Jump to content

User talk:IvoShandor/Black Hawk War

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Massacre v. battle

[edit]

Okay, this is going to be an issue. The term massacre can be, can be, inherently POV. I don't know if it is appropriate to describe the murder of a few settlers as a massacre. Casualty numbers seem to dictate when an event goes from a simple murder to a massacre of unarmed citizens. For instance, I don't think it is appropriate to describe incidents that occurred in June 1832 at Mounds Fort as massacres, hence the red link to Mound Fort murders. Spafford Farm? 5 dead? Is that a massacre? It may well be. Buffalo Grove? 1 dead? Is that a massacre?

Something like Indian Creek massacre, where 15 people died is probably safe to call a massacre. But then Bad Axe is labeled a battle when it was quite plainly a total massacre. We need to figure out how to this. My vote is the most commonly used term in academic publications, not popular usage. Many of the popular sources are filled with POV and can be hard to discern at times, especially anything published before the late 20th century. Thoughts? IvoShandor 02:04, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, what we need to do is find out what the official name of the event was. If they refer to it as a massacre, we can not change it. If that is just a name that is there at that site, but isn't what the government calls it then we should change it. What do most sites refer to them as? To me, a massacre simply means to kill everyone that was there or close to everyone. I say, lets dig a little deeper before we change the names.--Kranar drogin 03:36, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In general Wikipedia doesn't go by official names but the most commonly used terminology. For a history related article that has to be what historians refer to it as in academic writing, not what the government calls it. Of course the government has an agenda, of course they don't want their past acts to be seen as massacres, but we call it what it is not what people are led to believe it is, in my opinion anyway. IvoShandor 03:38, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
According to Merriam-Webster a massacre is: the act or an instance of killing a number of usually helpless or unresisting human beings under circumstances of atrocity or cruelty. IvoShandor 03:40, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Under that deffinition, I would say they all fit, except maybe the 1. Even then though, if that is the way it is referred to, then we should go with that.--Kranar drogin 03:44, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The main problem is, sources don't agree, which leaves it up to us and our polcies of NPOV here at Wikipedia. IvoShandor 04:48, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Black Hawk War maps

[edit]

I have a new request now for a map if you don't mind. We are going to be working on the Black Hawk War as you can see at User:IvoShandor/Black Hawk War. I was wondering, if you maybe could do some sort of map of both Illinois and Wisconsin and have dots on there for each battle, maybe a line going from site to site to show the process of the war. This is an article we are going to go for FA with sometime in the near future. Let me know what you think of this idea. I know that there is one map out there on the net you could base it off of if you wish. Another thing, would be to add a few dots to show towns of like some of the major cities involved and so on. Thoughts?--Kranar drogin 01:49, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kranar, I am flattered and would be glad to work on a map for the article. I think it is best to think about everything that needs to be on the map in advance, as it can be a real pain to try to squeeze something in later. I would suggest you look at the work of User:Kevin Myers, particularly his featured articles Crawford expedition, Lochry's Defeat, and Pontiac's Rebellion. The articles are wonderfully written and his maps are very nice too. I would need to know what parts of IL and WI to include in the map, what battles and forts and settlements and rivers to include. It is also good to think about what not to include - most historic maps show the political boundaries as they were at the time of the war, so modern cities or county outlines (that postdate the war) are problematic. Often though, important modern places are present already (like Fort Detroit for Detroit on the maps in the FAs I mentioned above). I have not made a lot of historic maps, but you can look at the map in Big Runaway and its Image:Big Runaway Map.PNG for an idea of what I've done. I would also appreciate the link to the online map you referred to (of the war). Thanks, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:48, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ruhrfisch. Since I will be doing a lot of the research related to this project I thought I would jump in here, hope that's okay. Basically, at this point, I am still sorting through research trying to figure out what was what. The topics are obscure and referenced varied in their assertions, simple things such as nomenclature become problems. Once I figure out where I am going with this I will compile a list for you. I also plan to pour over some historical map collections. I am certain that the Illinois National Guard and U.S. Army have extensive historical map collections related to this conflict and it is likely that someone has utilized them to publish a map collection as I have seen with countless other conflicts.
In my view the map will consist of several major components.
  • Battles, skirmishes and massacres.
  • Major white settlements and forts.
  • Major Native American settlements and forts/camps.
  • Major wagon trails.
  • Kellogg's Trail
  • Galena to Chicago Trail
  • Political boundaries associated with the time period.
  • State of Illinois
  • Michigan Territory
There may be something I am missing that will stand out once I complete my research. I will keep in touch. Thanks for doing this, your maps are outstanding. IvoShandor 03:04, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe any Indian trails? IvoShandor 03:33, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All those are great ideas. Here are some maps we should refer to:

