consent of Congress, lay any duty of tonnage, keep troops, or ships of war in time of peace, enter into any agreement or compact with another state, or with a foreign power, or engage in war, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent danger as will not admit of delay." It says nothing about a US Territory's right to declare war. It always seemed to me that Michigan took advantage of this loophole. Is there any research on this? Fishal 07:16, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

There was no "declaration" of war (at least I've not come across any mention). The "war" consisted of the two governors mobilizing militias (essentially an irregular police force) to occupy the area (or at least making some pretense of doing so as the area was pretty vast in comparison to the number of militia, with the anecdotal story of the militias wandering lost through the swamp). older ≠ wiser 13:39, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Proposal for Move/Redirect with Toledo Strip

(from Toledo Strip talk page) How about have the majority of the "Toledo Strip" (the timeline specifically) article be moved to a separate "Timeline of the Toledo War" article and then have Toledo Strip redirect to Toledo War. The information that doesn't fit the timeline can be merged into the Toledo War article. In my opinion, the Toledo Strip and Toledo War are one and the same. The "creation" of the strip is already mentioned and described in the Toledo War article, and most of the information in this article outside of the timeline is already in the Toledo War article as well. If nobody objects, I think I'll do this... Hotstreets 16:59, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. It looks like that was suggested months ago but nobody's done it yet. Fishal 18:13, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

New Body Text, Image(s)

Along with the merge/split of the Toledo Strip article into this one and a timeline article, I have also been working on new text to update and replace the current body. Since most of the current article is un-cited, I have rewritten the material, excluding what cannot be cited. Currently, this text is located at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hotstreets/Sandbox#Toledo_War_Article. I figured since there is a significant amount of change involved, I'd post it here before actually putting it in the article. If there are no objections, after one more proofread, I'll move this into the article up until the "War" section, replacing the "Background" section. It can always be further tweaked later.

The goal of what I've done is to expand the War part of the article along with incorporating information about the Strip and its formation, since they are now one article. I will continue working on the "War" section and everything afterwards, but it may be harder to complete. Currently, none of the Timeline article is cited, and I cannot find much of the equivalent information online, especially regarding early April 1835, a crucial part of the War (and article). Once I can verify and sort out several sources, I will start on the conclusion of the article.

In addition, I've found an image of the "Mitchell Map" of the late 1700s, and have added it to the article, but it is commented out, pending my addition of the new text. Any opinions, additions, or subtractions? Hotstreets 03:29, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Moved in the new text... I will continue to tweak the grammar here and there, but I think it's an improvement on what was there (and it's all cited now). Hotstreets 23:13, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I have re-read and looked at the source regarding Cass and Lucas. Upon re-checking, it appears I may have misread it. I'm not exactly sure about this, but in the meantime, I will remove the offending information, and replace it with similar information from another source (the part about Lucas refusing to negotiate... that is well-documented). If I can find a source confirming the bad info (or a similar interaction between Cass and the Ohio governor at the time), I will re-add it. I apologize, once again, I thought the way it was worded was strange, and it's my fault that I forgot to check the dates that would've tipped me off. Thanks. Hotstreets 17:27, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Not a problem. I agree that Lucas' rejection of any compromise is clear. I've not elsewhere seen any mention of Cass attempting to negotiate away the mouth of the Maumee. older ≠ wiser 18:39, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
The direct quote from the MSU source was: "Michigan’s Governor Cass tried to negotiate a compromise with Ohio that would permit that state to retain the mouth of the Maumee while conceding to Michigan additional territory elsewhere in northwestern Ohio, but the effort came to naught." Now I have only seen this here, not at any other source. Eventually, in the next week or two, I plan on getting some literature to use, when I get a little more spare time. This will help me when I start trying to expand the "War" section. Hotstreets 18:55, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

