Talk:Battle of Tippecanoe/Archive 1

Harrison

Was Harrison really a General at Tippecanoe? The whitehouse.gov bio of him (http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/General to join the War of 1812 (22nd August 1812). I'll change it. Thanks to Mike Peil for the second link. (My first wikipedia contribution - woohoo.) Adam.gibson 02:22, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Harrison was governor of the Indiana Territory. Did he have a rank in the militia? was he in command of the regular army troops? Also, are you descended from Gen. Gibson?M dorothy 17:31, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

my last name is gibson Ricky

Date of Prophet death

Quote : "The Prophet, having prophesied that the weapons of Harrison's men would not be able to hurt his warriors, was killed.[citation needed] ".

How can this be so when the main article on the Prophet states that he died in 1834 ?

Actarus000 (talk) 09:45, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Battle of Tippecanoe/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

An important topic; review to follow shortly. Anaxial (talk) 11:01, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

The article is generally well-written and laid out properly, and seems to cover all of the important features of the battle. There are a few problems that I think need addressing, all of which should be able to fixed within one week:

• Some copyediting is needed in the first paragraph of the "Battle" section.
• The link to Prophetstown in the last paragraph of the "Battle" section points to a disambiguation page.
• The Curse of Tippecanoe is already mentioned and linked to in the text, and so does not need repeating in the "See Also" section.
• The direct quote from Harrison about Spencer's death should be more clearly sourced.
• Not a major problem, but the title "References" is generally preferred instead of "Sources", unless one is actually talking about source code or the sources of rivers, or whatever.
• The second External Link is broken.

Thank you for your review! I Believe i have addressed each of the issues. Please let me know if there is anything more. Charles Edward (Talk) 19:04, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

That all looks fine to me. Well done!

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

thats wrong.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.242.189.74 (talk) 22:46, 27 February 2012 (UTC) 

Transcluded A class review

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Battle of Tippecanoe

Passed --Eurocopter (talk) 16:27, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Nominator(s): Charles Edward (Talk)

I would like to take this article to FAC and I see this as a good way to help identify any problems or areas that could use more details. I have three different books with details on this battle available to me from which to source the article. Charles Edward (Talk) 18:11, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

• Comments - (this version)
  • Is there any way you can make a page on Tecumseh's confederation?
    • That is a good idea. It would fit well with the type of articles I have been editing lately. I will put that on my list of things to do. Charles Edward (Talk) 19:43, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
      • Cool. I just think that would be a very helpful link in this article, as not many (including me! :) know much about this alliance. —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 00:31, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
        • Saw the article on DYK today; it looks pretty good! :-) —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 21:45, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

• • "Harrison sought to secure title to Indian lands in order to allow for American expansion; in particular he hoped that the Indiana Territory would attract enough settlers so as to qualify for statehood."
    • to "secure title"? Also, "particular" needs a comma after it, and it should read "...settlers so that it could qualify..."
    • fixed Charles Edward (Talk) 19:43, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

• • "Harrison negotiated numerous land cession treaties with American Indians, culminating with the Treaty of Fort Wayne on September 30, 1809, in which Little Turtle and other tribal leaders sold 3,000,000 acres (approximately 12,000 km²) to the United States.[2][3]"
    • Is "culminating" the right word here? To me, that makes it sounds like all of the former treaties were lumped together and called the Treaty of Fort Wayne. I don't think that is the case though!
    • I see what you mean. I changed to "leading to" instead of "culminating with". It was meant to express it was kind of Harrison crowning achievement in treaty making. Charles Edward (Talk) 19:43, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

• • "In August 1811, Tecumseh again met with Harrison at Vincennes, assuring him that the Shawnee brothers meant to remain at peace with the United States.[6]"
    • Should it be "...Vincennes, where he assured him that..."
    • fixed Charles Edward (Talk) 19:43, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

• • "From there the entire force of about one-thousand men set out northward towards Prophetstown.[11]"
    • Why the hyphen?
    • removed Charles Edward (Talk) 19:43, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
      • Good catch of my dumbness; "one thousand" is always expressed in numerals. —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 00:31, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

• • "He carried a message from Tenskwatawa, requesting a cease fire until the next day when the two sides could hold a peaceful meeting."
    • Should it be "...from Tenskwatawa, which requested that a cease fire be put in place until the next day..."
    • fixed Charles Edward (Talk) 19:43, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

