Talk:Winnebago War

Changes in the Winnebago War article

I had to revert the changes in the article in the "Hostilies" section because there was no reasons given especially in the discussion page and the possibility of vandalism to the article.It gets frustrating when people make radical changes to an article without including references/citations or even a legitiment reason for such a change. Thank you-RFD (talk) 12:42, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Locator map

On the slim chance that anyone watching this page is interested in doing map work, one might take the map in the article and make it into a locator map. The handful of important places mentioned (or that will be mentioned) in the text could be linked on the map, such as Fort Crawford/Prairie du Chien, Fort Snelling, Fort Howard, Fort Winnebago, Jefferson Barracks, Galena, and Prairie la Crosse. It would be a handy visual aid. Any takers? —Kevin Myers 10:15, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Notes for the future

This article is based on modern scholarly accounts. It's too bad that there are not more scholarly sources available for the Winnebago War, since some of the older writings contain errors, and the modern sources are usually focused on the Black Hawk War and don't cover this conflict in detail. If anyone knows of scholarly sources that are not yet cited, please mention them here.

Beware of errors that appear in some accounts of the Winnebago War, especially on the Internet. Mostly these are small details that have been corrected by modern scholars. You'll find accounts that claim, for example, that President Adams pardoned Red Bird, a pardon that came too late, since Red Bird had by then died in prison. On the contrary, the pardon (which still exists and is pictured in the Doty article by Jung) does not mention Red Bird, who died many months earlier. Similarly, some accounts say that the Ho-Chunk delegation convinced President Adams to issue the pardon; on the contrary, the pardon is apparently dated prior to Adams's meeting with the delegation. The purpose of the meeting may have been to present the delegation with a previously arranged pardon. It would be nice to have a modern source that covered these events in greater detail.

Some of the errors are not as trivial. Some writers are unaware that all but one of the people killed by the Ho-Chunks were multiracial, not white. Even Zanger, in an otherwise excellent article, called the Gagniers and the Methodes "white people" (p. 81), but he was writing 30 years ago, when a simplistic "white vs. Indian" approach to Native American history prevailed. In an attempt to make the murder of the Methode family more comprehensible, you'll see claims that they were trespassing on Ho-Chunk land, but in fact they were west of the Mississippi and not on Ho-Chunk land. You'll find accounts that claim that Wabokieshiek (White Cloud) was a major participant in the conflict, but this stems from an unreliable Internet history that conflated White Cloud with a different person.

There are other issues that need exploration by modern scholars. No scholar seems to have put the surrender of Red Bird in a wider context. Historian Patrick Jung focuses on American legal procedures, but not Native American custom. But as Richard White explains in The Middle Ground (p. 93), in the previous century the French and their Indian allies had created a "ritual of surrender and redemption" in which an Indian murderer would be surrendered by his tribe and then pardoned by the French. The surrender and the pardon demonstrated the good faith of each side, thereby strengthening the relationship. The Ho-Chunks seem to be repeatedly enacting this ritual during the Winnebago War, but the Americans were slow to grant the pardon and end the crisis. We can't really point this out in the article until a reliable source does, so keep an eye out for it in the future. —Kevin Myers 00:51, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Winnebago War/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 05:11, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I will review this article shortly. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 05:11, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Here are the issues I found:

• Since you mention in the lead that it can't really be considered a war, is the current title the appropriate one? I presume it probably is the most-used name though, and if that's the case it's fine.
• "The Ho-Chunks were reacting to a wave of lead miners" lead is wikilinked below, but should be here. I actually didn't realize it meant the metal at first.
• "Some U. S. officials," space in U.S. not needed
• "50 mostly métis militiamen" is there a link for what metis means?

Just a couple small issues. I'll put the article on hold and will pass it when the issues are fixed. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 22:41, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to do this review. I've fixed the last three issues. Your presumption is correct on the first one: the modern sources generally used the name "Winnebago War" even while recognizing the limited nature of the conflict. —Kevin Myers 00:56, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Everything looks good now, so I'll pass the article as a GA. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 04:36, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Confused by revert

Kevin Myers I don't understand the explanation "nothing to do with Creeks or Alabama" you gave for this revert. If the Winnebago War is also known as the Second Creek War or Creek Alabama Uprising, the Winnebago Uprising, the Winnebago Outbreak, the Red Bird War, the Red Bird Uprising, the Fever River War, and the Le Fèvre Indian War, then doesn't MOS:LEADALT apply here? Mitchumch (talk) 05:10, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

The Winnebago War is not also known as the Second Creek War or the Creek Alabama Uprising. Somehow you've mixed in a couple of alternative names for the Creek War of 1836, which is a distant, unrelated conflict.

As for the other names, MOS:LEADALT says that significant alternative names should be mentioned in the first paragraph, and that we should "consider footnoting foreign-language and archaic names if they would otherwise clutter the opening sentence." I've seen no indication that these alternate names are "significant"; they're trivial and archaic, thus they more properly belong in a footnote. Thanks! —Kevin Myers 19:42, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

@Kevin Myers: Gotcha. According to Google Ngram, the term Winnebago Uprising may warrant inclusion. Mitchumch (talk) 20:44, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Sounds good! —Kevin Myers 01:17, 25 October 2016 (UTC)