This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)