• • "On the far right flank, the Yellow Jacket company was posted with Captain Spier Spencer in command, the rest of the militia formed a rectangular perimeter along the edges of the bluff surrounding the camp."
    • Should it be "...flank, the Yellow Jackets, with Captain Spier Spencer in command, was posted; the rest..."
    • I changed it up a bit. Rewording the decriptions to better reflect the map, left and right don't really apply so much since it was a square formation.. Charles Edward (Talk) 19:43, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
      • Oh wow, that is much more clear. Good job! —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 00:31, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

• • "An black wagon driver with the army named Ben had deserted during the expedition."
    • Confused - is Ben black or is the wagon black?
    • Yes Ben is black. Fixed. Charles Edward (Talk) 19:43, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

• • "Contact was first made on by Maj. Geiger's company, but the movement was probably intended as a diversion."
    • Um, who is Major Geiger and where were he and his troops posted?
    • Removed his name, not really important, added location.

• • "Lieutenants McMahan and Berry were also soon wounded and killed."
    • Who are these guys?
    • The other two yellow jacket command officers, so all the Yellow Jacket officers of importance were killed. That is to explain why they began to fall back because they had no leadership. I clarified it. Charles Edward (Talk) 19:43, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

• • "With the Yellow Jackets command officers dead, the company began to fall back into the camp with the retreating sentinels fled."
    • "with the retreating sentinels fled"?
    • Fixed Charles Edward (Talk) 19:43, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

• • "The second charge on the line came on both flanks, with the far right flank again being the hardest hit. Over half the casualties were suffered among the companies on the far right wing, including Captain Spencer and five other men in his company, and seven other men in the adjoining company."
    • You say far right flank here, but your map has them at the bottom. Would it be possible to rotate the map to fit with the text? :/
    • I changed the text to fit the map. My source says left and right flanks, but really they where in a box formation - so flanks are not really a fitting term. Charles Edward (Talk) 19:43, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

• • "On the opposite end of the line Maj. Daviess led a counter charge punching through the Indians line before being repulse. Most of Daviess' company retreated back to the main line, but Daviess himself was killed."
    • Who is Daviess and where was his company?
    • I introduced him now earlier in the text as the overall commander of the regulars and made his position in the formation more clear. Charles Edward (Talk) 19:43, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

• • "The battle lasted about two hours and Harrison lost 62 men—37 were killed in action and 25 mortally wounded—and about 126 were less seriously wounded.[1] The Yellow Jackets suffered the highest causalities of the battle, 30% of their numbers were killed or wounded."
    • Change to "...lost 62 men (37 killed in action and 25 mortally wounded), while about 126 were less seriously hurt." (BTW, why about 126? Are historians not sure of the number?)
    • Also, "...causalities of the battle, with 30% of their numbers killed or wounded."
    • The only two sources I have that busts out the casualty numbers each say "about". That would be Funk and Langguth. I would assume it is because some were only slightly wounded and maybe they are not counting them, but I am not sure. Charles Edward (Talk) 19:43, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
      • Alright then, fair enough. —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 00:31, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

• • They built large fires over the mass grave in an attempt to conceal it from the Indians."
    • Why? Was there a custom among Indian tribes to do what is described in the next sentence (to dig up and scatter corpses)?
    • I am not sure really, that is all the source says. I will try to look into it and see what I can find. Charles Edward (Talk) 19:43, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
    • Alright. Not enough to oppose on, but it would be a helpful addition so that a reader understands just why they tried to conceal the bodies. —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 00:33, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
      • I found something very interesting, it took some digging though. I found two sources that say that the Americans dug up bodies in the Prophetstown graveyard and that the Indians did so in retaliations. Although the sources do not say so, I expect that the Americans tried to conceal their graves because they expected the Indians to reciprocate the act. It is probably WP:SYNTH to say that, but I am adding the part of americans digging up the Indian graves. Charles Edward (Talk) 01:54, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
        • Hmmm. So both sides dug up bodies previously? —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 02:58, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
          • I don't know about previously, but for whatever reason, the American soldiers dug up graves in the Prophetstown graveyard, probably as some sort of revenge against the Indians, or maybe to collect more scalps to make their victory look bigger? Harrison was probably worried that the Indians would do the same as payback, and ordered the American graves to be disguised. I cannot find a source to say that exactly, but it is the impression I get from reading the difference sources I have. Charles Edward (Talk) 15:00, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
            • I think that can be assumed with the info you have - why else would they try to hide the bodies (as opposed to giving them a full burial? I certainly can't think of a different reason. My suggestion is to put this all into a note, explaining that "no source says exactly why they were concealed, but American soldiers had previously dug up graves in the Prophetstown graveyard; the Americans may have feared that the Indians would reciprocate and desecrate American bodies." Technically this is original research (which is why I'm saying to put it into a note), but I think that it's the only valid conclusion from the info you have. —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 05:32, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

