Talk:Northwest Indian War/Archive 1

Archive 1

Name of this article

Question for User:QuartierLatin1968 or others: What is the source of the name of this article ("War of the Wabash Confederacy")? I've never seen this title before. I've seen many variations of "the Indian War of the Old Northwest," or sometimes "Little Turtle's War," and once or twice the "Ohio War," but never this. Where's this title from? --Kevin Myers 03:17, Dec 13, 2004 (UTC)

No response in over a month, so I'll go ahead and change the name of this article. "War of the Wabash Confederacy" seems to be original with Wikipedia, which is counter to 'pedia policy. "Little Turtle's War" is the most common name used on the Internet and in older reference books, but attributing Indian leadership of the war to Little Turtle has fallen into disfavor in recent years. I'll go with another option, the "Northwest Indian War", which is less seen but perhaps the most historically accurate title in use. The other options will appear as redirects to this title. If anyone disagrees, this is the place to sound off. --Kevin Myers 17:57, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)

Sorry to leave you in suspense, Kevin; this page wasn't on my watchlist, and I didn't notice your question. Feel free to leave messages on my talk page. Now, I didn't make up the name 'Wabash Confederacy' – I'm sure of that – so 'War of the Wabash Confederacy' seemed like a fairly natural extension of that term. Where did it come from, though? Let me think; well, I first heard my professor use it at UofT; however, I find on the internet in scanned primary sources, a genealogy of George Rogers Clark, a family history, a biography of Sir John Caldwell, as well of course as the wikipedia look-alikes and the Wampum Chronicles messageboard. I can also try to scare up some references in published scholarly works if you like – I think I've still got a few of my old textbooks lying around somewhere. In any case, the name 'Wabash Confederacy' is not my invention, although it's undoubtedly come into wider use since I started adding mentions of it here on Wikipedia.

However, I don't really object to the current name you've chosen: although it's now biased to the perspective of settlers (from whose angle this region was Northwest), and uses the less than desirable name Indian, I see what you mean, it's probably the most immediately understandable name in circulation. We shouldn't eliminate all Wikipedia references to the Wabash Confederacy, however; it was the real deal. QuartierLatin1968 16:06, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the response, and thanks for those links as well. I have heard the term "Wabash Confederacy" before; it's the term "War of the Wabash Confederacy" I'm unfamiliar with. For instance, Wiley Sword's book President Washington's Indian War uses "Wabash Confederacy" to describe the tribes (mostly Wea and Piankashaw) or villages on the Wabash River near Vincennes, rather than the entire wartime confederation (i.e. Blue Jacket's Shawnees et. al.) itself. Is it possible that this is the usage you've encountered before? --Kevin Myers 10:19, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

Reformat

On my talk page, a user requested that I take a look at this article as part of the Wiki Military History Project, suggesting that the intro was too long (it was for the size of the article), the TOC doesn't appear until the second screen (which many readers prefer to see early on so they can better browse), and the article's layout did not conform to the standard. I moved the long discussion on nomneclature to the rear for better flow, but otherwise, the article is pretty decent. There are some other stylistic changes that could be made. Scott Mingus 03:04, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Dates

How firm are the dates on the NW Indian War? I know the article defines it as 1785–1795, but the conflict seems so nebulous that I wonder how strict we want to be with that. When Little Turtle defeated Augustin de La Balme in 1780, for example, historians are forced to list that as an action of the American Revolutionary War, even though I've read a least a few articles that prefer to group that with the Northwest Indian Wars. I like that this article pulls it all together by mentioning the Sixty Years' War, but I wonder as I look at other articles if they could be categorized as NW Indian War articles. Mingusboodle (talk) 18:46, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

We don't ordinarily consider that the Revolutionary War ended until the Treaty of Paris 1783, so LaBalme's action falls into that war. LaBalme didn't care a hoot about Indians, but this war is about Indians. We list the NW Indian War as beginning in 1785, but nothing much happened until the 1790 Harmar campaign. So maybe we should list this war as beginning then. Sbalfour (talk) 12:21, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Territory

While I'm at it... Many of the articles dealing with the Northwest Indian War read like they're state histories. This article, for example, is categorized as Ohio History, and features a map of Ohio. In reality, though, it directly affected the modern states of Indiana, Illinois, and Michigan, as well as Kentucky. I wonder, too, if we do a disservice by showing modern state lines when none of these states (except Kentucky) existed at the time. I'm not looking to make major changes any time soon, but I'd like to get some opinions on whether this is an issue worthy of addressing, and how we might best improve the article. Mingusboodle (talk) 18:54, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect Link: Northwest Territories

There is an incorrect link in the second paragraph. The link "Northwest Territories" directs to the current Canadian territory. It should point to the historic American territory. I'd edit it myself, but I cannot.

