Talk:Northwest Indian War

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Only in ohio (Ho! Ho! Ho! Ho!) — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:25, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lede: Treaty of Paris vs Royal Proclamation of 1763[edit]

We didn't fight the British in this war, which didn't really start until the formation of the Northwest Territory itself in 1787. However, the general background is that settlers encroached on Indian territory (Ohio Country) west of the Divide, established by the Royal Proclamation of 1763, starting before the ink was dry on that document. This is a lot more relevant than the Great Lakes boundary between the U.S. and British North America. The second paragraph of the lede needs adjusted. It's a matter of focus. Sbalfour (talk) 22:11, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also like to see a line in the lede to summarize the Aftermath section, as is proper, such as: "The close of the War resulted in clearance of Indians from much of Ohio Country opening it up to settlement, and quelled Indian resistance north of the Ohio River, effectively moving the frontier to west of the Mississippi. Along with the conclusion of the Cherokee-American war in the south, and subsequent settlement of these lands, it set the stage for the rise of the Manifest Destiny movement and Doctrine a generation hence." A bit grandiose, perhaps, like the conclusion of a novel, but the 1794 Battle really changed things quite suddenly and comprehensively.Sbalfour (talk) 22:33, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead and make the edits. The worst anyone can do is revert them. 😉
What you're describing relates to the scope of the war, which is something that's plagued the contributors for years. If we set the scope of the war at the end of the American Revolution, then the Proclamation of 1763 is not the start of the war, even though it's an important part of the historical background (where it is currently mentioned). This would be akin to the way Bleeding Kansas relates to the American Civil War. (Note that we've struggled over the start of the war, and whether it belongs prior to the American Revolution.) Similarly, the American Indian removals from the Northwest Territory would take place for decades after the Treaty of Greenville. That's a significant point in the Aftermath section and helps put the war in historical context, but doesn't fit into the fixed scope of the war. Whether these details belong in the opening paragraphs is an editorial debate, not a historical one. So in all seriousness, Be Bold, and other editors will decide if they like it better your way. Canute (talk) 18:06, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]


There seems to be some disagreement about where to place the sentence which discusses the war as genocide. Reading through the article, I don't think it belongs in the background. From the background through the course of the war, the article is mostly chronological. Historical analysis likely deserves it's own section, probably at the conclusion of the article. To keep it in the background section, I think it would need to be a stronger statement, something along the lines of "Henry Knox decided to commit genocide." I don't think we could back up a blunt statement like that in the background, though, which is why I think an analysis section is warranted. Canute (talk) 15:23, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Canute: Please clarify – Are you proposing that the paragraph beginning "Some historians, such as …" be moved and become the start for a new analysis of the war as genocide section? Drdpw (talk) 17:43, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not a formal proposal, just starting the discussion to get opinions. I think a section on historical analysis would be a good addition. And if we added the new section, then the "Some historians..." sentence would fit better there than it does now in the Background section, or the lede (where it was before you moved it). We would need more analysis content to justify a distinct section, though, so I'd like to know what others think before I try to build it. Canute (talk) 17:58, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, another editor moved the paragraph to the background section, leaving behind a duplicate 1-sentence paragraph and citations in the lead, which I consolidated (and left a poorly worded summary statement). That said, please make a specific proposal, as is encouraged by talk page guidelines. Drdpw (talk) 18:27, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind, then. I'll just do it.Canute (talk) 15:56, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]


A while ago, a lot of the 1794 information was purposely reduced in an attempt to make this article more readable. I have two questions in follow up to that work.

  1. Some locations are no longer included. Notably, Fort Defiance is shown and linked in the Infobox map, but never mentioned in the article. Does this deserve a mention? If not, would it be better to remove it from the map, or leave it there?
  2. There was a great story about the tree falling on Wayne's tent at Fort Adams. Perhaps this is not noteworthy in this article since we're trying to cover the span of the entire war, but I can't find it in any of our related articles, either. I think it belongs somewhere, because Wayne was injured and nearly removed from the fight just before Fallen Timbers, and also because Wayne would later speculate that Wilkinson had tried to murder him. It's an interesting reflection given the fractures in the confederacy at the same time. Does this anecdote belong in this article? If not, which article would be more appropriate?

Thanks, Canute (talk) 16:27, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

C → B rating[edit]

See Talk:Northwest_Indian_War/Archive_1#Still_a_'C'
6 months and many edits after we made a concerted effort to improve this article, it's still rated C class. 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 the Military History checklist. 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? There are currently 205 citations and 2 notes. There are 50 paragraphs after the lede, so this article averages 4 citations per paragraph. We might be missing a key citation somewhere, it's just hard to find unless someone marks it with a citation needed tag.Canute (talk) 14:29, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]