• • "The day after the battle, the wounded were loaded into wagons and carried back to Fort Harrison for care. Most of the militia was released from duty and returned home, but the regulars continued in the area for a brief time longer.[24]"
    • Why not just "remained in the area for a short time"?
    • fixed Charles Edward (Talk) 19:43, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

• • "At first the newspapers did not carry any information about the battle to the public, instead covering the highlights of the ongoing Napoleonic Wars. One Louisville newspaper even printed a copy of the original dispatch and called the battled an American defeat.[26]"
    • "At first, the..." / and the two sentences here contradict each other...
    • Changed to be, "At first very few newspapers..."

• • "When he returned he was angry with his brother who he instructed to keep peace while he was away."
    • I think that this needs at least one comma. —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 06:05, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
    • Fixed Charles Edward (Talk) 19:43, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I have addressed all your comments above.

Looks great! Supporting now. —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 00:31, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

• Support. Two minor issues:

• Move some images to the left so they're balanced.
• The memorials section seems to violate WP:TRITE, please remove references to "currently".

Otherwise looks good, I've done some minor copy-editing, and good luck at FAC. – Joe N 21:13, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. Seems to have to few ilinks, per WP:BTW. From the first para: Indian lands, American expansion, land cession treaties... a lot of paras in this article look very bare. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 02:09, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
  • I do not typically link broad terms, but try to explain each of them summarily within the article as they apply to the article. I would expect the average reader to have a basic understanding of the terms you mentioned, they are fairly self explanatory. Some of the paragraphs have few links because it is describing battle events, and all of the useful links in the paragraph, which is primarily names, have already been made in the preceding paragraphs. You are welcome though to link whatever terms you believe would add value. :) Charles Edward (Talk) 02:23, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

• Support. Everything looks good to go. Great work. Cla68 (talk) 23:22, 26 March 2009 (UTC) Comments:

• I'm not sure if this image has the correct license. Shouldn't "PD-Art|PD-US" be the license used?
• This image doesn't have any source or author information, so it's difficult to confirm that the copyright is clear. Cla68 (talk) 03:05, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

• A brief search has led me to find the source of the Shawnee prophet image and I have added that to the image page. I have been able to determine that the Tippecanoe image is public domain and owned and listed as part of a collection held by the Smithsonian Institute. I have not been able to find an online version of the image yet, I presume it is probably scanned from a book source. Charles Edward (Talk) 12:57, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Americans VS Native Americans

Use of the term Americans is not neutral. The American Indian tribes in this case weren't just some generic Native Americans they are known on wikipedia as Tecumseh's Confederacy. They should be referred to as such. Likewise the United States should be referred to in this case as in other articles involving American Indians, as the United States, or the United States of America. It clears up any possible confusion. Whenever the peoples are referred to it is now PC to refer to Native Americans as Indians. Us citizens should be referred to as just that.

I am making these suggestions because the article as it reads now makes the indians sound like trespassers on their own lands. --71.239.120.235 (talk) 05:31, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Could you give an example from the article where you are given that impression? I think it is important to explain all of the different tribes involved so the reader understands it was just not an isolated Shawnee incident. Additionally - Tecumseh was trespassing on Miami lands. So in that way, it is accurate to portray it as such. What adjective do you propose we use in place of "American"? —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 15:47, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I am the who placed the tag. The specific places in the article are anyplace where the United States is referred to as "The Americans", and Tecumseh's Confederacy is refered to as "the Indians". Arguably any people who live in and were born in the American continents could call themselves Americans. Remember not every reader is going to be from the US so it could confuse them. When speaking of wars between the US and the American Indian nations one must be more specific.