219.108.16.214 (talk) 02:59, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Kreisler

Typed the name Kreisler in Wikipedia search and followed hyperlinks until arrived here. RCNesland (talk) 12:57, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

And? Sbalfour (talk) 04:06, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Article redraft

This article is a compendium of off-topic, trivia and a paucity of information on the topic. I suggest, given the proliferation of articles on anything and everything in wikipedia, we tightly focus on the topic. I'm reading scads of information on other wars, like Beaver War, French and Indian War, American Revolution, etc, but only 3 sentences on Battle of Fallen Timbers? Whole books have been written on the span of those three sentences. The whole major section 1792-93 is dithering trivia, should be reduced to a couple of paragraphs, if it's kept at all. This article's timeline is 1785-1795. Everything except Formation of the Confederacy and Conduct of the War is off topic, and belongs in some other article. I suggest the following organization and relative textual contributions:

• preamble and aftermath, including Treaty of Greenville, maximum 4 modest paragraphs each, total no more than 10% of text
• The confederacy and prewar tensions and conflicts 1785-1791 (~30% of text)
• Harmar's and St' Clair's campaigns 1791-1792 (~30%/ of text)
• Gen. Wayne's campaign (~30% of text)
  • Battle of Fallen Timbers, 15% of text

The textual content length defines the importance. Let's do it to it. Be BOLD.

Sbalfour (talk) 04:25, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

The 1792-93 section is 6 fat paragraphs of much ado about nothing. It could be summarized in one sentence. I'll give it a try: While the U.S. and General Wayne prepared for war, it sued for peace - treaty commissioners were sent to two Indian Grand Councils in Ohio in fall of 1792 and spring of '93, but deadlocked over removal of the western Ohio forts. The section reads like someone transliterated a chapter from a book into the encyclopedia. This kind of trivia is known only to historians. The indicative symptom is so often an assortment of insignificant person and place names. Here's the list: James Wilkinson, (George) Washington, John Hardin, Alexander Truman, Simon Gerty, Alexander McKee, Cornplanter, Red Jacket, Little Turtle, Henry Knox, Captain Bradley, John Adair, John Simcoe, Benjamin Lincoln, Beverly Randolph, Timothy Pickering, Joseph Brant, William Wellington. 18 names. Just a filter I run, and this one flashed red. Without looking at the section, do you know who any of them are? I think I would recognize Washington, Little Turtle and Henry Knox. That's just the person names; there are also a variety of superfluous place names: Fort Washington, Fort Hamilton, Fort Jefferson, Fort St. Clair, Auglaize and Maumee Rivers, Chippewa village, Ohio River, Ohio Country, Lower Sandusky River, Ottawa (Ohio), Shelby County, Niagara, Great Lakes. 14 names. That's a lot. While several of them are quite recognizable, their necessity to the presentation is nebulous. History is replete with names and places, but if we don't recognize them without having to look them up, we probably don't need most of them. We miss the forest for the trees. Even in a feature length and quality article, this section could be substantially trimmed.

Sbalfour (talk) 17:02, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

The article has been extensively reorganized since the above was written, and many tags for missing info have been added. The article is still patchy, but structurally decent. It could, and probably needs to be, three times longer. Sbalfour (talk) 13:41, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

A lot of work has gone into this article over the past several months. I'd be interested in getting your thoughts again, and I'd like to see some other editors working on the article if anyone has time. I'd like to eventually re-submit the article to the different WikiProjects and see if we can get a Class B rating and suggestions for a Class A rating. Thanks! Canute (talk) 14:13, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

What this war is about

The Northwest Indian War is essentially about a line of forts, ten to be exact, in the Great Miami River Valley along the Ohio/Indiana border stretching from the Ohio River to within 30 miles (a day's journey on horseback) of the Michigan border. The first such fort was Fort Washington on the Ohio River. The last fort was Fort Wayne in the very northeast corner of Indiana. The forts defined the frontier in Ohio Country (later, the Northwest Territory). The Indians fiercely resisted those forts, and a mighty confederacy formed to thwart the U.S. government's territorial sovereignty and westward expansion of the whiteman's domain. The confederacy insisted that everything northwest of the Ohio River was Indian land.

