Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:53, 21 December 2020

This article is undergoing a featured article review. A featured article should exemplify Misplaced Pages's very best work, and is therefore expected to meet the criteria. Please feel free to leave comments or be bold and improve the article directly. If the article has been moved from its initial review period to the Featured Article Removal Candidate (FARC) section, you may support or contest its removal.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Battle of Tippecanoe article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 3 months

	Battle of Tippecanoe is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Misplaced Pages community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
	This article appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page as Today's featured article on November 7, 2011.
Article milestones Date Process Result March 1, 2009 Good article nominee Listed March 27, 2009 WikiProject A-class review Approved April 4, 2009 Featured article candidate Promoted Facts from this article were featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on November 7, 2007, November 7, 2008, November 7, 2009, November 7, 2010, November 7, 2013, November 7, 2018, and November 7, 2020. Current status: Featured article

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Military history: North America / United States This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history Associated task forces: /  North American military history task force United States military history task force Additional information: /  This article has passed an A-Class review. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. United States: Indiana Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Indiana (assessed as High-importance). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Indigenous peoples of North America Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Native Americans, Indigenous peoples in Canada, and related indigenous peoples of North America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Indigenous peoples of North AmericaWikipedia:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North AmericaTemplate:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North AmericaIndigenous peoples of North America Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Pritzker Military Library Mid‑importance This article is related to the Pritzker Military Museum & Library WikiProject. Please copy assessments of the article from the most major WikiProject template to this one as needed.Pritzker Military LibraryWikipedia:GLAM/PritzkerTemplate:WikiProject Pritzker-GLAMPritzker Military Library-related Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

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. 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  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)

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  00:07, 8 November 2013 (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 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 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  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  21:56, 4 March 2012 (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  19:20, 13 June 2018 (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: 5 June 2024).

• 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)

WP:URFA/2020

I have cleaned up a considerable mess of MOS:SANDWICH. Hog Farm might you have a look at this older FA in terms of WP:URFA/2020? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:30, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

• I see some uncited text and a bunch of uncited notes. I think my War of 1812 books touch on this at least slightly, do I'll see what I can clean up after I get off work. If I can't, I'll see if another MILHIST editor can. This should be fixable without FAR. Hog Farm _Bacon 21:08, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
  • After reading some of the old talk page comments, this might need spot checks. I'll try to dig out my copy of Langguth for verification. Hog Farm _Bacon 21:10, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Spot checks