The remedy for this is quite simple. Refer to Tecumseh's confederacy as such, and do likewise with the United States. Just as if one were writing about a war between the US and Mexico or Canada the US would not and should not be referred to simply as "Americans". It gives the idea that somehow the only real americans are (certain) US citizens. --Hfarmer (talk) 07:18, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I am kind of confused by this statement. Can you please point to a specific example? Throughout the article, the tribes involved are refered to by name, by their leader's names, etc. The only places in the article where the word "Indian" occurs is here: "When the warriors began to run low on ammunition and the sun rose, revealing the small size of Tenskwatawa's army, the Indian forces finally began to slowly withdraw" (I guess we could change this one but I don't feel that is needed), and "American Indian confederation" in the lead (this is where it is made clear that Tecumseh's Confederacy is a Native American one), "Harrison negotiated numerous land cession treaties with American Indians" (can't say Tecumseh's Confederacy here), and the quote "purge the camps of Indians" (its a quote). Those do not seem to be ambiguous uses of the word Indian at all to me.

The background section makes it very clear that the Native Americans are NATIVEs, and it was the land they inhabited, but were having a struggle with the United States. I think it is pretty clear the difference between and "American" and a "Native American" as mentioned in the article. Tecumseh's people are refereed to as a confederacy numerous times throughout the article. And while, as you state, this may be confusing at worst, how does it justify a neutral tag on the article? Are you saying it is not neutral to refer to citizens on the United States of America as "Americans"?

And one side note - Tecumseh was not a chief, but a leader of a religious group comprised of members of many tribes. Leaders of other tribes did not materially support him, his town was built in land claimed by the Miami against their wishes, and he was not fighting to protect any sort of ancestral lands. It was almost purely religious in nature. Most of the fighting occurred in Miami an Wea territory - both of whom were generally neutral to what was going on. Tecumseh's main source of manpower was coming from tribes beyond the frontier, like the Pottowatomie, etc. The initial point raised that they were fighting to protect their lands, is not really accurate. Tecumseh and most of his allies, except the Kickapoo, did not have land that was part of the treaties being negotiated with the United States. The land purchases was almost entirely southern parts of the Miami lands, some of which was inhabited by Wea, Kickapoo, Pinakeshaw, and Lenape. Those were the tribes with territory along the border with the settlers. Tecumseh was considerably farther north, and was drawing most of his support from the tribes even farther to the north. The point being - it is important that we not paint this as a general Native American uprising by the tribes who were negotiating treaties with the United States. Those events occured in the aftermath of this event, and for reasons very different from Tecumseh's. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 15:09, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

That's exactly what I am saying it is not neutral to refer to the United states alone as American's in the context of wars with other sovereign entities which are just as if not more American than the United States. The American Indians should be refered to in this article specifically by their tribe and never collectively as just "Indians" because that too lacks specificity.

Listen this is supposed to be a scholarly article here not a childrens book. I think we can hold ourselves to a higher standard. --71.239.120.235 (talk) 13:44, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

As far as Tecumseh's people fighting to protect their land I think you took me wrong. That's not the point I was trying to make. The point I was trying to make was that all of the people involved could be refereed to as American's with just as much validity. There is a reason that in a article on the Civil war no one ever refers to the union as "American" and the Confederacy as something other than American. They were all American. Simply saying American makes it sound like one group. Descended from people who got here in the 161*'s is more native more deserving and manifestly destined to own the land than another group which has been here since the last ice age.

I am not asking for a huge change. I am just proposing that the word Indian and American be expunged from this article and replaced wherever possible with either United States, or the specific tribal names. I don't just mean naming tribes at the beginning and just calling all of them Indians, which seems to be what is done now. I mean consistent and uniform usage of the tribal names. As well as consistent an uniform usage of the actual name of the country the United States of America. That is what a real modern encyclopedia would do. --71.239.120.235 (talk) 13:52, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I do not disagree with your point over the use of these terms - however, I don't see where this problem exists in the article. I have re-read it twice trying to see what you mean. Can you please provide an example from the article where the use of the words American and Indian are used improperly? ("Indian" occurs only four times in the article. And "American" is always in the context of " American Indian" "Native American" when referring to the tribes. I cannot locate a place where the use of "American" when referring to the US Forces could be construed as anything but and adjective to define the nationality of that force.) This is a featured article, and I would like to remove the tag from the lead. If there is a specific place that I am missing, you are welcome to fix it. Please Be Bold. Lets try to keep this featured article from being tagged in this manner. Thanks —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 14:42, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I have went through and removed every reference to the Americans as Americans, and replaced it with "citizens of the United States", "Harrison's army", etc. That said, I think the POV pushing here may be on your part. I have assumed good faith and repeatedly asked you to provide me with examples from the article; each time you have not. The position you are stating above about who has more right to land, etc etc, is pure conjecture on your part and no hint of that is anywhere to be found in this article. You are reading into something that is not there.