"War" section text

I have the first subsection of the "War" section ready for review, entitled "Presidential Intervention". Once again, it is located at User:Hotstreets/Sandbox. This is considerably harder to write since several things were going on at once, and many of the sources seem to be slightly ambiguous as to specific dates. Therefore, it will take me longer to finish this section, and put it in a correct flow/order. If it's alright, I'll move these few paragraphs in my Sandbox into the main article in the next day or two. Please let me know what you think. Hotstreets 02:26, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
After making edits as suggested by Bkonrad, I am inserting the first subsection of "War", entitled "Presidential Intervention". It isn't too much, but it is a beginning. Still to come are the remainder of the "War" section, and the "Aftermath" section. Thanks Bkonrad for all of the new sources, they're making my self-appointed task much easier.
Also, I wasn't sure about the ability to use the Maumee River photo that contains the following license: "This image is copyrighted. The copyright holder allows anyone to use it for any purpose, provided that the photographer is credited." Does this mean that we must credit the photographer, even in the caption on this page? I have added a photo credit for now, but if I'm overreacting or it isn't needed, please feel free to remove it. Hotstreets 23:52, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, regarding the picture, there is no source given, so it is hard to verify exactly what restrictions the copyright owner may have placed on usage. Assuming that the uploader accurately represented the copyrightholder, then it should generally be sufficient to note the name on the Image page with the source and license info. But, the picture is from Grand Rapids, Ohio, which is some 20 or 30 miles south of the southern boundary of the strip. older ≠ wiser 01:02, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Though only indirectly related to the Toledo War, I collected several links pertaining to civil government in the area as under Michigan Territory at Talk:Vistula, Michigan. older ≠ wiser 01:11, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

  • I have added the "Battle of Phillips Corners" text to the article. Much of the information recently added is in the wrong spot in the timeline of the article, so part has found its way in here, and part will find its way into the next section, tentatively titled "Summer of 1835, Bloodshed". I should be able to finish this one soon, as it is becoming straightforward again, especially with all the new sources found. Please let me know what you think, and I'll keep plugging. Hotstreets 21:16, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Wolverene Sighting

Although of little relevence, wolverines are not extinct in Michigan. That last wolverene sighting was in 2004. Here is a link to the last sighting I could find [1] Bcruss 22:31, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh, cool. I actually didn't know that. When I get that far down, I will edit that to make it more accurate. Right now I'm working my way from the top down. Next is the "War" section. Thanks. Hotstreets 22:47, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Main Text Complete

Well, I think the main text and the body of the article is complete and in place. In addition to the copyediting, tweaking, and polishing that has been going on, I am now going through the article and correcting/adding wiki links to other pages.

I was wondering, especially Bkonrad, if this would be a good article to eventually nominate for Featured Article status. I have never done this before, and I was wondering if it were a good article, what needs to be done to bring it to an even better level? I know there are peer reviews, but I wasn't sure when in the editing cycle this would be appropriate.

Also, even if this wouldn't make a good Featured Article, what should still be done to it? I'm thinking that the citation of sources should be more standardized, but once again, I haven't done this, and I didn't want to screw anything up. (I've read the Wikipedia Citing Sources page, but I still wasn't 100% sure.) Then, finally, after this is done, I will probably start work on the Timeline article, bringing up to speed. What do you think? Thanks for the feedback. Hotstreets 18:16, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

P.S. This is all a big learning experience for me, so I'm learning as I go. Hotstreets 18:16, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

The article is looking fine. I have set some of the footnotes into the reference style. I can probably put the other notes sometime over the weekend. Before you go to FAC, it's highly recommended that you pass the article through peer review. Currently, Detroit, Michigan from WP: Michigan is there and should be moving the FAC within the next couple of weeks. Jtmichcock 18:58, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the info. So only one article from a project at a time can be a Featured Candidate? Hotstreets 19:18, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Any number of articles can go through at the same time. I only wanted to point out that the Detroit article is a bit ahead of this one and you may want to see the feedback from Peer review and follow the progress of that article in order to get an idea on how things work. Jtmichcock 19:53, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Jtmichcock has much more experience with getting articles through peer review and FAC. I suspect a lot of the references could be cleaned up (many reference the same texts). There's also quite a lot of what I'd consider overlinking (e.g., month or year-only links not needed for date preferences and repeated links to the same articles). But this is looking pretty good. older ≠ wiser 02:04, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


Citations done

I have turned the citations from freeline to inline. I have eliminated the duplicate cites and have moved one to a see also. This should be ready for Peer Review within a few days. Jtmichcock 17:18, 13 May 2006 (UTC)


Intro

Many kudos for the considerable work done by Hotstreets, Jtmichcock and Bkonrad to improve this article recently, particularly with citations, images and more detail. Good work!

