Battle of Perryville

Page contents not supported in other languages.

Major issues

This article has major issues starting with the title. The Western Confederacy never existed; wikipedia synthesized the name. Web searches use the name Miami Confederacy for this group of Indians. Western Confederacy, when the term occurs, refers to Tecumseh's confederation prior to the War of 1812. I propose we rename the current article (which the original article Miami Confederacy was merged into) as Miami Confederacy, and make Western Confederacy a disambiguation page with entries Miami Confederacy and Tecumseh's Confederacy. That corresponds to the fact that Western Confederacy is more ambiguous than clear. In some cases, I think people might be looking for Wabash Confederacy or Iroquois Confederacy when they stumble across the name.

Then there's the lack of citation for which tribes exactly composed the Confederacy. It was a very loose confederacy, the core of which were the Algonquin-speaking tribes of the lower Great Lakes including the Huron, Shawnee, Miami, Delaware, Potawatomi, Chippewa and Ottawa. Looser still, the non-Algonquin northeastern tribes including Iroquios, Mohawks and other northern Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Valley tribes. Also rather looser were the western Mississippi Valley tribes of Illini, Missisauguas, Menominee, Kickapoo and Kaskaskia. Barely involved were the trans-Ohio River tribes of Cherokee and Muscoge. The Huron were the leaders and organizers; most of the warriers were Miami and Shawnee. The others played bit parts. Yet the bullet list makes no distinction, nor describes how the tribes were related to each other or to the land. They were fighting over land; those that stood to lose their land in Ohio Country were the players. This needs to be clarified; a bullet list looks like someone threw in all the tribes they could think of, "me, too" style, and considered it scholarship. Sbalfour (talk) 17:15, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Miami Confederacy is not a good term. Although they were major contributors to the fighting force and were the repeated target of large US expeditions, the confederacy was not formed around the Miami. I could be persuaded that "Western Confederacy" is not NPV since it's name is derived from the location of the 13 American states, but "Miami Confederacy" is not a better term. Neither is "Wabash Confederacy," for the same reasons.
I've found quite a bit of good information on the confederacy which I'll include when I can get more time to focus on this article. It was, frankly, much larger than I realized, and failed to effectively resist the United States primarily because of the inherent problems in uniting so many different, decentralized peoples across such a large area. One of the best terms I've seen came from a letter they wrote to US Congress, in which they referred to themselves as "the United Indian Nations, at their Confederate Council." If you want to rename this article, we should start with that, and perhaps find a more simple way to phrase it. Canute (talk) 03:16, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sbalfour, could we revisit the bullet list that you mentioned when you have time? I would like to make some of the changes that you mentioned, but I haven't yet found a source that provides a clear description of the major actors in the confederacy. I agree that the list should distinguish between the major players and supporting nations, but this could get tricky because the article is (or should be) about the confederation, not necessarily the military wing of the confederation. So while a battle might have a significant number of Shawnee, Lenape, Miami, or (as in Siege of Fort Recovery) Odawa, they were just a few of the many nations present at formal councils. Perhaps call out the nations involved in one of the major councils? Also, there's some redundancy in the list (the Mohawk nation(s), for example, are both part of the Six Nations and Seven Nations) and that could be cleaned up. More generally speaking, I'm not sure how to handle the Iroquois nations in any list of confederate participants. At various times the Iroquois either battled against, supported, or were resisted by the "resident" nations of the region. Sorry for babbling on, but I would like to make some improvements to that section if you can give me some direction. Thanks! Canute (talk) 20:38, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's been quite a long time since I worked on this article; my primary interest was the Northwest Territory, and subsequently got sucked into articles on the Northwest Indian War, Battle of Fallen Timbers, then this article. A bullet list usually means whoever wrote the list, bailed out. As history, we don't care so much about names, but what role they played in how we got to where we are [were] say about 1794 at the time of Fallen Timbers. The Iroquois were already displaced, and the Miami making their last stand. It's grim, when I see what happened there. If you have sources, we need them. I only have topical material on this, and didn't write the bullet list, though I think I edited it mostly for form. Sbalfour (talk) 23:32, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the input. For the time being, I'll separate them according to the 11 nations that signed the letter to Congress in 1786 at the Detroit conference. The composition changed over time, but that seems like a pretty solid reference point. I'll also concentrate on adding more descriptions to each. I know bullet point lists aren't favored on Wikipedia, but I thought I might try to salvage this one. If we have a short, concise, but descriptive list, I can see how that would help the average reader make some sense of the confederation. Canute (talk) 02:04, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Leaders