I have referred back to the source books used on this article, and term "American" is frequently used when referring to both the Indians and the US. I've also checked other highly notable Native American vs US battle articles on the wiki, like Battle of the Little Bighorn and Battle of Fallen Timbers, and American is used throughout to refer to the United States (contrary to your statement above). Furthermore, the article Native Americans in the United States throughout refers to both the Indians and the citizens of the United States as Americans. I have reviewed applicable policy and can find no policy or guideline which would prevent the sure of the term from applying to both sides. To address your point concerning the United States fight Tecumseh's Confederacy (which you say is a sovereign entity) I have to disagree here. Tecumseh himself was no chief, his followers were disaffected members of other tribes, and they built their town in lands belonging to another tribe; they were no sovereign. While not perfectly accurate, a better analogy would be to refer to Tecumseh as and his followers as upstarts rebelling against the leadership of the old Wabash Confederacy and their larger alliance. (After the battle in this article, then things blew up with the other tribes) To address your final request concerning the use of tribal names: they are already used where applicable. Please keep in mind Tecumseh was not leading a tribe, but disaffected members of over a dozen tribes. His following was not homogeneous and calling them as a group "Shawnee" or something else would not be accurate. In most cases the tribal ties of his followers is not fully known. "Native American" and "American Indian" and "Tecumseh's Confederacy" (which are all employed) are the most concise term to refer to the group. Where individual tribes are involved they are noted.

Now, please provide a specific example of where in this article, the term "Indian" or "American" (or anything else) is used in an improper or non-neutral way? Please do so by copy and pasting the quote from the article here and explaining how it is troublesome, rather than making vague remarks in overview. If you cannot, I propose that we remove the tag - this article is clearly written from a neutral point of view. Both sides positions are clearly stated, the results and aftermath clearly stated, etc. If we can't reach an agreement I propose that we seek mediation. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 20:57, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

As before, days have passed without any feedback regarding this and I have again removed the template. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 01:53, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

War of 1812

Why is this battle, that was fought before 1812 and had nothing to do with the British, considered part of the War of 1812? --Az81964444 (talk) 10:13, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Hello! The British were responsible for supplying the Tecumseh with firearms and ammunition (to some degree). And as you read in the aftermath section, Congress and many other American leaders (although inaccurately) at that time blamed the British directly for fomenting the hostilities. This fed the public opinion that the British were already waging war against the US through proxies, and was one of the direct causes of the War of 1812. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 19:17, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

(w)

What does the "(w)" mean in Lt. Col. Joseph Bartholomew (w)? Lesgles (talk) 02:05, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Forces

I am moving this section to the talk page because I am concerned about its accuracy. It is not properly referenced, most of the material is from a blog. Additionally, the names, ranks, and organization do not match what is in my own written book sources. For example, I read that Major Rodd was in command of the regulars, but that name does not appear on this list. My sources give Floyd's rank as colonel, but here he is a major. Etc. This info may be correct, and my source wrong, but as there is no proper given source for this material, I am removing it for now. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 13:03, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

All information in this battle roster is confirmed in Major Harry D. Tunnell's To Compel with Armed Force: A Staff Ride Handbook for the Battle of Tippecanoe (1998) page 127 and Captain Alfred Pirtle's "The Battle of Tippecanoe" (1897) pages 34-36 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.141.205.106 (talk) 17:27, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Commander-in-Chief

Governor William Henry Harrison

• Second-in-Command - Acting Brig. Gen. John Parker Boyd

Headquarters

• Yellow Jackets - Captain Spier Spencer
• Spies and Guides - Captain Toussaint Dubois