• "a second charge by the dragoons forced the Indians to flee" - Langguth only mentions one charge by the dragoons, possible WP:OR or WP:SYNTH comparing to other sources?
• "The battle lasted about two hours and Harrison lost 62 men, with 37 killed in action and 25 mortally wounded; about 126 were less seriously hurt" - Don't know what Owens says, but Langguth says as least 62 dead, and 120 wounded, with no mention of two hours.
• "The Yellow Jackets suffered the highest casualties of the battle, with 30-percent of their numbers killed or wounded. The number of Indian casualties is still the subject of debate, but it was certainly lower than that of the American forces. Historians estimate that as many as 50 were killed and about 70 to 80 were wounded." - Don't have Funk or Owens. Langguth doesn't mention any debate more than 50 slain, agrees with 70 to 80 wounded.
• "Fearing Tecumseh's imminent return with reinforcements, Harrison ordered his men to fortify their camp with works for the rest of the day. As the sentries moved back out, they discovered and scalped the bodies of 36 warriors" - Langguth does not support the fortification after the battle part. Does mention scalping 36 dead warriors.
• "The following day, November 8, Harrison sent a small group of men to inspect the Shawnee town and found it was deserted except for one elderly woman too sick to flee. The remainder of the defeated Natives had evacuated the village during the night. Harrison ordered his troops to spare the woman, but to burn down Prophetstown and destroy the Native Americans' cooking implements, without which the confederacy would be hard pressed to survive the winter. Everything of value was confiscated, including 5,000 bushels of corn and beans stored for winter" - Langguth does not say this was on November 8th. The relevant sentence is When they reached Prophetstown, they spared the life of one old woman who had been too sick to flee with the rest. So that only that one woman was there is only implied. The order to spare her is not attributed to Harrison. Cooking implements are not mentioned. Langguth says that the 5,000 bushels of corn and beans were burned, not confiscated.
• "It is implied that Harrison feared the Native Americans would dig up his dead soldiers to avenge his men having desecrated the Prophetstown graveyard. (See: Cave, p. 122 and Langguth, p. 169)" - Don't know what Cave says, but not in Langguth that I can find. Langguth doesn't mention the burial of the American dead.
• "Tecumseh's warriors made up nearly half of the British forces that captured Detroit from the United States in the War of 1812, and it was not until Tecumseh's death at the 1813 Battle of the Thames that his confederacy ceased to threaten the Americans" - This is cited to Langguth p. 214. I appear to have the same edition of Langguth as the article writer did, as it's also the 2006 edition at the p. 169 stuff matches up okay. p. 214 contains none of this information and is about the Battle of Queenston Heights.
• "The remaining Yellow Jacket officers were Lieutenants Nuge and Klaus, but they were also shot and killed and the Yellow Jackets began to fall back from the main line, retreating with the sentinels. The Indians followed the retreating unit and entered the camp, but Colonel Bartholomew requested a detachment of 25 regular troops and led a bayonet charge which repulsed them. During that charge, Bartholomew was shot through the lower arm, breaking both bones, but he was still clutching his sword when he was treated hours later. He was later promoted to brigadier general in recognition of his leadership during the battle. The soldiers regrouped under the command of ensign John Tipton with the help of two reserve companies under the command of Captain Robb, and they sealed the breach in the line" - Cited to Owens, Funk, and Langguth. None of this is in Langguth.
• " The Yellow Jacket company was posted on the southern end of the camp perimeter, with Captain Spier Spencer in command, and the rest of the militia established a rectangular formation along the edges of the bluff surrounding the camp. Lieutenant Colonel Joseph Bartholomew commanded the Indiana militia units guarding the steep bluff on the eastern side of the formation, and the regulars and dragoons were kept in reserve behind the main line, commanded by Major Floyd, Maj. Joseph Hamilton Daveiss, and former congressman Capt. Benjamin Parke" - Cited to Langguth and Owens, can't find any of this in Langguth.
• "Most of the militia regiments had formed by mid-September and Harrison had returned, accompanied by a small force of army regulars, and he took command. He had already communicated with his superiors in Washington, D.C., and he was authorized to march against the confederacy in a show of force in the hopes that its members would accept peace" - Cited to Langguth p. 168 and Owens. Langguth p. 167 says that the secretary of war authorized him to make peace, but none of the rest of it is there.
• "In August 1811, Tecumseh again met with Harrison at Vincennes, Indiana, and he assured Harrison that the Shawnee brothers meant to remain at peace with the United States" - Langguth mentions an August 1810 meeting between the two at Vincennes, and another one at an unspecified place and month in 1811.
• "Tecumseh then traveled to the Southeast on a mission to recruit allies among the "Five Civilized Tribes". Most of the southern tribes rejected his appeals, but a faction of the Creek people answered his call to arms and became known as the Red Sticks. They led the Creek War, an internal war among factions that were divided over adoption of some American ways. This became a part of the War of 1812, as the Red Sticks opposed the United States" - Cited to Langguth and Owens. Can't really tell what exactly in this Langguth is suppose to support, as the Creek's aren't mention, and Tecumseh's 1811 trip that's mentioned is to Illinois Territory and Michigan Territory, neither of which were in the southeast.
• "Harrison left the territory for business in Kentucky shortly after the meeting with Tecumseh, and secretary John Gibson was acting governor. Gibson had lived among the Miami tribe for many years and quickly learned of Tecumseh's plans for war. He immediately called out the territory's militia and sent emergency letters calling for the return of Harrison" Harrison going to Kentucky doesn't seem to be mentioned. Gibson is not mentioned at all.
• "William Henry Harrison was appointed governor of the newly formed Indiana Territory in 1800, and he sought to secure title to the area for settlement. In particular, he hoped that the Indiana Territory would attract enough settlers to qualify for statehood. He negotiated numerous land cession treaties with American Indians, including the Treaty of Fort Wayne on September 30, 1809 in which Miami, Pottawatomie, Lenape, and other tribal leaders sold 3,000,000 acres (approximately 12,000 km2) to the United States." - Cited to Langguth and Owens. Don't know what Owens says. Langguth says Harrison served one term as a representative from Ohio Territory starting in 1799 before coming Indiana Territory governor, doesn't give an exact year. Mentions the 3,000,000 acre land sale, but only attributes it to Harrison and the Miami; doesn't specifically identify it with the Treaty of Fort Wayne. Doesn't mention the enough settlers bit.
• "Tenskwatawa was known as the Prophet and had been leading a religious movement among the northwestern tribes, calling for a return to the ancestral ways. His brother Tecumseh was outraged by the Treaty of Fort Wayne, and he revived an idea advocated previously by Shawnee leader Blue Jacket and Mohawk leader Joseph Brant, which stated that Indian land was owned in common by all tribes, and land could not be sold without agreement by all the tribes" - Bit about the Prophet is okay. However, Brant and Blue Jacket are not associated by Langguth with Tecumseh's common ownership of land idea. In fact, a land sale to the US government opposed by Tecumseh is attributed to Blue Jacket. Don't know what Owens says.