Fort Washington was an impregnable stockade, garrisoned by several hundred militiamen. The successor line of forts was situated so that no fort was more than a day's journey from the fall-back fort (i.e. the next nearer one to Fort Washington, the conduit for men and supplies from the colonies.) Each fort penetrated deeper into Indian territory. The Indians got caught in a pincer movement between settlers pouring in from the Ohio River Valley in the south and the Mohawk valley to the Great Lakes region in the north, and the frontier forts along the Ohio border. The war was about whether those forts were viable. It took a great soldier and leader to show that they were. The upthrust was that Ohio was emptied of Indians before 1800. But the line of Ohio forts along with those on the Ohio and Wabash Rivers in Indiana, also meant that most places in Indiana were within striking range (70mi. to mid-state) of a 2 or 2-1/2 day journey on horseback. So the frontier essentially extended across Indiana, and Indiana was emptied of Indians by the Treaty of Fort Wayne in 1809. The death of Tecumseh in 1813 and the St. Mary's New Purchase in 1818 completed the acquisition of Indian lands in Indiana and Illinois, pushing the frontier to the Mississippi River. In this way, the strategic line of forts in Ohio secured the Northwest Territory for the United States and cleared the way for settlement.

BTW, can you name those forts, all ten of them? Not many historians and scholars can, though collectively they were a critical part of history.

There were 13 NW Ohio forts between Fort Washington and Fort Wayne inclusive which were built or rebuilt during the Northwest Indian War: Washington, Hamilton, St. Clair, Jefferson, Greenville, Recovery, Piqua, Loramie, Adams, Defiance, Deposit, Wayne (IN) and St. Mary's. Gen. Wayne's Legion of the United States built or rebuilt 10 forts during the War: Lafayette (PA), Greenville, Recovery, Piqua, Loramie, Adams, Defiance, Deposit, Wayne, St. Mary's. Most historians are unaware of, or forget, Lafayette (formerly Fort Pitt/Dunmore/Duquesne/Du Quesne), later renamed Fort Fayette.

Wayne's plan was to situate forts within a day's ride of each other. A small mounted company on an existing cleared road or trail can do 30 miles in one day. Fort Washington to Fort Hamilton was 32 mi.; Fort Hamilton to Fort St. Clair was 24 mi.; Fort St. Clair to Fort Jefferson was 22 miles; Fort Jefferson to Fort Greene Ville was 6 mi.; Fort Greenville to Fort Piqua was 21mi; Fort Piqua to Fort Adams was 58mi.; Fort Adams to Fort Defiance was 39mi; Fort Defiance to Fort Deposit was 36mi.; Fort Deposit to Maumee, the battlefield was 6mi. After the Treaty of Greenville, Wayne built Fort Loramie and Fort St. Mary's between Piqua and Adams: Fort Piqua to Fort Loramie was 17mi.; Fort Loramie to Fort St. Mary's was 13mi.; Fort St. Mary's to Fort Adams was 41mi. And finally, Fort Defiance to Fort Wayne (Kekionga) was 55mi. Piqua, Adams, Loramie, St. Mary's and Deposit were really fortified depots; they weren't intended to be encampments for large forces or withstand major seiges, like Greenville and Defiance. Fort Greenville to Fort Recovery was 24mi.; it was a one-off to recovery St. Clair's lost cannons. The northward march continued from Fort Piqua.

Sbalfour (talk) 05:33, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Battle of Fallen Timbers section is skeleton

This section should at least answer the following questions:

Where was the battle? What date was the battle? Who were the leader(s) of the Indians? What tribe(s) were involved? What were the forces involved? What were the casualties? Who won? How did the battle commence (i.e. ambush, attack on village, attack on fort, etc)? Who was the aggressor, and who was the defender? Why was the battle called "Fallen Timbers"? How did the battlefield get selected?

If it only answers these, that's probably quite sufficient, since there's a whole article on this battle. (Actually, the main article only has two paragraphs on the actual battle - it's virtually empty. There's no real info on the battle in the whole encyclopedia.)