Brigade	Battalion	Companies
Infantry Brigade Col John Parker Boyd	Regular Infantry Major George Rogers Clark Floyd	Front Line 4 Companies, 4th U.S. Infantry 1 Company, 7th U.S. Infantry 1 Company, Rifle Regiment Rear Line - Acting Major William C. Baen (mw) 4 Companies, 4th U.S. Infantry
	Indiana Militia Infantry Lt. Col. Joseph Bartholomew (w)	Front Line 3 Companies, Militia Infantry Rear Line - Lt. Col. Luke Decker 4 Companies, Militia Infantry
Cavalry	Dragoon Reserve Major Joseph Hamilton Daviess	Light Dragoons, Indiana Militia - Captain Benjamin Parke Light Dragoons, Indiana Militia - Captain Beggs Kentucky Militia Company - Captain Funk
	Light Dragoons Major Samuel Wells	Kentcuky Mounted Riflemen - Captain Frederick Geiger Indiana Mounted Riflemen - Captain David Robb

Tecumseh's Confederacy - Tenskwatawa (500-700 warriors)

• Wea - White Loon (Wawpawwawqua)
• Potawatomi - Winamac

It is locked, so I cannot change it ... but the date of the New Madrid earthquakes is wrong

viz http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Madrid_Earthquake they started on December 16, not December 11. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.118.221.130 (talk) 19:42, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I've fixed it. Thanks for pointing out the error. —Kevin Myers 22:25, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

An odd sentence

"In an 1816 conversation with James Bakan, the Governor of Michigan, Tenskwatawa denied that he ordered his warriors to attack Harrison, and blamed the Winnebagos And Klaus his camp for launching the attack." What does the phrase "and blamed the Winnebagos And Klaus his camp" mean? I would change it, but would only be guessing. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 01:58, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Whenever you find a nonsensical sentence on Wikipedia, chances are good that it's a remnant of unrepaired vandalism. Check the page history to be sure. That was the case here. I found and reverted it. Thanks for pointing it out. —Kevin Myers 05:02, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I suspected that. I've learned that lesson and acted on it many times. But I don't like undoing (or reverting) unless I am reasonably sure. I don't want to screw up legitimate edits. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:50, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

 Done

Seeming Inconsistency In Description of the Terrain adjacent to Harrison's Camp

Less than two weeks ago, I visited the battleground and monument and noted that to the west there is both a steep bluff and shallow creek (Burnett Creek), while to the east there is a road, railroad tracks and open fields (i.e. no visible creeks and no steep bluffs).

However, the article says the following:

"On the east side of the hill was a shallow creek and on the west side a very steep embankment. Because of the nature of the position, Harrison did not order any temporary works to be created around the position as was ordinarily done by encamped armies.[15] The Yellow Jacket company, with Captain Spier Spencer in command, was posted on the southern end of the camp perimeter. The rest of the militia formed a rectangular formation along the edges of the bluff surrounding the camp. Colonel Davis Floyd commanded the militia units guarding the steep bluff on the eastern side of the formation."

And the accompanying map of the encampment shows a steep bluff to the east of the camp.

So, unless I am misinterpreting the article or the terrain has changed since the battle, the map and the descriptions seem to be at odds with each other and definitely at odds with what I observed the present day landscape to be.

Bcaster (talk) 20:28, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I have pulled the map used to base the article image on, it places what it calls a "steep slope" on the east side of the camp, opposite the creek. I have never personally been to the battle site, so I am unsure. It could potentially be an error in the source map. I am not sure.. I do not have any other battlefield map to compare to. The battle was about two hundred years ago.. but that doesn't quite seem like enough time for a whole hillside to disapear without some help. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 02:43, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

It is quite possible that it was changed a lot when the railroad was put in. Consider the area where the Engine House used to be, at Harper's Ferry: the Engine House itself has been moved dozens of yards, and the ground it originally stood on is now about 8 feet below the soil due to the modernization of the railroad tracks right there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.242.64.130 (talk) 18:34, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Accuracy and research issues

Back on November 6, 2011, I noticed that this article was scheduled for the Main Page the following day. I was troubled to see that the blurb for the Main Page contained at least one probable error. I pointed this out ([1]) and followed a suggestion ([2]) to write an accurate blurb. I also fixed a couple other errors in the article. We avoided putting a bogus factoid from this article on the Main Page, but the article is still in need of attention.

How did this happen? My first instinct was that the writer(s) of the article just didn’t know enough about identifying reliable sources to properly research the article. That’s probably true, considering that some questionable sources were used and some important ones ignored, but that’s not the whole story. To be blunt, I wonder if some of the footnotes were faked to create the appearance that the article was more thoroughly researched than it really was. Years ago, I discovered another featured article with fake footnotes. I rewrote that article without announcing that the research was bogus, but maybe keeping this stuff to myself is not the best approach. Perhaps the errors here came from honest mistakes and talking about them will be useful, even though the mistakes were made years ago.