That second one has a hand sketched map, along with the counties of that time. Not all counties were set up by 1832, so I will look around. I will add to this list as I look.--Kranar drogin 03:40, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Background Map for Black Hawk War
I was looking for maps for Wisconsin, with counties, but it was still the Michigan Territory then! So, I would do an outline, but not make any official borders other than Illinois in dark, maybe light gray for Wisconsin. I am going to keep looking for maps, but I think above should get you most of them that you need.--Kranar drogin 04:14, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the ideas and links. I would also add major rivers, as paths and settlement often followed them (and I am a stream freak :-) ). I am not sure we will need to show counties in Illinois - one problem is that if the counties were still being formed, then modern county boundaries will likely not correspond in all cases to the historic ones (and it is easiest for me to get modern boundaries). Another problem is that showing counties may make the map too cluttered. If counties are needed, I can go from the modern borders and change them as needed. If there are US Army maps, they would be PD and free use. That's all I can think of for now. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:27, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Counties may indeed be unneeded, perhaps, since this a two state/territory map we can just use those boundaries and be done with it. Don't know why I didn't think of streams, there are quite a few that are quite significant concerning the war. I will compile a list. IvoShandor 04:55, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Streams and creeks are very important. Like Old Man Creek is where a battle was fought (now called Stillman Creek), and a lot of this took place along the Rock River.--Kranar drogin 05:01, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Draft map

[edit]
I have started roughly placing items on a scratch map, just to get some ideas of what needs to be included, etc. So far I have put the 12 battles / massacres listed in the {{Campaign}} template for the Black Hawk War on the map, and already have some questions.

First, would it be possible to list coordinates (lat and long) on each battle article? That would help very much in terms of placing the dots or whatever icons are chosen for the map (I am not sure where Bloody Lake / Horseshoe Bend was beyond the county in Wisconsin).

Second, St. Vrain, Waddam's Grove, and Kellogg's Grove seem to be very close together, with Apple River Fort fairly near these too. Does each battle need its own marker? Would an inset of the three battles be possible?

Third, is there a definite list of the other places needed on the map? There are 17 settlers' forts, etc., though only 14 seem unique (Blue Mounds and Kellogg's Grove are also battles, Fort Crawford seems to be the same as Prairie du Chien village) plus 9 Native American villages, plus two trails, and an unknown number of streams and native paths. So if I am counting right, 12 battles plus 14 forts plus 9 villages plus 2 trails is at least 37 labels on the map, which may be a bit crowded / busy. I may be able to make it a wiki-linked map, with only symbols that are linked to the article - say red X's for battles / massacres, blockhouses for the forts, and teepees for villages? It may be the labels could be on the map and the icons are still inked - not sure, thinking "out loud" here.

Fourth some general questions: Looking at Amazon, there are some fairly recent scholarly books on the Black Hawk War that may help resolve some of the name, etc. questions (and I imagine Illinois libraries would have them). Is Buffalo Grove (1 fatality) really a "massacre"? Do you know a source for native paths and the course of the wagon trails? Thanks, and looks good so far - keep up the good work, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 00:18, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not the easiest to read but look at this for starters, I may have some other stuff I can find. I will work out your other concerns, give me a bit though. ; ) IvoShandor 00:42, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have a draft background map - what do you think? Too much Iowa? Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:04, 4 September 2007 (UTC) Image:Black Hawk War 1832 Base Map crop.PNG[reply]

Looking at the map, wow, that is some great work you have done so far. I would say right off, prolly too much Iowa and not enough Wisconsin. I don't want the map to start looking all out of place either, so it might be better to just add a bit to Wisconsin. BUT if you have enough so that the last battle is able to be placed, then we should be fine. I am going to go out on a limb and say we should be able to get you GPS coordinates for every battle and location. I don't know right this second, but think we are going to be able too. I'll answer more of those, or Ivo will, a bit later on.--Kranar drogin 10:33, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I followed this map, so I can probably cut off most of Iowa and Indiana. I went as far south as I did to show Springfield. Wisconsin is a bit further north than Bad Axe, which I thought was the northernmost engagement. I can add more if needed, but will wait to be absolutely sure. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 11:27, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I say this is very good map and acceptable. We can always add in a few places in Iowa (even though it wasn't a state yet), and we can add in maybe their path from Bad Axe if we know it. I will see if I can find some indian trails.--Kranar drogin 23:25, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Cropped Background Map for Black Hawk War, Bad Axe River mouth marked with red X
I added the coordinates for the mouth and source to Bad Axe River. The mouth and engagement site are just north of the modern Iowa line, so the map covers it. The river is not major enough to be shown on the Census maps I used as the basis here, so I can add it in if you want me too. Also have no problem cropping out most of Iowa and the bit of Indiana shown - the more we crop, the bigger the remainder will display, which helps in some ways. How far south do you want the map to go (can crop there too)? I went as far south as I did in Illinois to follow the model map that showed Springfield (and had the Bad Axe Battlefield (Massacrefield?) further south than it really is). I also see a few engagements are still to be added, so should I wait on those? Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:08, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that the map need go much further south than Peoria really, maybe even a bit further north, there just was not enough activity, some militia congregated in places in central Illinois, to justify its inclusion, imo. Sorry I didn't answer any of the old questions. So I am just going to ramble from topic to topic here. We should add the Bad Axe River, yes. I will add coordinates to the articles when I get back into the war, as well as retrieve some books at the library (though notice Buffalo Grove is now titled "ambush") Bad Axe is most commonly known as a battle, though historians agree it was a massacre (a terrible one at that), this will be noted when I finally get around to expanding the article. As for a final list of locations, I will compile this asap, I shall let you know when it is complete. I do think all battles should be noted on the map, if this is possible. If Waddams, Kelloggs and Apple River are too close perhaps an enlarged map of the Stephenson/Jo Daviess County areas where they occurred could be incorporated somehow. I will stay on this issue of the list for you, however. IvoShandor 05:00, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary section break

