Talk:Northwest Indian War

message: Only in ohio (Ho! Ho! Ho! Ho!)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.40.209.29 (talk) 18:25, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Never mind, then.  I'll just do it.Canute (talk) 15:56, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Genocide 

message: 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.
# 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?
# 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)
thread_title:  1794 

message: 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)
thread_title:  C → B rating