Talk:Tecumseh

Rewrite in progress

If you follow this page, you've probably noticed that I've completely rewritten the article over the last few weeks. My goal here is to get it to Featured status and on the Main Page this year, perhaps on October 5 (anniversary of Tecumseh's death) or October 12 (Indigenous Peoples' Day).

Sources: My desire is that the article is sourced using only modern scholarly writings on Tecumseh, the Shawnees, and the War of 1812, which are abundant. Prior to my rewrite, the article was filled with sources that were unscholarly, or antiquated, or even fictional (such as Allan Eckert or the fabricated "Where today are the Pequot?" speech by Tecumseh). Antiquated sources are frequently used on these types of Wikipedia articles because they're online and easy to cite, but of course they are subject to old-fashioned biases which have no place here, and they've usually been updated by modern scholarship. Unscholarly (or, more charitably, "popular history" sources) are less problematic, but we don't need them here when we have plenty of secondary sources that are written by experts on the subject matter.

Terminology: Sources are the easy part. The challenge is using terminology that will satisfy readers of various nationalities. Many younger Americans and Canadians bristle at the term "Indians," having been taught to think it's outdated or even a slur, even though almost all of our modern scholarly sources use that term. Young Americans think "Native American" is the only respectful term, while Canadians of all ages seem to be onboard with "First Nations." A few scholars (American, British, and Canadian) have embraced the compromise term "Native," which is what I prefer, but it's still a minority usage. Probably the best we can do is stick with what we have now and address the terminology in a footnote.

Regards, Kevin1776 (talk) 11:14, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Terminology overview

Here's an overview of how many of our modern sources on Tecumseh handle the terms "Indian," "Natives," "Native Americans," etc.

• 1980s & earlier: Indians
• Dowd (1992, American): Indians, occasional Native Americans in his book of the same year
• Sugden (1997, British): Indians (Sugden says, after consulting his Indian friends, he decided against using "Native American")
• Antal (1997, Canadian): Natives
• Willig (1997, American): Natives, Indians, Native Americans
• Cave (2002, American): Indians, occasional Native Americans
• St-Denis (2005, Canadian): Natives
• Calloway (2007, American): Indians
• Owens (2007, American): Indians
• Jortner (2011, American): Indians, occasional Native Americans
• Lakomäki (2014, Finnish): Natives and Indians interchangeably, with perhaps slight preference for Natives, occasional Native Americans and Indigenous
• Barnes (2017, Shawnee): Indians, Natives, Native Americans
• Cozzens (2020, American): Indians

My sense is that although American scholarly writers (including sources not used in this article) still use "Indians," there is increasing usage of "Natives," a term long favored by Canadians when writing about historical people. Canadians, of course, usually refer to contemporary Native people as "First Nations." Kevin1776 (talk) 08:09, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

This feels like it belongs in a larger discussion of the topic than on a page for one particular American Indian. Gasolineman3 (talk) 03:51, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Reviews needed

The "page information" tool tells me that 287 people have Tecumseh on their watchlist. If you are reading this and have the time, we could use a couple more reviews of this article here. Wikipedia editors with an interest in Native American history are few and far between. If you are one of those uncommon folks, step up and let your voice be heard. Much appreciated! Kevin1776 (talk) 05:37, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

WP:MILHIST - A-class fail

@WP:MILHIST coordinators: -- How can this be a FA article if it had failed A-class assessment. Adamdaley (talk) 16:35, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

It didn't fail ACR. It was withdrawn after attracting no general reviews. I assume in order to be submitted for FAC. Apart from an image review no one opined one way or the other on its suitability for A class. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:50, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

What Gog said. I would also add that the two assessment processes are distinct bearings and don't really affect each other. Hog Farm _Talk 17:42, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Thirded. Although it's unusual for ACR fails to go to FAC, there is no impediment to it. Though personally as a FAC coord I might wish it otherwise, there is no requirement for an article to have undertaken, let alone passed, any formal review prior to an attempt at the bronze star. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:16, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Names in Shawnee language

The current edit shows "Tecumthé" and "Lalawéthika", but I can find no evidence that the symbol "é" is employed in any orthography of the Shawnee language. Which RS claims this as part of the langauge, @Kevin1776:? Thanks. Chaswmsday (talk) 04:09, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