The only two leaders named in this article are Tecumseh and Joseph Brant. Tecumseh was a warrior in the Northwest Indian War, but was not a leader. He would lead his own confederacy (which was more of a true confederacy than this alliance) years later at a different location. Joseph Brant is described here as one of the founders of the Western Confederacy, but the alliance of Northwest nations didn't particularly get along with the Iroquois League. If anything, the alliance of the Northwest nations had its roots in their united opposition to Iroquois, long before Joseph Brant was born. I strongly question the inclusion of Brant unless someone can provide a reliable source of his involvement in bringing the Northwest nations together (it's possible, I just want to see it). Some of the prominent names of the Western Confederacy should be added to this article. Canute (talk) 13:27, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've found more sources that explain Brant's importance to the formation of the confederacy. When I finish with another project, I'll focus on this article and expand on this. Thanks. Canute (talk) 03:05, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Article name

The best name for this article is "Northwest Confederacy" or "Northwestern Confederacy." Both terms have been used as a capitalized proper noun to describe this confederacy long before Wikipedia was a gleam in Jimbo's eyes. Both are currently used by historians. Calloway (A Victory with No Name, 2014), uses both "Northwest Confederacy" and "Northwestern Confederacy" to describe this confederacy. Jortner (The Gods of Prophetstown, 2012) and Cozzens (Tecumseh and the Prophet, 2020) both use "Northwestern Confederacy" for this confederacy. Google Books reveals that "Northwestern Confederacy" has been used since at least 1899 as a capitalized proper noun to describe this confederacy, though sometimes it's been used to describe Tecumseh's confederacy. "Northwest Confederacy" as a capitalized proper noun has also been in use for some time (The Register of the Kentucky Historical Society, 1968; The American Indian: Prehistory to the Present, Gibson, 1980). I think the scales tip slightly in favor of "Northwestern Confederacy" as the article title.

"Western Confederacy" is not a good title for this article. The term is not used by historians as a proper noun. When you see it, it's as a lower-case descriptive term for this or other confederations. By far most references to "western Confederacy" in history books refer the the US Civil War. It has no place here.

As far as I know, "Miami Confederacy" has rarely (if ever) been used by knowledgeable historians to describe this confederacy. That term has long usage to describe the confederacy of bands who make up the Miami tribe (Piankeshaw, Wea, etc.). Over the years some writers got this "Miami confederacy" mixed up with the confederacy described in this article. Kevin1776 (talk) 00:40, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Curious: What is the rough % of those that use Western Confederacy, or it's variants, User:Kevin1776? GenQuest "scribble" 01:29, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's pretty close to zero. In 1969, Anthony FC Wallace referred to this confederacy as the "western confederacy" (non-capitalized) in his book The Death and Rebirth of the Seneca; western in this case meant west of the Iroquois. I'm pretty sure that's where we got the title for this article, though it should have not been capitalized. A few non-specialist writers have picked up on Wikipedia's use of "Western Confederacy," but not many. Kevin1776 (talk) 02:11, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
user:Kevin1776, you'll enjoy this. I did some digging and it was a past version of you who first used "Western Confederacy" in this article, way back on 4 May 2007, because there was no documentation for "Western Lakes Confederacy." We've struggled with the name for a long time. Canute (talk) 18:56, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I thought that might have been the case, but I wasn't 100% sure. I think I also named "Northwest Indian War," which was similarly tricky. I was hesitant to name either article, but back in the early days of Wikipedia we did the best we could. Kevin1776 (talk) 20:01, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's all any of us can do. When I look at my contributions from a decade ago, I usually feel pretty embarrassed. But the fact that I feel that way means we've gotten better. Here's to the hope that we'll feel the same way 10 years from now. Maybe we'll have a better name by then. Canute (talk) 20:23, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Calloway (cited) only uses "Northwestern Confederacy" in the index. In his description of the confederacy (see pp 381-2) the title isn't used, it's just described as "the Indian confederacy." Sword also refers to it as the "Indian Confederacy," but occasionally refers to them as the "Western nations" to distinguish them from the Iroquois and Wabash confederacies. Hogeland describes the confederation of western Indians. Gaff calls it an Indian Confederacy, and like the others will name a specific person or nation in his narrative.
The title of the article has been a point of discussion in the past and it's certainly worth reviewing. I don't think you'll find one title that best fits every criteria. The contemporary writings that exist had their biases, and some of their descriptions only make sense in their geographic and political context. We know at least one title that the confederation used to describe itself, but it's a bit too long for an article title. I have to say, though, that while I'm a fan of bold edits, my experience is that something as significant as a name change is usually discussed before it's acted on. Maybe give us a chance in the Talk page before changing the name? Canute (talk) 21:13, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Out of curiosity, I checked 3 more references. Wayne biographies by Nelson and Stockwell and the Osprey book on Fallen Timbers. They all use "Indian confederacy." So while you might have a good idea about using what the plurality of historians use, I don't think "Indian confederacy" is going to work for this article title. It's up to us to discuss and debate what the most appropriate title is. Again, assuming you don't want to title the article "The United Indian Nations at their Confederate Council" or "Indian Nations Assembled at the Foot of the Miamis Rapids." Canute (talk) 21:37, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Another data point: a recent scholarly reference has an entry about this confederacy entitled "The Ohio Indian Confederation," and describes it as "a group also referred to as the "Northern Confederacy" and "Miami Confederacy" by contemporaries and scholars..." The entry is written by Cameron Shriver, a professor specializing in the Miami, in Imperialism and Expansionism in American History: A Social, Political, and Cultural Encyclopedia and Document Collection (2015). Shriver appears to prefer "Ohio Indian Confederation" as a name for this group, although "Northern Confederacy" is also used elsewhere in the volume. Kevin1776 (talk) 03:36, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it's almost easier to list the reasons why any given title doesn't work. Ohio Confederacy doesn't work - significant battles were in the modern state of Ohio, but the confederated tribes came from the entire Great Lakes region. Miami Confederacy doesn't work. Indian Confederacy is too vague. Either "Western Confederacy" or "Northwestern Confederacy" are based on the perspective of the United States instead of the confederacy itself. "United Indian Nations" was a term used by the confederation but probably wouldn't make much sense to modern readers. "Loose confederation of Native Nations in the Great Lakes area who resisted United States expansion into the Ohio territory in the late 18th century" is accurate but too long. Ha ha, sorry about the last one. I don't think there's one title that completely works, I think we just have to pick the name that has the least issues. Canute (talk) 15:31, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reference style

