Talk:St. Clair's defeat

message: The infobox doesn't match "The Campaign" section of the text. NTK (talk) 21:27, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  U.S. casualties 

message: The article makes the following point:
"indeed, in proportional terms of losses to strength it was the worst defeat that United States forces have ever suffered in battle."
The casualty rate, according to the article was 97% and the death rate was 69% so thats not too hard to believe ... especially for a land battle. The USA has been very successful on land and has more often then not being on the offensive meaning that it would be unlikely an entire unit would be over-run without recieving reinforcements.
BUT
In WW2 there were numerous sea battles involving individual ships or small groups of ships (if I'm not mistaken) where for example Japanese naval or air forces destroyed the entire American contingent. Perhaps these were smaller engagements and only part of a larger campaign or battle but I suspect that some ships lost at sea might have lost nearly everyone if they were far enough away from support. I don't have any clear examples to back myself up on this but I do believe it is possible there were naval battles in WW2 where US forces had higher casualty rates. If someone can find such an example, perhaps they should change the articles contention to "suffered in a land battle".--Senor Freebie (talk) 12:15, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The Union and Confederate armies each lost 23,000 men in the Battle of Gettysburg.  That's far more casualties than St Clair's Defeat.  The specific point about casualties at St Clair's Defeat is that the army lost more men in a battle against a Native American force that any other battle in U.S. history.  Once you take the American Indian qualifier out of that statement, it ceases to be true. Mingusboodle (talk) 18:24, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

text: I don't think "worst defeat in proportional losses" is true even among Native American battles. The Battle of the Hundred Slain (Fetterman Massacre) had no U.S. survivors. Then there's the other two no-survivors battles at the Little Bighorn and the Alamo, which also surely count? Mwistey (talk) 01:30, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Challenging a contention 

message: This is the first mention of Colonel Drake in the article: "Colonel Drake ordered his battalion to fix bayonets and charge the main Native position."
I think he needs a bit more of an introduction than that!
How does the cited source present this information?
--Demiurge1000 (talk) 04:10, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Colonel Drake 

message: Is the location accurate?  Shouldn't it be in Ft. Recovery? --Dana60Cummins (talk) 22:01, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Location 

message: I first heard of this battle in a song of the same name by the Modern Folk Quartet, on their 1964 album "Changes" which I own (I'm a big folk revival fan).  It seems appropriate to add this cover of Bob Gibson's tune to the list of references (the only other of which I'm aware), given that the Apollo's Fire reference is already there.  With this addition, there seemed to be enough material to justify creating a Popular Culture section, which also creates consistency with other Wikipedia articles having cultural references to a historical event.  Also, folk ballads aren't really "aftermath" of an event, as the section header suggests (although they may be seen as such from an extremely technical perspective!), so a Popular Culture section is more accurate.
In the reference, I linked to an Allmusic album page. The Modern Folk quartet does have a web page of sorts where the album does appear (http://www.themfq.com/discography/list3.htm) but it's in Japanese and not all that useful to a reader looking to learn more about or to purchase the album. Allmusic is as comprehensive and authoritative a music database as any, and I didn't think it proper to link directly to something like an Amazon.com page. Feel free to remove the link if you disagree. Kabeyun (talk) 18:08, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Popular Culture section 

message: Shouldn't the top picture in the infobox go to the winner? Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:58, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: If you think that's a better presentation, feel free.  Consider the name of the battle, though.  It isn't "Little Turtle's Victory," it's "St. Clair's Defeat."  I don't think it's really on us to rename the battle, but I think that may have something to do with the photo at the top. Canute (talk) 13:19, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Position of Little turtle and St. Clair portraits 

