Talk:Tecumseh's War

Not a Chief

For all the inadequacies in the Tecumseh personal listing, it correctly lists Tecumseh as a "leader" of the Shawnee. Chiefs had specific duties in each of the Shawnee septs, although there were some exceptions, Tecumseh belonged to the Kispokota sept, which provided war chiefs, yet he was not a war chief but simply a reknowned warrior. Although I can understand where someone might say this doesn't matter as his elevated position made him a de facto chief, historians who have studied him usually come down on the side of calling him a leader of the Shawnee, but never a chief. I'm changing it.Ismaelbobo (talk) 14:57, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

== leader

==

unmatched bravery and courage —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.252.75.88 (talk) 12:44, 27 March 2007 (UTC).

contradict

treaty of fort wayne = 2.5 mil or 3? I assume this article is correct, it's very well done (especially compared to 'Tecumsah'). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Xiaphias (talk • contribs) 12:32, 12 April 2007 (UTC).

It was 3M acres. Articles amended/reference cited. Sunray 07:48, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Removed paragraph

I have removed this paragraph to the talk page:

Willig (1997) argues that Tippecanoe was not only the largest Native American community in the Great Lakes region but served as a major center of Indian culture and final rampart defense against whites. It was an intertribal, religious stronghold along the Wabash River in Indiana for three thousand Native Americans, Tippecanoe, known as Prophetstown to whites, served as a temporary barrier to settlers' westward movement. Led by Tenskwatawa and Tecumseh, thousands of Algonquin-speaking Indians gathered at Tippecanoe to gain spiritual strength. US government attempts, from the George Washington to William Henry Harrison administrations, to rid the area of the numerous Indian tribes eventually met with success as the Indians retreated westward by 1840 to avoid the large numbers of whites entering their territory.

Reference

There are quite a few problems with it, and it makes me believe either the source is not authoritative, or the source is being misrepresented. Tippecanoe was NOT the largest native settlement in the great lakes region. There were several that were larger. Most of the great lakes settlements were intertribal and interrelgious, there was nothing particularly different in that regards about Prophetstown, except that it was founded specifically for that purpose. "US government attempts, from the George Washington to William Henry Harrison administrations" - but the natives were removed entirely during the 1830s, a decade before the Harrison administration. To suggest Prophetstown was a "westward barrier" is ridiculous, especially considering there were already tens of thousands of settlers living on the west side of the town when it was founded. Perhaps it blocked northward expansion into the great lakes area, but it had not bearing whatsoever on westward expansion. This also suggests the tribes "retreated" militarily westward by 1840, when in fact they accept treaties and land grants in Kansas, 20 years after the violence of the period of this article abated. The two events are only indirectly connected. I have no problem with adding this information in a factual way, and talking about the importance of Prophetstown during its time, but this exaggerates the truth. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 14:34, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