For the first example, the problematic statement in the original blurb was based on this sentence from the body of the article:

Following the [August 1810] confrontation, Tecumseh secretly accepted the offer of alliance and the British began to supply his confederacy with firearms and ammunition.

This statement, a provocative claim to those familiar with the subject matter, was sourced to page 165 of Langguth’s book Union 1812, but Langguth made no such statement on this or any other page. I’m not aware of any scholar who has. Perhaps the footnote was a mistake, and the claim comes from another book. But here’s another sentence sourced from another part of Langguth’s book:

Many Natives of the northwest took the earthquake as a sign that Tenskwatawa's predictions of doom were coming true, leading many to support Tecumseh, including many of his former detractors. (p. 169)

Alas, Langguth made no such claim; he doesn’t even mention the earthquake. Why was his book cited here?

The kicker is that Langguth’s book is a tertiary source written by a non-specialist for a popular audience. We probably shouldn’t be using this book in the first place. By the way, Langguth’s source for his brief coverage of the Battle of Tippecanoe is David Edmunds’s scholarly biography on the Prophet. Edmunds’s classic should have been consulted and cited before this article was nominated for featured status.

The two “fakenotes” are not the only problems. Above, others have noted that the map is inaccurate, and that references to a “Catholic Mission” on the battlefield were odd (I’ve since removed the unreferenced claims in the text.) Other problems could be pointed out going forward. Clearly, the article does not meet the current Featured Article Criteria standards for research, i.e. being a “thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature”, and should be submitted for review unless fixed. —Kevin Myers 09:01, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Another example

I decided to examine another “fakenote” to discover what's going on with this article.

On 26 August 2008, Charles Edward added the following to the article:

Harrison left the territory on business in Kentucky shortly after the [August 1811] meeting with Tecumseh, leaving secretary John Gibson as acting-governor. Gibson, who had lived among the Indians for many years, was quick to learn of Tecumseh's plans for war and immediately called up the state militia and sent emergency letters to call for the return of Harrison.

This statement, which has now been in the article for years, is quite interesting. Harrison was away in August 1811 when Gibson learned of Tecumseh’s “plans for war”? Perhaps it's accurate, but I've never seen this mentioned in any other account of the Battle of Tippecanoe.

Mr Edward initially provided no reference for the information, but on 24 February 2009, he added a footnote, giving Langguth, p. 167 as his citation. However, this information is not actually in Langguth’s book. In fact, Langguth does not mention John Gibson at all.

So what’s the deal? When Mr Edward originally wrote the passage, perhaps he confused later events with what was going on just before the Battle of Tippecanoe. (It seems plausible that this event happened in August 1812 in connection with events surrounding the siege of Fort Wayne, though I don't know enough about Gibson's activities to be sure.) Then, when Mr Edward came back to the article, he “sprinkled in” a few footnotes from a book he had on hand, even though it didn’t really support the text.

I’m not saying this is a huge deal. Everyone makes mistakes. I’m just pointing out that the research for the article is and was not up to Featured Article standards, and that much work is needed to fix the errors. —Kevin Myers 20:10, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello, I take no offense to your comments and think such articles indeed deserve proper criticism. Having been a couple years at least since I took this article through featured status. I am not longer terribly familiar with the sources in questions, but I am very familiar with the topic. But I certainly did not insert "fakenotes", haha, and I do have the sources on hand. The article was fairly extensively copyedited by other editors, and it is likely the some footnotes were simply moved around inadvertently. I am not very active on here lately, but if someone else is interested in working on the article to improve it further I encourage them to do so. I certainly do not have time to shepherd it through a FAR.