I think the intro needs work; in particular I think it needs to be made more succinct. Intros should, in general, introduce the fundamental ideas of a topic very briefly and should keep details to a bare minimum, and I don't think this one does that well enough. In particular: First P is too wordy--don't need all the synonyms there. The 2nd P is confusing in that it jumps from 1805 to the time of the conflict abruptly, and basis of Michigan's early claims are stated, but not those of Ohio's. 3rd P contains too much detail not relevant to an intro. Wanted to post this before making changes. Jeeb 18:51, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I rewrote the intro on your suggestions. Let us know what you think. In terms of Ohio's rationale for wanting the strip, it was essentially the same as Michigans. Both sides perceived a valuable piece of property. As to the justification for disputing the parcel, Ohio's claim is not very solid. The simple political calculus was that it had more members of congress and were willing to leverage their votes against the status quo ante. Remember that Michigan's territorial government had already constructed and governed the area for a number of years. John Quincy Adams' quote pretty well summarizes the equities involved. Jtmichcock 00:36, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
I like it. I made a couple of minor additions (one emphasizing Ohio's political power), but overall, it works very well. Thanks Jeeb for the positive feedback! Hotstreets 04:35, 14 May 2006 (UTC)


I think it's better but still too wordy and "paragraphy". I'll propose a revision shortly.
It's not the rationale for wanting the strip (both sides wanted it of course), but the legal/historical basis for each side's claims that I was referring to. I disagree that Ohio's claim is not solid--both sides had legitimate bases for their claims; if anything Ohio's case is stronger as the Mendenhall article argues (see p 166 of). The "origins" section does a good job of explaining these bases but the intro does not reflect this. But the real point is that regardless of how "solid" Ohio's case was, or Michigan's, both should be briefly stated. Jeeb 18:33, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Jrbouldin: why do you continue to remove mention of the principal players from the lede? Not mentioning Mason in the lede of the Toledo War is akin to not mentioning Nixon in the lede about Watergate. older ≠ wiser 11:00, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Bkonrad: Probably for the same reason you continue to put them in, i.e. a difference of opinion on the level of detail relevant in this intro. It's not personal. My only real goal is to see the intro read well and present the most important points as a summary of the article, which is what a lead is supposed to do. I tried to be somewhat ruthless in my editing to make the thing concise, readable and comprehensive. I don't believe the average reader really cares, in the lead, who the governors of OH and MI were at the time. They just want the basic synopsis of what the event was about. If they need more detail about it they can then read on. As for the analogy with Nixon/Watergate: if you really believe that, then I would ask you to asess possible bias on your part towards Mason's importance. Jeeb 03:59, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
OK, nothing personal. But without either Lucas or Mason, the events would likely have unfolded very differently. The roles of these persons are inextricably linked to the events. Not mentioning them in the lede seems to me a major lacunae. older ≠ wiser 14:09, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Something else I would add: the article is going to Featured Article Candidacy in a few days. The folks there expect a detailed lede that introduces all components, and will reject an article that doesn't comport. I would just as soon be able to present an article that needs trimming rather than one with too little. Jtmichcock 11:51, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I had gone and read the WP:lead to see what policy was (before your post), and I realized that the intro on a long article like this can be somewhat longer, so yes I was being a bit extreme in my paring down. However, there are things I considered important (e.g. the relevance of the Mitchell map) and put in, that others removed. I think there is now room for including additional info, even if ref to Stevens and Lucas remain.
IMO, the most important things are that it read well and be synoptic. The problem with lengthy things is they often don't read well, particularly with many Wikipedia articles. Jeeb 03:59, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

While we prepare for peer review

Now that the main article is nearly finished, should we work on the timeline article before or after this is submitted for Peer Review? I personally think this would be a great addition to what we've already got, and if there end up being too many images/info on the main article, they would go very well in the Timeline article. Hotstreets 04:58, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

It's not essential that the daughter article be entirely completed before the parent article is reviewed. I would look for feedback on the main article and use that to improve the timeline. Jtmichcock 14:37, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

FAC Submission

Once the current Michigan-Ohio State rivalry issue is resolved, should I submit this to FAC, since the peer review is positive so far? Hotstreets 00:13, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I estimate that I would like to get one more fresh-look copyedit done over the coming weekend before it's "there." Typically, peer review lasts 14 days, so it's probably appropriate to submit after 5/30. Jtmichcock 00:20, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Okay, cool. Another new fact. I'll work on some copyediting too this weekend. I'll have some extra time for doing so. Hotstreets 00:30, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
By the way, have you considered joining Wikipedia:WikiProject Michigan? The project can always need an extra set of eyes. Just check the membership list and add your name. Jtmichcock 00:49, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm working on a copyedit of my own right now, and I will have some more edits that will be posted later today. So far, there are a few rough areas still that need to be fixed before FAC. Hotstreets 14:45, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
We are now FAC. Hotstreets 02:40, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, evidentally our FAC has failed, and I guess it is back to work. Hotstreets 04:50, 5 June 2006 (UTC)