You raise a number of concerns with this text. I appreciate your flagging this as problematic. The article, is from the Michigan Historical Review, a peer reviewed journal at Central Michigan University (see the first page/citation here). Normally an article published in a peer reviewed journal is considered reliable. As editors, we have an obligation to address all publications from reliable sources. However, there are many ways of doing that. The best approach is to see whether there is a scholarly consensus on this. If there is, we report that. If there are differences in the literature, we would also describe that. If this is a minority view, our obligation is to ensure due weight in accordance with the sources. So the first thing we need to look at is other sources on this subject. Would you be able to provide some that you think are appropriate? Sunray (talk) 16:08, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Sunray is correct--someone like user:Charles Edward who objects to sourced text based on RS has to present alternative RS rather than personal opinions. And indeed even if he does find an alternative we don't erase. Charles Edward seems to have misread the text, which correctly says the Indians were gone by 1840 (Charles Edward says they left in the 1830s). The author of the article makes a convincing case it was the largest settlement, but Charles Edward provides no evidence otherwise. So let it stand and invite Charles Edward to do some research in RS. Professor Willig has expanded his essay into a full-length book on the subject Restoring the Chain of Friendship: British Policy and the Indians of the Great Lakes, 1783-1815 (University of Nebraska Press 2008) & that book has been well reviewed by scholars: 1) "Restoring the Chain of Friendship does an admirable job of exploring the complications of British policy, and it does an even greater service for the field by explaining how native opinions and actions contributed to those complications."—John P. Bowes in Journal of American History; 2) "Willig has made a major contribution to the field....it will be of special interest to those seeking to make sense of the varied native responses to that enigmatic conflict." Sandy Antal in Northwest Ohio History; 3) "Willigs analyses of Indian and British relations 'on the ground' are persuasively connected to a history of policy development and implementation because he is able to incorporate a great deal of Native perspective." Kiara M. Vigil in Michigan Historical Review. Rjensen (talk) 06:15, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Ah, Rjensen. So lovely to come into contact with you again. I do not wish to engage in a debate if it is just going to be you and I, because as I have found before, that will go nowhere. My statement was not that source was unreliable, I stated that either the author is being misrepresented (which I think to be the case) or he just don't know what he is talking about and is not authoritative on the subject, as in there were multiple and clear errors in the paragraph. Having read many articles and books on this topic, and being very familiar with this topic and related topic (and being the primary editor of this article and many of the northwestern American history articles on wikipedia), I can say definitively that the paragraph is just plain wrong and misleading as wrote. Lets just focus on one important part. The paragraph alleges the administration of President Harrison was involved in Indiana removal. The man died in his first month of the presidency, he made only one official act during his whole time in office, and the natives were almost entirely removed by 1833, during the term of Andrew Jackson with the final being removed in 1836 during the term of Van Buren, several years before the term of Harrison. Maybe just another example, if there tens of thousands of settlers living in Illinois (east of Indiana), how was Prophetstown (east of Illinois) preventing westward expansion? And census statistics show exponential increase in white and black population in Illinois during the period of this conflict, then in just what way was Prophetstown actually hindering westward movement of settlers? The paragraph as written in demonstrably false. If you want to update the article in a factual and properly referenced way, feel free. :)

If someone wants to have a legitimate discussion about this topic and exchange sources, I would be glad to do so (when I can find some time). (But I know that is not what you are here to do, Mr Jensen. And yes, I can prove its you. And yes, that does compromise your ability to edit any American History or American Politics related article, IMO.) You are complete right Sunray, except on one point. The onus is on the adder of content to reference their material. I bet if you check the source cited you will find it does not at all back up what it is referencing because it is so out of line with the truth on several points. Do you have access to that source to verify? If not I will try and look up. I don't know who added that paragraph because I have not checked, but Mr Jensen has a history of manipulating sources, or outright lying about them.(If I am wrong, I will gladly admit as much, and work to bring sources to include the factual view into the article, alongside the non-factual one. Happy editing. :) —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 19:59, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

One more item. Rjensen, I checked the history and you indeed restored the revision. In good faith, I assume you must have access to the source (because to add content without access to the source would be a violation of policy). Could you provide direct quotes from the work cited to back up the claims of the paragraph. Your referencing style is also inappropriate according to WP:RS. Being a lengthy paragraph, and citing a range of pages should not be done. Please reference the specific pages to the specific statements they support. That should clear things up very nicely and establish that you are correct. Thanks —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 20:03, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with reinserting that text. The source appears to be reliable. However, you have raised some concerns and they should be addressed here. One point you make is that Willig is possibly being misrepresented. We can check that. As to whether the Willig just doesn't know what he is talking about: Did you read my post, above? We need to make decisions based on facts and evidence. The first step is to find some sources that show whether the quote goes against scholarly consensus, is a minority viewpoint, or is a tiny minority (e.g., a lone voice). Would you be able to do that? Sunray (talk) 20:11, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Charles_Edward certainly has a bad temper, and has been unable to share with us the titles of RS he is using. He also misidentifies me as somebody else who is no relation. I think the problem, since corrected, is that the text regarding the administration of William Henry Harrison should have made clear it was his governorship that was involved.Rjensen (talk) 20:22, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, it is important to stick to content, not the contributor :) Thanks for your clarification about Harrison. Sunray (talk) 20:29, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes Sunray, I completely agree. If Willig indeed makes such claims they should definitely be included. I don't have a temper Mr Jensen. :) But based on previous, lengthy, unending conversations and debate with you, and knowing your historic editing patterns, I know where this thread is likely going to go. And no, I have not misidentified you. As stated, I can prove it. I can assume you are not then going to provide quotations from the source to back up the assertions made? I guess I am going to have to go to library and get the book, and look it up myself, only to find you are misrepresenting sources - again. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 21:05, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