Sbalfour (talk) 08:54, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't mean to ignore this. I believe these questions are all answered in the section. I significantly expanded the Battle of Fallen Timbers article last November, and hope to continue working on it soon. If you can take a look at it, I'd appreciate your feedback. Canute (talk) 21:58, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

An extended view of Little Turtle’s War

Though Little Turtle of the Miamis wasn’t involved in the Northwest Indian War until the 1790’s, hence Little Turtle’s War was a sub-war of what we title Northwest Indian War and say it began in 1785, it appears to me that both the date and name are mostly a Wikipedia conceptualization. Exactly what occurred in 1785 to start the war?

From the time when the the Proclamation of 1763 and Treaty of Fort Stanwix 1768 defined Ohio Country as Indian Country, there were 7 Indian campaigns by American colonists in Ohio Country:

• Dunmore’s War 1774
• Clark, Battle of Piqua, 1780
• Clark & Logan, Loramie’s Store, 1782
• Logan’s Raid, 1786
• Gen. Harmar’s Campaign, 1790
• Gen. St. Clair’s Massacre, 1791
• Gen. Wayne’s Legion 1794

That’s the bigger picture. The Revolutionary War period campaigns weren’t about British sovereignty in Ohio Country, they were about Indian attacks on Virginia, western Pennsylvania and Kentucky. Ohio Country was sparsely populated, and Indian attacks there were’t big enough for war until 1790 or so.

This earlier actions are awkwardly clumped into the Revolutionary War articles, when they belong here, as the main exposition. Sbalfour (talk) 15:38, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. The split of this decades-long-struggle into the American Revolution and the Northwest Indian War is really a European/American-centric idea. In the Northwest Territory itself, the Treaty of Paris was not as significant as it was in the 13 US states on the Atlantic. Britain somewhat withdrew, but remained a threat to US settlers and traders. The Native Nations were never consulted about peace and may not have particularly cared whether these invaders considered themselves loyal to the British crown. I think we can offset this bias by developing this article over time, but neither should we ignore the effects of the American Revolution on the nations in the Northwest Territory. Canute (talk) 18:25, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

In the Background section, there are two paragraphs dealing with the American Revolutionary War and the immediate treaties and legislation that followed. I think we could move these into the Course of the War section and expand them to make the article more inclusive of the perspectives of the native nations. However, we should still distinguish the Revolutionary War in it's own subsection. The military actions and alliances were complex, but they were certainly impacted by the imperial struggles of the 18th century and most definitely by the American Revolution. In other words, we can argue that this war started during (or even before) the American Revolution, but we can't ignore the impact of the American Revolution on the war or the people involved. I can't think of a good equivalent of this, but as an example I'll point to the List of modern conflicts in the Middle East and the World War I. The former is greater in scope than the latter, but WWI is a singularity in history that establishes the basis for every conflict that follows. I'll hold off on this edit until I get some feedback; I'm curious if the rest of you think we should make this change, or if we should keep the Northwest Indian War distinct from the War of American Independence.Canute (talk) 14:09, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Actually, I've changed my mind on this. Admittedly, the American Indian struggle to maintain control of their own lands goes well beyond the dates of the Northwest Indian War, but there is a definite shift at the conclusion of the American Revolution. In the Revolution, the war was interwoven with the conflict between Great Britain and the United States (and France). But at the conclusion, the British largely withdrew and the native nations had to negotiate directly with the United States. Yes, it was in many ways a continuation of previous conflicts and the precursor to the conflicts that followed, but the battles between the Treaty of Paris and the Treaty of Greenville had a unique set of historical circumstances that bind them together. This war is a bit unique to Wikipedia because it's not as popular with historians, so it's been largely on us to agree on the dates and even the name. I move that we keep the relevant bookmark dates where they are. As with any other article about military conflicts, we'll need the appropriate context to show how the situation developed over time and what effects occurred afterward. We definitely need more information in both of those sections. But if we open up the scope of this article, we'll end up re-creating the Sixty Years' War. Canute (talk) 19:38, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Long delayed response: I believe this war was essentially named in a 1964 PhD dissertation entitled The Northwest Indian War, 1784-1795, by Jack Jule Gifford. The dissertation is often cited by scholars, but I've never seen it, so it's unknown to me why Gifford dated the start of the war to 1784, although it seems likely the Treaty of Fort Stanwix (1784) plays a role. Kevin1776 (talk) 04:11, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Kevin1776 (talk · contribs), do you mind if I put the "See also|Sixty Years' War" header back at the top of the Background section? Since we're reducing the background section, it could add more context. The article itself isn't very thorough just yet, but I plan to expand it. Canute (talk) 13:19, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

