Talk:Oklahoma Territory

map would be nice. De mortuis... 01:37, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Added Kmusser 18:21, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Assessment

I have to drop the quality grade down from a B to Start since there is no sources or in-line citation listed anywhere in this article, which is required. Crimsonedge34 (talk) 11:09, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Origin

The article states: "Oklahoma Territory's history began with the Indian Intercourse Act of 1834 when the United States Congress set aside land for Native Americans." What about the The Treaty of Doak's Stand signed in 1820 in which the United States ceded most of what is now Oklahoma to the Choctaws? (the Wiki on the treaty could use some work too) See: Mississippi Band of Choctaws - Treaty of Doak's Stand, Article II DrHenley (talk) 12:23, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

"Signing" the Indian Appropriations Act of 1889 and "Announcing" the implications of the Act

I have edited the text to say that Grover Cleveland "announced" the opening of the territory. But perhaps there is a good reason to distinguish Cleveland--who signed the bill--from Harrison, under whose administration the bill actually went into effect. If so, then the article on Boomers (Oklahoma settlers) needs to be brought into conformity with the facts.

It seems clear that the Indian Appropriations Act was passed by Congress on March 2, 1889. It is not clear whether President Grover Cleveland signed the bill on March 2 or 3. (This article and the Boomers (Oklahoma settlers) article both reference March 2 and say nothing about March 3.) But History.com claims that Benjamin Harrison (who was not yet President!) "announced" the opening on March 3, 1889. --I wonder where they got that date.

Is it possible that Congress passed the bill on March 2, and Cleveland signed the bill on March 3--the last full day he was in office? Supposing this is so, then is there any good reason to distinguish Cleveland's "signing" from "announcing"? Was it the case that the Act did not include the April 22 date for opening? (I have not seen the Act.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brightflash (talk • contribs) 11:53, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Re: Early Territorial Period

I find the following text almost impossible to believe, and I would like to see a citation source to this effect:

Despite that, the district was generally peaceful. Most land disputes were settled without bloodshed, although a few took years to resolve. For over a year the people of Oklahoma Territory were semi-autonomous. The only government during this period was that created and maintained by common consent, yet there was no lawlessness or outlawry, and property and life were adequately protected at all times.

Wd40 (talk) 16:21, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Proposed merger

Please see Talk:Oklahoma Territory's at-large congressional district for discussion of proposal to move content of that page into this page. The content should be moved into the section under Government/ Federal representation. Bruin2 (talk) 14:35, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

The discussion has been closed and the merger has been completed. All relevant material from the former article has been transferred to this article. Bruin2 (talk) 04:52, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Cherokee Outlet

Was the Cherokee Outlet part of Oklahoma Territory from the beginning? The Organic Act reads, "... except the unoccupied part of the Cherokee outlet", and furthermore, the borders of the territory run until they "strike[s] the south line of the Cherokee outlet which it follows westward to the east line of the State of Texas," and then also includes the borders of the Public Land Strip as if they were non-contiguous [thanks to the Outlet], and furthermore, states that the outlet will be added to the territory at a later time. Most sources include it from the beginning, but some, most notably, well, the organic act itself, but also the Newberry County Maps Project, puts it as joining in 1893, following the proclamation of a treaty with the Cherokee. --Golbez (talk) 21:27, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Oklahoma Territory. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090218084724/http://digital.library.okstate.edu:80/Chronicles/v002/v002p075.html to http://digital.library.okstate.edu/chronicles/v002/v002p075.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:50, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

2020

https://edition.cnn.com/2020/07/09/politics/tribal-territory-supreme-court-ruling/index.html https://www.cnbc.com/2020/07/09/supreme-court-says-eastern-half-of-oklahoma-is-native-american-land.html https://www.nbcboston.com/news/national-international/justices-rule-swath-of-oklahoma-remains-tribal-reservation/2156435/ https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/09/us/supreme-court-oklahoma-mcgirt-creek-nation.html I hope they're all liberal and reputable news sources, as Wikipedia apparently requires. At least that's what I saw on the talk page for https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debora_Juarez , where the controversies section just vanished, even though the video where she was being quite rude went viral, because "73.239.192.63 - You cannot insert disparaging claims about living people and cite Fox News (or at least I assume that's what q13fox.com is) as your main source of information." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:2F07:B20A:DD00:8D18:9B17:9B9B:9FF0 (talk) 21:26, 9 July 2020 (UTC)