I have authored not just this article, but I am the primary author of almost every article related to Tecumseh's War. The article has also deteriorated somewhat since it originally passed FA status as well, I note multiple MOS problems. I relied mostly on Funk, Owen, Languth, and Cave when writing this article as sources. I am aware that other sources are out there that disagree with certain aspects, but it my opinion that Cave and Owen are authoritative. Funk gave an excellent account of the battlefield and order of battle, and Languth helped to tie it to the broader War of 1812. Hopefully that explains my rationale to the sources. I certainly encourage you to remedy any problem you detect. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 21:49, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Looking just a little closer at your comments, I do not see any of the things you state as wrong as being wrong. I agree perhaps the footnotes do not match. I do suspect that during copyeditting some sentences were reordered and moved away from their correct footnote. I believe a full review of all sources would vindicate the article, but again, I've not the time to do that. I do apologize. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 21:56, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Catholic Mission

I'm curious about the source of the statement The hill on which he encamped was the site of a Catholic mission school built to educate the surrounding tribes. The location of that school as shown on the accompanying map coincides exactly with a Methodist school building constructed in 1862, parts of which still exist. That building replaced a wooden structure built in 1850 and remodeled in 1856. See http://www.tcha.mus.in.us/battletime.htm. Perhaps that refreshment stand was built on the site of an earlier Catholic Mission, but Harrison's post-battle report to his superiors doesn't mention a building standing within 100 feet of his left flank, nor did he appropriate it for his own use. See http://america.library4history.org/VFW-1803-1820/AMERICA-1812-Before-and-After/BATTLE-OF-TIPPECANOE.html. And though Catholic priests occassionally passed through the nearby Fort Ouiatenon in the 18th century, the first priest sent specifically to minister to the natives of northern Indiana arrived in 1830 and established his mission school much further north. See http://www.connerprairie.org/Learn-And-Do/Indiana-History/America-1860-1900/Roman-Catholics-in-Indiana.aspx. Controleng (talk) 14:36, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Very odd indeed. I've checked several sources on the battle and find nothing about a Catholic mission school. I've removed the uncited claim; we'll need to fix the map too. This article gets curiouser and curiouser the more I look at it. A thorough review is clearly needed. —Kevin Myers 06:24, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I think that is referenced in Funk - not 100% certain, been quite awhile since I worked on this article. Looking at it.. it almost needs delisted as an FA. There has been a fair amount of deterioration in the quality of the article.. It would not pass FA in current state. Also, in hindsight, Funk may not be completely accurate. I agree that there is no other source referencing the mission. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 00:07, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Battle of Tippecanoe. 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 https://web.archive.org/web/20090417020339/http://www.tcha.mus.in.us/battlehistory.htm to http://www.tcha.mus.in.us/battlehistory.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090224152817/http://www.tcha.mus.in.us/battlehistory.htm to http://www.tcha.mus.in.us/battlehistory.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 23:47, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

captain rodd?

I believe it is captain Robb not rodd the article and map are incorrect. Robb is my relative and I have been to the battlefield and seen his name there is no mention of a rodd. However I am not sure how to edit pages if some one can help with this or verify my thoughts it would greatly appreciated. Just want the article to be accurate. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1008:B005:68F8:5E88:4B3F:CDE2:7236 (talk) 15:37, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

If you can post a source with the name that be very helpful. The source given in the article states "rodd". The map likewise is a replica of a map from the given source. If you can provide an alternate source I would be glad to make the edits. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 19:20, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Twins

Langguth says that T&T's mother bore triplets, but I misread - apparently after Tecumseh's birth. Thanks for that catch Kevin1776. Victoria (tk) 22:36, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Lossing map of battle

The article is a bit crowded with images, but Benson John Lossing's map of the battlefield might be suitable. He included a couple landmarks that were near the battlefield a half-century later, like a railroad and a college building, which undoubtedly led to the belief that a "Catholic Mission" was there when the battle was fought. Kevin1776 (talk) 09:03, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi Kevin1776 that's a nice image, but it shows a college (which in the previous map in the article was labeled as a missionary, if I remember correctly) and there wasn't anything there. I wanted to use this map on page 102 from Tunnell, but didn't get around to asking Nikkimaria whether it's PD. The book seems to be PD but not sure about the images. Publisher is U.S Army Command and General Staff. Victoria (tk) 15:59, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

It would be PD unless there is a non-US Army author credited somewhere. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:57, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

He was a major when the publication was released in 1998; according to this document he was promoted to Lt. Colonel in 2000 - scroll down about four pages, first column, top quarter. So he was an US Army author, apparently. Victoria (tk) 00:13, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Glad you found this map - this is one of the sources I used to produce the map originally in the article. I could recreate the map and drop out the college\mission since you have determined it did not exist. Glad you have had time to work on this! —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 15:24, 20 July 2021 (UTC)