That's fine. I meant to add it to a "see also" section at the bottom, thinking we might have a few more related articles to add, but I forgot. Either approach works I think. Kevin1776 (talk) 20:25, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Indian Country section

The first section, Indian Country, either needs to be re-written or deleted. While we do need background information to setup the larger war, this is inadequate and misleading. The statement "To the Indians, land belonged to all" is mostly false; the nations in this area had clear boundaries between themselves and would fight if their towns were encroached upon. I propose we delete this entire section (all 3 sentences) and rename & expand the next section Formation of the Confederacy to include more background information for article context, probably going back at least to Pontiac's War, with prominent links to Sixty Years' War and Northwest Territory for more information. Canute (talk) 13:00, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

I acted on my own advice and re-wrote the section as Background. It still needs work, but I hope you all agree that this is an improvement. I provided many links to relevant articles for additional information, but I could use some help providing citations for these new paragraphs. Also, it's very Euro-centric, because it basically summarizes 3 powers that never really liked one another- France, Great Britain, and the United States. The relationships of the various native nations between one another and to the European powers are much more complex, and I could use some help explaining how the relevant alliances developed and changed leading up to the Nortwest Indian War. Thanks. Canute (talk) 15:26, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Councils on the Auglaize and Sandusky

I would like to remove the tag on this Councils on the Auglaize and Sandusky section which states there is excessive detail. I think the 2 councils are significant as we approach the final year of the Northwest Indian War. They illustrate the ongoing debate within the Western Confederacy and the attempts at peace before Wayne continued his trail of forts in 1794. Also, the council is referred to later in the article, so it's needed. We only have 2 paragraphs and an extra sentence. If anything, I'd argue that we could combine it with the Failed Peace Emmisaries subsection and expand the entire subject to cover this short period when the Native Nations had a clear advantage and the war could have ended in their favor. Finally, I don't think these 2 paragraphs violate the inclusion policy because it's certainly relevant to the war. Look at other articles about extended wars and you will find references to alliance councils and peace negotiations; this is no different. If anything, I'd argue that excluding this section would make the article even more US-centric and move us farther from a NPOV. Please let me know if you agree that I can remove this tag, or let me know why you disagree. Thanks. Canute (talk) 15:26, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

I made the changes. Most of the "missing information" tags are gone now, but it just struck me as weird that we're asking for more and more information about where the Americans were and how many times Wayne wiped his nose, and then suggesting that a paragraph each on two major Native American negotiations were trivial. Also, I reordered some of the sub-sections to make them chronological, so for example, you'll see the attack on Camp St. Clair come between the two grand councils, because that's when it happened. I hope you approve of the changes. Canute (talk) 17:37, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Remaining Templates

There are only a few templates left that I'm working to remove to clean up this article.

• There is a request for missing information about Indian attacks on early settlements of Losantiville (Cincy) and Marietta. I'd love to include this if I had any idea what we're asking for. I've spent a lot of time trying to resolve this, but I'm no closer than when I started. There were numerous attacks during this time period, and this article doesn't need to chronicle each one of them.

• The Legion section has one requesting "missing information about Rivalry of Wayne and Wilkinson, and Wilkinson's treachery." I'd like to delete this if no one objects. There's a lot of information out there about how Wilkinson distrusted and disliked Wayne, but I don't know if it fits into this article beyond the brief mention it already gets. Because the scope of this article is so large, the pertinent info about Wayne and Wilkinson would be better placed in the article Legion of the United States. If we can resolve the main issues with this article, I can focus on that one next.

• The Fallen Timbers section has a request for expansion. We can fill up that section, but I don't know what "enough" looks like, especially since it links to the Fallen Timbers article. Canute (talk) 21:22, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

