Talk:Red Sticks

message: I watched the History Channel's narrative of the Red Stick War in its biography of Andrew Jackson.  Notably absent from that program was the fact that in 1798 an attempt was made by Gen. Benjamin Lincoln to enter into a treaty with the Creek People.  As I understand it the Creeks refused to treaty with Gen. Lincoln.  I have not made any changes to the article, but this piece of history is usually lost in the discussion about the Red Stick War.  Is it fair to ask whether the sufferings of the Creeks would have been minimized if they had not squandered the treaty opportunity in 1798?  W Kopp  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.177.90.53 (talk) 00:39, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have since found information about Gen. Lincoln that mentions his role in inconclusive treaty talks with the Creek Nation. It's probably worth including in his biographical article, but I think it's not a very significant moment in the history of the Creek people, much less of the Red Sticks. -- ℜob C. alias ALAROB 15:36, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Benjamin Lincoln and the Creeks

message: I noticed that the term "half-breed" is often used to denote people of mixed heritage within this passage.  I'd also like to mention that the term "half-breed" serious negative connotations and was wondering if perhaps a different term should be used.2/\/\flaviu5 (talk) 19:13, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Half-Breed Usage 

message: Alert to serious issues. Please read the following short article:
* , 
then skim this Red Sticks article, then return to this Talk section. The problems with the Red Sticks article are clear, with even a brief objective look:
* first, the article is largely unsourced; 60% of the content, though appearing in the article's main body (because of the edits of this date), nevertheless is unsourced. Of the main body of the article, sourced content is limited to approximately one fourth of the total content appearing.
* second, the article does not cite the most often historical sources for this people and the events of the period. It does cite Frank L. Owsley Jr., but cites a graduate student journal article by Karl Davis just as often. Moreover, it cites Davis three times as often as Robert J. Conley and the Heidler's encyclopedia entry. The result of this misguided selection and reliance on sources can be seen below.
Critically, in using the Davis citation, the editors fail to note what Davis honestly communicates in the opening to his article (p. 612): that his thesis and conclusions were, at the time of the writing of the journal article, offered as an alternative explanation, at odds with the bulk of other scholarship of the time. [Written in 2002, Davis catalogs the scholars of book-length works that preceded his journal article that missed the interpretation he offers, including Claudio Saunt, Owlsley (!), Joel W. Martin, Gregory Evans Dowd, et al. Note all those errant historians are written up here, and so their credentials can be checked.] Bottom line here, we miss the forest for, not the trees, but for a sapling, and not even one we are sure will grow to be a tree.
So, when compared to a short, expert encyclopedic article by Braund (2017) or Waselkov (2017)—both academic authors, and the latter the author of an apparent seminal work on the Fort Mims massacre, see that article—this article's Red Sticks content excludes major points that the experts make—e.g., careful statistics regarding the numbers, ages, genders, and ethnicities of the individuals impacted by the events (especially causalties and fatalities); likewise there is no mention of many points made regarding the Red Stick, at the Waselkov article—that there were captives, that civilians were slain, of the origin of the fort with Samuel Mims, of the influences of Tenskatawa and Tecumseh, of the roles of U.S. federal policy and agents in the run up, of the Creek names of the leaders of the Red Sticks (e.g., Hopvyç Tustunuke), etc. 
Alongside the omissions are incorprated language (categories, descriptions, etc.) that including possible questionable choices—for instance, the long Upper and Lower Town descriptions, the student Davis interpretations, etc.
Bottom line, an expert is needed to sort through this apparent WP:OR and WP:VERIFY morass, and possibly misguided compilation of information.  Le Prof 73.210.155.96 (talk) 23:12, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, no mention of "National Council", see Braund (2017) appearing in the Further reading. Compare this article to that one in particular, even over Waselkov (2017). This article should summarise these, if nothing else, and remove the extraneous, unsourced material. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 03:17, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Edits of this date

message: Wikipedia has articles about three Royal Navy officers named Hugh Pigot. It would be worthwhile to have a link to one of them. Of particular interest is the "notorious Captain Hugh Pigot" who commanded HMS Hermione at the time of the famous mutiny. Humphrey Tribble (talk) 00:49, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Captain Hugh Pigot