This article currently uses a mix of {{sfn}} and {{rp}} when referencing a single source multiple times. It should just use one style, and certainly it should just use one for any given reference: the current mix is generating reference errors, which is what brought me here. I am happy to convert either the {{rp}} to {{sfn}} or vice versa – any opinions here on which style should be preferred? Thanks, Wham2001 (talk) 20:41, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My vote is for {{sfn}}, but only because I got burned once when I used {{rp}} and a reviewer miscounted the citations. I think either is perfectly acceptable, though, and I have no strong opinion. If someone prefers {{rp}}, it wouldn't be a big deal to go back and replace them. For now, I've updated the Calloway (2018) citations to sfn, so at least that looks better. Thanks for pointing it out.Canute (talk) 14:58, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OK - on that basis, done! Thanks, Wham2001 (talk) 21:31, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's awesome, thank you! Canute (talk) 22:00, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I like it. {{rp}} is easy to use, but it leaves a string of ambiguous numbers in the body of the article that are a distraction for our intended audience. {{sfn}} is a bit more tedious for editors to use, but it does create a more reader-friendly result. Kevin1776 (talk) 22:49, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Kevin1776 Agreed. @Canute Thank-you for fixing the missing </ref> tags: I don't know how I'd managed to miss them. The dangers of editing when tired, I guess. Wham2001 (talk) 07:30, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

better source needed

Silly question, but in the Formation section, there's a "[better source needed]" tag at the end of the sentence "The Indian Affairs Committee of Congress passed the Resolution of October 15, 1783, however, which claimed the land and called on the native nations to withdraw beyond the Great Miami and Mad rivers." There are two citations at the end of that sentence. Is the tag mandatory because there's a link to WikiSource, or is it because the Van Every book is from 1963? I'm willing to find a better source, but I want to be sure why I'm doing it before I dig in. Van Every is cited quite a few times in the article. If it's the WikiSource note, can't we just find another way to link that rather than having it appear as a citation? Canute (talk) 21:09, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's possible the editor who added the "better source needed" tag didn't notice the other footnote. Remove the WikiSource footnote and there's no issue. Add a WikiSource link to the bottom of the article if you want to preserve the link. Kevin1776 (talk) 11:53, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I made the WikiSource link a note instead of a citation, since the doc is specific to that paragraph. The better source tag is gone. Thanks! Canute (talk) 13:38, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Northwestern_Confederacy