There's been no comment either way, so I'm removing the remaining templates calling for more citations or information. If anyone wants to review them, they're all in the last "30 September" version. This article has over 100 citations (more than half are unique, slightly less than half are duplicate references), so I'm deleting the request for more citations that dated from 2013. I'll continue to add references where this article appears to need them, but I don't think we need a banner at the top anymore. Also removing request for "information about Indian attacks on early settlements of Losantiville and Marietta" from 2018. I have searched for information about these attacks and have not found anything significant, or at least not from any source I could use as a reference. I'm still unclear what attacks this is asking for, specifically. If someone has information on these and thinks it would add to the article, please add it, but I'm removing the request. As I stated earlier, this article has a very broad scope and a lot of information to cover, and there's no way we can list every attack between Native Americans and U.S. settlers. That's not to say we can't include the attacks on Losantiville (Cincinnati) or Marietta, but I don't think we need a template calling out missing information on them. Third, I'm removing the template asking for more information on the rivalry between Wilkinson and Wayne from January 2019. There is actually a good deal written about this and I can use many of the sources we've already cited, but beyond the existing sentence in this section, I'm not sure how to fully address this without interrupting the narrative of the article. I think more information on their contentious relationship would be better placed in the Legion of the United States article. Finally, I'm removing the request to expand the Battle of Fallen Timbers section from January 2019. This section can still be improved, but I think it's sufficient to remove the template. The average reader can understand the significant of the battle in the overall war. If we really want to expand the Fallen Timbers section, then we should focus on the Battle of Fallen Timbers article.

One final note. This article has 69 editors watching it, but very few people have been actively editing it, lately. I understand we all have limited time to volunteer for this, but I get nervous when I make too many edits without collaboration, so I want to pause before I many any major changes and give others a chance to review this article. (I'll continue to make minor edits, just not significant changes.) I'd eventually like to resubmit this article for evaluation and see if it's now better than the "C" rating it has, then get suggestions for further improvement to an "A" class article. But I'd like other editors to review it before I request a new evaluation. Thanks! Canute (talk) 13:03, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

'Hardline' and 'Moderate'

I've been trying to balance this article with more information on Native American activities and motivations, and I have multiple books that refer to different factions within different councils as "hardliners" who refused to make concessions to the U.S. and/or were willing to resist with force (i.e. Brant, Blue Jacket, Little Turtle), and "moderates" who were more willing to make concessions and/or actively tried to avoid war (i.e. White Eyes, Cornplanter). Are these the appropriate terms ("hardliner" vs "moderate"), or are there better terms we can use? Or should we try to avoid the terms altogether, especially since council members' views could change in reaction to the events of the time? Canute (talk) 14:33, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Casualties

Does anyone know how we got the casualty totals in the infobox? I'm curious if they came from a source, or if an editor literally added them up from each of the named conflicts. It seems like it'd be a very difficult number to calculate, considering the confusion that often followed these battles and the lack of documentation on Native American casualties. It would only get more difficult to estimate if we try to include all the unnamed raids and conflicts that occurred during this time period between the Treaty of Paris and the Treaty of Greenville. The sheer difficulty is what makes me curious about these numbers, because there's no citation. Canute (talk) 12:55, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

As an example, the infobox says there were 1,679 US casualties in the war. There were over 900 casualties in St. Clair's Defeat, alone. There were another 300 in the Harmar Campaign, and over 100 at the Battle of Fallen Timbers. Those are only 3 of the major battles, but we're already approaching the 1,679 number. There are dozens more in smaller actions over the course of the war. But in the Logan's Raid section, it says there were over 1,500 casualties just in the border raids, so are we not counting these? Canute (talk) 19:26, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

I also don't like the way the Strength section in the infobox implies there were 4,000 US militia vs 10,000 Native Americans. Where does that come from? When were there ever 4,000 militia assembled together, and what battle had 10,000 Native Americans? If this is supposed to be an total of all people who participated in the entire war, then who did that math, and what is it based on? And I assume the "1 British company of Canadian militia" is referring to the Battle of Fallen Timbers, but there certainly other British involved and it seems really odd to single out the participation of just one company in one battle. I haven't seen any response to this over the past 6 months, so I may just hide that entire section. Canute (talk) 13:26, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Still a 'C'

So despite 113 inline citations (1 citation for every 56 words), 136 edits, and a 240% increase in article content over the past 9 months, this article has only earned the same "C" rating it had back in January. I don't know what the reviewers are looking for, specifically. I really need another set of eyes on this article, because I've been looking at it so long that I can't find the errors. I'm taking a break from this project; perhaps my time is better spent on some of the related articles that are still only at a "Start" class. But if one of you is ready and able to work on this one, please leave me a message and I'll be happy to collaborate and hopefully get us to that elusive "B" rating. Thanks. Canute (talk) 01:50, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

