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 articles
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
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 Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
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 Wikipedia. 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 articles
A 1995 exploration and research by archaeologist-historian Dr. G. Michael Pratt of Heidelberg College discovered a concentration of musket balls in the heavy clay soil of an agricultural field 3/4 mile north of the (erroneous) site on the river bank. Also found in a wooded area next to the field was a rusted bayonet and parts of a trade musket.
Musicwriter03:20, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Background + Aftermath + Legacy are about 3 times as long as Battle. Need to rethink. Battle is the articre; other sections need to move to other articles or just be deleted. Sbalfour (talk) 04:16, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've trimmed nearly all of the overbearing Background section. The 'Battle' is still only 2 paras out of the whole overburdened article. Where's the juice? Honestly, I don't think any of the editors who worked on this article know anything about the battle. For example, there are three other generals in this battle, and at least 4 other Indian chiefs not mentioned. Sbalfour (talk) 01:48, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This article states at least 3 times that Little Turtle led Miami at Fallen Timbers, but it is never cited. Can anyone provide a source? We know Little Turtle argued against engaging Wayne, sent his son-in-law to join Wayne, and (according to some) ceded overall control to Blue Jacket and/or was replaced by Turkey Foot. It's entirely possible that Little Turtle was at Fallen Timbers, but I think this is a statement that deserves to be challenged. I want to remove it, but I'll wait for some responses just in case I'm wrong. Canute (talk) 19:20, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Alright so where to start–okay: I don't believe adding historically-accurate flags of a country is downplaying the major role of the Native Americans. If that's really an applied logic, why remove the American flag? Anyone who reads the article would be able to see the Natives were the primary opposition and target of the Americans. Nevertheless, however your perception, the British were undeniably involved in the battle and the flagicons should be added accordingly. I added the red ensign without St. Patrick's Saltire because this was a flag used in British colonies prior to the 1801 union between Great Britain and the Kingdom of Ireland. Are any of y'all in agreement with what I've just said? Feel free to speak your mind. MarkMcCain (talk) 18:37, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not strongly opposed and I'm certainly not going to get in an edit war over this. WP's MoS recommends against using flags in infoboxes (see link above), but we do it most of the time. They don't really add anything to the articles, but they look nice. My only question to the group was whether it was more appropriate to remove the flags since we didn't have flags for all parties involved. It seems to emphasize certain parties (the English speaking nations) and downplays the role of the First Nations, even though they were the major combatants.
If we go forward with flags, my second question would be whether we need both the British and the Canadian flags. If we do, should we place Canada with the British (they're currently listed as a sub-set of Great Britain in the infobox), or should we group them with the Confederacy, since there was a Canadian militia out on the field doing the fighting while the British officers are mostly known for locking the gates at Fort Miami? I'm not going to block any edits, I'm just asking questions. Canute (talk) 21:41, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Right, I think that may just be a perception thing–I didn't seem to get that impression until you described it as you did, especially with the number difference listed. That being said, no view is really wrong there. Plus a company is roughly 80–150 men, there were 1,300 men on the side of the Natives in battle. But I do agree, the flags make the page look better and more illuminated. Maybe just, "The Canadas" as a belligerent. Lieutenant Colonel William Caldwell was British though, so maybe it would be appropriate to leave the British Union Jack alongside his name. He was from County Fermanagh, Ireland (now part of the Republic but then part of Great Britain). I'll make some quick changes; let me know if you agree or disagree with them. MarkMcCain (talk) 22:56, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'll leave it. I'm curious what others think, but there haven't been a lot of contributors on this article as of late. Does the Infobox look odd to you? Before I removed the flags, the combatants were equal widths, but since you reverted my edits it's now loading with a very small U.S. column and a very wide Confederacy column. It could just be my browser. Canute (talk) 01:34, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at some of the other articles dealing with wars between the United States and Native American nations, and they all seem to do the same thing. The U.S. flags are featured in the infobox next to U.S. citizens and soldiers, but Native Americans have no flag. I still think this is a NPV and MOS problem, but if we're wrong, at least we're consistently wrong. It's too bad we don't have a universal symbol for Native American nations. There are some modern flags, but not for the period and not for the united confederation.Canute (talk) 14:04, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This article had a maintenance tag added for abbreviations. It's difficult to find them all, but it seems like the offending abbreviations are the ranks used in the Battle section. I've spelled them out and linked their first usage to corresponding articles. I've removed the maintenance tag. If you find more abbreviations that I missed, please spell them out. Thanks! Canute (talk) 16:47, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