well we can start with the population figure that Charles Edward contests. The source for Willig is online at Willig footnote 2 and everyone can see that Willig knows what he is talking about. Charles Edward does not have any sources--zip nada zero. Second we can look at "westward expansion" -- all historians of the frontier have treated the movement of whites into Indiana/Ohio/Illinois as part of the westward movement (even if some short family moves were actually due north). See Ray Billington, Westward Expansion (1974) p 283. As for Harrison administration the reference is to his governorship of Indiana 1801-12 which was a federal job, not his 30 days in the White House in 1841. Rjensen (talk) 21:17, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

(outdent)Uh-huh. I am not going to debate you over this Mr Jensen until I get the sources in hand myself. I don't have access to Jstor, sorry. Does Willig say Prophetstown was "the largest Native American community in the Great Lakes region", and could please provide a quotation. I am not trying to add content, I don't need a source. You are trying to add content, you do. You have provided one, and I think you are being dishonest about it, because you have in the past. If I was not certain I was correct, I would let this pass, as I have in other areas I have a hunch you are doing the same thing. But I am expert on this subject. I teach it. And I do know I am right. I will get the source myself and find out. Its that easy. If you are right what do you have to worry about? I am the one who will look like a fool! :) —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 21:53, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

anybody can click on this link and see that Willig has reliable information on population, and Charles_Edward does not. Charles_Edward appears to be bluffing. " I am expert on this subject. I teach it." he says. really--where does he teach it? what validates his expertise? Rjensen (talk) 22:09, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

LOL, same old tired methods. I am not presenting my expertise as a reason to believe me. I am presenting it as my rationale for believing you are wrong. I will have the source soon enough, and that will be the reason the remove or update the paragraph. You know full well you can only view the first page of Jstor papers without a login. If thats all you have access to, then why does the does the citation give all the pages? Furthermore, if that is all you have then it certainly does not support the full contents of that paragraph now does it? (Where do I teach it? Well I just happened to have gave a full weekend of lectures for events commemorating the two hundredth anniversary of the Battle of Tippecanoe, which also happens to be a featured article on Wikipedia that I authored.... Aside from that there is no WAY I am telling you where I teach, you are a troublemaker and I don't you causing trouble at my school for me.) —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 22:18, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't matter whether or where one teaches. Sources matter. Period. Sunray (talk) 17:18, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

You are exactly right, Sunray. I now have a pdf copy of the source, I'd be glad to email it to you if you would like to review it yourself. I will here shortly rewrite the paragraph, removing the portions now supported by the source. The source is a very good one, it would be a great tool for expanding this article significantly. If I have time, I will do so. There are some great insights into the witch hunts and intimidation used by Tecumseh and Tesnketawa against their Native American adversaries, and the source goes in great length describing the radical departures from traditional native American belief Tesnketawa's teachings were. It also goes on to tell how it led to near conflict as the northern Algonquin tribes were cast out of the movement by Tesnketawa, and actually sent war parties to attack Prophetstown. Anyway, some excellent source material for discussing the inner workings of the movement, and its impact on the wider Native American community. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 02:11, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Ok here is a before:

