Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Battle of Tippecanoe


 * 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 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.