"Lalawéthika" is the orthography in, for example, Sugden (1997) and Lakomäki (2014), and Google Books tells me it dates at least to Frederick Webb Hodge in 1910. "Tecumthé" is even older. The usage in this article is a direct quote from Sugden, p. 23, as indicated in the footnotes. Kevin1776 (talk) 04:31, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Kevin1776, I very much appreciate the care you've taken with this issue, particularly after reading the discussion at the featured article entry. The fact that no one knows how Tecumseh himself or his contemporaries would have pronounced his name, plus the lack of a standard Roman-alphabet orthography make this a difficult issue to resolve. In addition, WP's own Shawnee language article includes the undefined use of the letter "c", as in "caaki" and "caki", which I presume is intended differently than the "c" in "Tecumthé". I'm reminded of the prose related to the former name "Pellissippi" within the article Clinch River. "Common knowledge" claimed that the derivation was from the Cherokee, despite problematic issues of phonology and vocabulary. The Clinch article was edited to directly address those issues in a note. (Coincidentally, researchers from Pellissippi State Community College later uncovered the true Algonquian origins of the name.) I propose that within Tecumseh, we directly state what we know, both in prose and within the already-included note. I'll make such changes, and hope that they meet with your, and the community's approval. Thanks. --Chaswmsday (talk) 01:23, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Iain M Brock and lineage...?

XV sqn Royal Air Force... brought forward from the RFC. Fourth commanding officer, H (le) M. Brock. ... I'm not in to genealogy but if I'm a relative then all these people on reality shows "with a story" cn f*ck left off! 2A02:C7E:42CB:3E00:E51A:FD03:36F7:9975 (talk) 23:27, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Image portraying Tecumseh

The [image of Tecumseh] previously (November 2022) used on this page does not meet Wikipedia's standards for verifiability or neutrality. If one follows the trail of citation links on the image page to the origins of the image, it is from the artist Owen Staples’ rendition of an engraving by Benson John Lossing, which was based on composite sketches by French trader Pierre Le Dru, and other drawings as recorded in Pictorial Field Book of the War of 1812. Lossing did not meet Pierre Le Dru but made copies from the drawings held by Le Dru’s son (p. 189). The footnotes in the Pictorial Field Book of the War of 1812 state that Le Dru’s contribution was “the head” (p.283).

Regarding the point of neutrality, the Tecumseh02.jpg is also used to depict the Mi’kmaw leader Jean Baptiste Cope (1698-1758). The image appears in:

·      posters at Mi’kmaw Friendship Centre, Halifax, Nova Scotia

·      newspaper articles such as Jones, El. 2015. ‘Politer Genocide: Morning File’. Halifax Examiner, 28 November 2015. http://www.halifaxexaminer.ca/uncategorized/morning-file-saturday-november-28-2015/,

·      Gloade, Gerald. Grand Chief Jean Baptiste Cope and Treaty of 1752. Membertou, Nova Scotia: Mi’kmaw Kina’matnewey, 2018.

As long as there is a question as to whom this likeness represents, the image should either not be used, or at the very least, a subsection should be added to the page discussing the variety of images used to depict Tecumseh.

There are other sources of depictions of Tecumseh that can be used on this page in place of the Owen Staples image. These include:

·      The image of Tecumseh listed at the Library of Congress Prints and Photographs Division site. There are no known restrictions on publication. This image is also used by the Encyclopedia Britannica's entry on Tecumseh.

·      The image used on the Tecumseh entry at Biography.com

·      The image of Tecumseh listed in the Bibliothèque et Archives Nationales du Québec

·      The image of Tecumseh listed in Library and Archives Canada

AAAPprog2022 (talk) 22:23, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

A lot of this sounds like original research and I would rather trust the Sugden ref... I'm not sure any definition of "neutrality" falls under your second point—maybe "appropriateness" is a better word. In the end, there is no known certain authentic depiction of Tecumseh, so we are really grasping at straws here. I would much rather stick with the current image, than the black-and-white, low-quality sketch you added which was made 100 years after his death. Aza24 (talk) 10:05, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

When you look at the picture of Tecumseh you have to ask yourself who presented him with a peace medallion I cannot find a reference of him ever receiving one as well how did he receive the coat of of a high ranking officer .Was he counting cout which is the tradition of virtue in war where you touch the enemy without being noticed , kill the enemy , steal their horse , or remove some personal property 24.224.143.212 (talk) 17:30, 9 February 2023 (UTC)