Willig (1997) argues that Tippecanoe was not only the largest Native American community in the Great Lakes region but served as a major center of Indian culture and final rampart defense against whites. It was an intertribal, religious stronghold along the Wabash River in Indiana for three thousand Native Americans, Tippecanoe, known as Prophetstown to whites, served as a temporary barrier to settlers' westward movement. Led by Tenskwatawa and Tecumseh, thousands of Algonquin-speaking Indians gathered at Tippecanoe to gain spiritual strength. Government attempts, starting with President George Washington, to rid the area of the numerous Indian tribes eventually met with success as the Indians retreated westward before 1840 to avoid the large numbers of whites entering their territory.

Here is after:

Willig (1997) states that Tippecanoe was the largest Native American community in the Great Lakes region and served as important cultural and religious center. It was an intertribal, religious stronghold along the Wabash River in Indiana for three thousand Native Americans, Tippecanoe, known as Prophetstown to whites. Led by Tenskwatawa initially, and later jointly with Tecumseh, thousands of Algonquin-speaking Indians gathered at Tippecanoe to gain spiritual strength.

Here are the facts.

• The source makes no statement at all suggesting it was a "final rampart defense against whites."
• It makes not statement suggesting the settlement "served as a temporary barrier to settlers' westward movement"
• The source deals almost exclusively with the religious and cultural aspect of the settlement, and not does not support the statement "Government attempts, starting with President George Washington, to rid the area of the numerous Indian tribes eventually met with success as the Indians retreated westward before 1840 to avoid the large numbers of whites entering their territory". The name "George Washingon" is never mentioned (but does mention Anthony Wayne), and actually speaks of how earlier administrations, most notably Jefferson, believed the whites and Native tribes could cooexist peacefully.
• I removed this sentance "Led by Tenskwatawa and Tecumseh, thousands of Algonquin-speaking Indians gathered at Tippecanoe to gain spiritual strength", because it is already pointed out two paragraphs prior.

My primary point of disagreement with Willig is this (and I think he it is because he just does not clarify himself, not that he is wrong). Tippecanoe was certainly the largest settlement in the region at the time, but Willig states it was the largest ever. I believe he is referring to the period when the area was being colonized, although he does not state it. To suggest it was the largest ever in the region is incorrect. Cahokia, about 200 miles west, had an estimated population of 30,000 in 600 AD [1] (Several of the Mississippian era settlements including several in Indiana and Ohio had populations over 5,000). The statement made that it is the largest ever completely ignores the fact that something (probably European plagues) devastated the region and its largest cities during the 1400s-1500s, and turning the tribes to a semi-nomadic lifestyle only about five generations before European entry into the region. (A brief explanation here [2]) Kekiogna and Onondaga, both contemporary to the late woodland period, had populations close to the size of Prophetstown at their peaks. Here is a reference to estimated village sizes among Iroqion tribes in eastern part of the region, note several are comparably in size [3]. I will also point out, that the 3,000 estimate is the highest out there, this source suggests 1,000 [4], this source suggests 130 warriors [5] in 1808 and that the 3,000 figure represents the total population within a 30 mile radius [6]. This source suggests the population may have been as low as 650 in the settlments [7]. I think it is certainly fair to say "it was the largest settlement in the region 1808-1811, but other than that time period it was not, and it was not the largest native settlement ever in the region. Prophetstown\Tippecanoe was an important settlement during its brief history, and that should be fully explained, but it should not be exaggerated into being something it was not. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 03:05, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

One other thing: Mr Jensen, please stop adding unreferenced material to wikipedia, please stop using source you do not actually have access to, and please stop misrepresenting sources. As I have said before this is not the first time I have came across you doing this, and I have carefully documented our last encounters, and have source material, etc, to prove you are purposefully inserting misleading falsehoods into articles. I will seek admin intervention if you continue to abuse your editing privileges and I believe your actions will warrant a topic ban. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 03:13, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Tecumseh Shawnee Dollar.JPG

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:22, 26 May 2022 (UTC)