SandyGeorgia - I have serious source-text integrity concerns based on this check of Langguth. We need to find someone who can access the other sources, particularly Owens, Funk, and Cave, because I have real concerns here. Hog Farm _Bacon 06:12, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Wow, thanks for the in-depth look. CJLippert is the best person I can think of to have a look here, but he is semi-active lately; hopefully he will log on and see this. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:08, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia - Do you think we ought to update this to a notice? Looking at the references, if we find someone with an Internet Archive login, they could check the Prophets of the Great Spirit source. But I wouldn't be surprised if there's errors there too, especially judging by all the old talk page messages on this page about refernece errors. Hog Farm _Bacon 18:03, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

I think that a three-week to one-month period of no engagement is probably adequate to update to "Noticed"; I will go do that now. (I was holding out hope that CJLippert would pop in.) Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:09, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Back in 2012, I noted above that this article was dubiously footnoted using false citations to weak sources. Looks like you're repeating that process. My bad, I should have done something else back then to save you some time. This article should have never been promoted to Featured because the "research" behind the footnotes was only simulated, not genuine. Can we save future effort by just demoting it? I'm no longer familiar with the process. Best wishes. —Kevin Myers 16:37, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Kevin Myers, we are each restricted to one nomination at WP:FAR per week, and Hog Farm and I are at that limit. Hog Farm raised concerns here on 30 November; per the wait period, you should be able to initiate a FAR, but you will need to follow the instructions at FAR-- let me know if you need help. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:43, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages featured article review candidates
• Misplaced Pages featured articles
• Featured articles that have appeared on the main page
• Featured articles that have appeared on the main page once
• All unassessed articles
• FA-Class military history articles
• FA-Class North American military history articles
• North American military history task force articles
• FA-Class United States military history articles
• United States military history task force articles
• Successful requests for military history A-Class review
• FA-Class United States articles
• Mid-importance United States articles
• FA-Class United States articles of Mid-importance
• FA-Class Indiana articles
• High-importance Indiana articles
• WikiProject Indiana articles
• WikiProject United States articles
• FA-Class Indigenous peoples of North America articles
• Mid-importance Indigenous peoples of North America articles
• WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America articles
• FA-Class Pritzker Military Library-related articles
• Mid-importance Pritzker Military Library-related articles