The article has come a long way since I had a hand in it, and I'm proud of where we are. I like the article. It's better than many B articles I've worked on. I'm probably ineligible to review the article, because I have skin in the game and I'm not a member of any of the associated projects. Where's the review page, or reviewers comments? A C->B review is rather proforma. Sbalfour (talk) 19:26, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Sorry to jump on this again, but I'm still a little irritated that this article is a 'C' class. I've seen more activity on this article lately, and I wonder if anyone here would be willing to collaborate and make another push for a 'B' class article. I don't want to attempt it by myself, I'm sure I will need someone with more experience. If you were rating this article today, what changes would you suggest? Canute (talk) 14:15, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

If you think it's a B, you can change it to a B and no one will likely object, and hardly even notice, since this is an obscure topic. Getting it to an A or "Good" is when you need outside input. I'm willing to help push it there. The article does need work to reach that level. Here's my quick review of its current state. Overall, I think the article needs more focus on the main narrative and more reliance on reliable scholarly sources.

• Introduction: the first sentence mentions the Chickasaws, who had 20 scouts in the war. Save them for later. The Shawnees and Lenapes are not mentioned in the intro at all. The intro is written from the US point of view. Should be more balanced.
• Background: Too much detail here. Sentences mentioning the 1728 Treaty of Easton, Tachnechdorus, minor actions in the Revolutionary War, etc. are too much. We should have 1-3 paragraphs mentioning French & Indian War, 1763 proclamation, Pontiac's War, 1768 Stanwix treaty (the root cause of the war), Dunmore's War, Revolutionary War. Then a section about US land claims and settlements, and the Native reaction in forming a confederacy starting with the Sandusky conference in 1783.
• Course of the war: This is the challenging part. Hard to know how best to divide the sections. "Logan's Raid" should not be its own section -- maybe "early actions" or something, since there were other raids & counterraids. Maybe after that, the sections should be by year, starting with 1790. Obviously St Clair's & Wayne's campaigns are the major events, so maybe each gets its own section.
• Not sure if we really need the "Key figures" section, since everyone should be mentioned previously.
• References: We have far too many citations from random web sources, such as American Battlefield Trust, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Ohio History Central, George Washington's Mount Vernon, National Museum of the United States Army, etc. This article should stick to citations from the scholarly works by Sword, Calloway, Sugden, Gaff, and a few others. Any other citations should be evaluated to determine if we really need it. Dale Van Every and Theodore Roosevelt were great writers but their work has been supplanted by modern scholarship.

Anyway, that's my impression of the article right now. I'm glad you're working on it! Kevin1776 (talk) 23:26, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

@Kevin1776: I appreciate the feedback. I have had similar thoughts about almost everything you said, including the idea that we should aim for an 'A' if we want to get a 'B' (I was just going for 'B' as evidence that this article's changes are going in the right direction.) I will start working on re-writes; it may take some time. If we're removing details for the sake of readability, I want to check to see if supporting articles could be enhanced with those same details. Removing / replacing references will probably be the last thing on my list. Also, I wasn't sure what do with the "Key Figures" section. I thought about moving it up near the top of the article and making it more of a brief overview, with key names, places, and events. I'm not sure if that would be an improvement, but I may give it a shot and see what you think. Canute (talk) 13:08, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm looking over the backgrounds section. Agreed it's too much, but I want to be careful about removing info. The Beaver Wars, for example, seem irrelevant until we realize that it's the reason the Iroquois claimed the region and negotiated with the United States in lieu of the people who actually lived there. It might need a complete re-write. I had one crazy idea, though: what if we took a lot of these details and moved them over to the Sixty Years' War article? I don't mean to subvert another article for this one, but the content largely aligns, and that article is relatively small given the time period that it covers. Canute (talk) 19:15, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I think moving some details to supporting articles is a good way to go. Kevin1776 (talk) 03:38, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

6 months and a lot of edits later, this is still a C rated article. Do you think we're any closer? Should we ask for another review?

The one thing that plagues me on several articles I watch is citations, which seems to be the one thing holding us back on this article. I never know what to do with that, because I'm not sure which citations are missing. Can anyone identify some missing citations we need to reference? Canute (talk) 14:20, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Shawnee civil leaders

We now have articles on Kekewepelethy and Red Pole, the primary Shawnee civil chiefs during the Northwest Indian War. At some point we'll get them into this article. Kevin1776 (talk) 18:50, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Also I'm working on a major expansion of Blue Jacket, which will hopefully make the Wikipedia Main Page as a "Did you know?" item. Kevin1776 (talk) 05:05, 9 November 2021 (UTC)