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)

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

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"? &mdash;Charles Edward (Talk 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. &mdash;Charles Edward (Talk 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 &mdash;Charles Edward (Talk 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. &mdash;Charles Edward (Talk 20:57, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

As before, days have passed without any feedback regarding this and I have again removed the template. &mdash;Charles Edward (Talk 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. &mdash;Charles Edward (Talk 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. &mdash;Charles Edward (Talk 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

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&amp;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&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 19:50, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

✅

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. &mdash;Charles Edward (Talk 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 and followed a suggestion  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. &mdash;Charles Edward (Talk 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. &mdash;Charles Edward (Talk 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. &mdash;Charles Edward (Talk 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.

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. &mdash;Charles Edward (Talk 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. 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 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  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! &mdash;Charles Edward (Talk 15:24, 20 July 2021 (UTC)