Talk:Treaty of Point Elliott

NPOV

Much of the language in this article currently uses phrases like 'unjust'. Maybe these treaties were, but we should be citing someone who presents this view rather than stating it as a direct fact - the current phrasing of the article distracts from the core message. 98.117.140.229 (talk) 13:36, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Treaty of Point Elliott, 1855

Articles of agreement and convention made and concluded at Muckl-te-oh, or Point Elliott, in the territory of Washington, this twenty-second day of January, eighteen hundred and fifty-five, by Isaac I. Stevens, governor and superintendent of Indian affairs for the said Territory, on the part of the United States, and the undersigned chiefs, [...]
[...]
Ratified Mar. 8, 1859.
Proclaimed Apr. 11, 1859.

[--03:03, 25 June 2006 (UTC) Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )] Duplicate, abridged, see article. --GoDot 05:44, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Acronym or initials after each signature

Does anyone have a source for the meaning of the abbreviation "L.S."? "Longhand Signature"?

"Letter Signed"? "Locus Sigilli (place of seal)"? (These appear more likely.) --The Internet Acronym Server

Initials of a notary? Latin?

Issac I. Stevens, Governor and Superintendent. (L.S.)

Seattle, Chief of the Dwamish and Suquamish tribes, his x mark. (L. S.)

Pat-ka-nam, Chief of the Snoqualmoo, Snohomish and other tribes, his x mark. (L.S.)

[...]

--GoDot 05:44, 5 August 2006 (UTC), ed. --03:29, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Requests for expansion

• Why (with sources) tribes declined participation

Noosack, Samish, Semiahmoo, Lower Puyallup and Quileute

• "The commitments made by the U.S. government in the Treaty have never been implemented for"

Why (with sources) the most prominent signatory for the Natives, si'áb Si'ahl (Chief Seattle), received nothing for the Duwamish Tribe.

Separate treaty, verbal agreements.

• == See also ==, links to * Histories of other Puget Sound tribes. --03:29, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

--GoDot 05:44, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't the entire text of the treaty belong in WikiSource, not Wikipedia?

--Lukobe 19:29, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

United States Bill of Rights --GoDot 03:29, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Text of the treaty had been edited (typos fixed), it had been annotated, it was cross-referenced within the article, and is linked. Images of the official treaty accompanied the treaty in the article.

Would it still belong in WikiSource?

The illustrations add visual interest as well verisimilitude. There are images somewhere of the handwritten, nib pen original as well. Displaying an image of an original page with the signatures could be cool.

--GoDot 07:42, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I think it probably still belongs in WikiSource. --Lukobe 17:11, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

A source document could; links to the best Wikipedia:Reliable sources found are provided in the article. There are numerous sources readily available already. The modified text is also useful within the article as well, since the point of the article is an integrated, summary analysis (admittedly provisional so far). For now (pending analyses of other treaties in the series), it and the article are an approximately representative sample of the series. This initial draft article is intended to support the main article Duwamish (tribe) (hence the requests for expansion), but its scope is a little broad to name this as an article of Duwamish (tribe). This article is also intended to support the summaries in History of Seattle before 1900, while standing on its own as well. --GoDot 03:29, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

efd

fdg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.24.221.65 (talk) 00:20, 12 April 2016 (UTC)