message: Who is Hardin? 
Large sections of this article are not properly sourced. 
It may well be that the information given is accurate but these sorts of casualty figures and allegations of misconduct should be sourced.
Trying to give this article's tone the benefit of the doubt (because it seems like pretty obvious POV pushing IMO) and then I read "Hardin"
Uhm...who is that? Name never shows up before or after in the article.
Pretty sure they meant to say "Harmar".
Can't prove it buy I would bet my last dollar this garbage was typed up by someone with political and/or racist motivations.
Stay classy, Wikipedia.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.135.144.123 (talk) 21:10, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Take your crap somewhere else.  People worked to develop this article over the last 15 years.  Yes, it has opportunities for improvement, but it's a significant improvement over the 2005 version, or the nothing that was here before that.  I take umbrage with your condescending attitude, the flippant remarks (bordering vandalism) you threw into the article, and your baseless accusations of racism, which flies against Wikipedia's fundamental principles (AGF).  You want to fix the article?  Try acting like a decent human being and treating people with the respect they deserve.  Or better yet, chip in and make some valuable edits to improve the article. Canute (talk) 21:34, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hardin 

message: I understand why Buckongahelas is an important name in this article, but why is he suddenly given full credit for the battle and the victory?  I understand the debate regarding who was "in charge," but I've never read in a book or article that Buckongahelas and his Lenape were primarily responsible for the victory, any more than Little Turtle and his Miami or Blue Jacket and his Shawnee.  I guess what I'm asking for is a source / citation for his sudden promotion in this article. Canute (talk) 16:29, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I'ved reverted the changes and put the article back to the last stable revision, per WP:BRD. I agree with concerns about the changes, as the only source added to support them (linked here) is WP:PRIMARY and does not name Buckongahelas as the leader of the Western Confederacy. Pending the citation (or if they are already present, a call-out) of sources which cite Buckongahelas as the leader of the confederacy's forces, there is no reason to dilute the contributions of other leaders. SamHolt6 (talk) 17:22, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  if they wish to comment. SamHolt6 (talk) 17:36, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: If memory serves, we used to have a small section regarding the debate over the confederacy's command.  It mentioned how Little Turtle is often credited, but that this may be due to the influence of William Wells.  Currently, the only mention I see is the sentence "Both Little Turtle and Blue Jacket claimed to have been in overall command..."  Is it worth expanding on this?  I could do some research, but I don't want to build an entire paragraph on this topic if we purposely removed it. Canute (talk) 13:40, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I tried a small paragraph under St._Clair%27s_defeat#Command_structure, which I like because it helps balance the article (before it only discussed U.S. forces).  Let me know if you think this is an improvement or if I should revert.  Thanks. Canute (talk) 18:02, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Buckongahelas  

message: I realized the maps in this article are not facing North.  The first one does not indicate direction, but if North is up (like most modern maps), then it is backwards.  The second map has an N on the right side of the map, so it is correct, but still turned 90° to the right from what most readers would be used to seeing.  These are scans of old maps.  My question is whether it would be acceptable to edit the images to reduce confusion on directions?  We could either add a more obvious direction indicator in them, or perhaps even rotate them so North is up.  I've never altered a map on Wikipedia like that, so I'm not sure if that's better or worse.  What are your opinions? Canute (talk) 16:00, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't mind if the maps face north or not, but it is unfortunate these two side-by-side maps are not oriented in the same direction, which can be confusing. Someday we'll have better maps, drawn in color by a volunteer using Inkscape or something. In the meantime, perhaps the easiest remedy is to mention the orientation in the caption, which is what Winkler does in his Wabash book. Kevin1776 (talk) 21:40, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea, thanks! Canute (talk) 00:39, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Maps 

message: The line "The new recruits were poorly trained and disciplined"- was that meant to be "undisciplined"?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:1C2:4E00:2100:5D1B:57B2:2ACD:5F56 (talk) 08:28, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: The "poorly" is modifying both "trained" and "disciplined", but if you found it confusing, then there are undoubtedly others. I'll change it to "undisciplined". Indyguy (talk) 16:30, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  The new recruits were poorly trained and disciplined,