[edit]

(unindent) Here is a cropped version of the above map with almost all of Indiana gone and Iowa and southern Illinois cropped so as to leave Keokuk. There is a red X (eyeballed it, approximate) at the Bad Axe River Mouth / battle site. Would this work? Is the X a good size? I set the maps on this page to 400 pixels wide - most articles will not go hat wide, especially at FAC (which likes things just as thumb so the reader's preference prevails). I think we could put the map in an infobox and get away with 300 px that way. Feedback welcome, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 15:50, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I love the map, I think Xs will suffice, unless we had a nifty little icon for a battle, a little explosion or something. I do think the size of the X may be a bit small regardless of what symbol we end up going with. Great work so far, thanks for the comments below btw. IvoShandor 18:39, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have started a 300 pixel wide map with linked X's as a template, right now I am trying to decide on the size of the X's (and it took me a while to learn how to make a transparent background for the X). I left the Bad Axe "X" on the base map for comparison. The X in Iowa is 5 pixels, that in Illinois is 8 pixels, and the one in Wisconsin is 10 pixels. Which looks best? Do they work OK for the wikilinks (state articles for now)? After this I will make a fort icon and a teepee icon. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 19:11, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to me, I like the 8px size, I still wish we had a little explosion. IvoShandor 19:32, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I added three forts in the same sizes (by state) but I do not like any of them. Suggestions? I include the fill size Fort image above. I will not be able to do much more for several hours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 19:53, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the forts look that bad. It might be because the map is yellow and the forts are brown? What the map be better white or is that just too plain? You are doing a great job though.--Kranar drogin 00:13, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So now there are three icons - a cabin, a blockhouse, and a fort. I am not really happy with any of them, not sure what you think. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:48, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if you aren't happy, that won't work. Perhaps we should simplify. A triangle for a native village, a dot for a town, a square for a fort, and an "X" for a battle/massacre/skirmish/ambush/attack. Thoughts? IvoShandor 11:38, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good article progress

[edit]

If all current GA nominations pass we will have raised 8 of the 12 main battle/skirmish/massacre articles from pretty much nothing to Good article in a couple short weeks.

That leaves:

Stillman's Run I have begun working on, it will need some referencing, expansion and fact tweaking. Bad Axe and Horseshoe Bend are basically short overviews and will probably be completely rewritten. Apple River Fort is a few days old and after a bit of expansion and some tweaks should be quickly ready for its GA nomination. Black Hawk War is getting there but I am considering some major alterations and some peer review before going to FA, may seek GA in the ensuing time. Just a quick update for those of you who might be wondering. IvoShandor 05:49, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stillman's Run has been nominated for GA, leaving only three more! IvoShandor 11:47, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Stillman's Run passed awhile ago. Everyone here, I believe, knows my activity has been limited. I plan to take a look at Horseshoe Bend tonight, after that Apple River Fort still needs a bit of work but it will go before I work on Bad Axe (which hasn't been expanded yet). Also the newest battle/engagement articles haven't gone through (I think this is Plum River and Sinsinawa Mound). IvoShandor 05:02, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent)An update on progress. The list of articles is a bit longer.

Two of these are at GAC now, indicated by the icon, Bad Axe still needs to be expanded and DYKed before we think about GA, the other two, a bit of work will bring them up, Sinsinawa in particular might qualify as a very short GA. IvoShandor 11:20, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template

[edit]

Hopefully you guys are still monitoring this page for discussion. I would like some feedback on this idea for a template, it could work with or without a featured topic, I made a comment on the discussion page there as well, the template(s) is found at User:IvoShandor/Black Hawk War/Future template, it needs some additions, which I have been working on, and looks like this, there are two three version below:


I should have said it before, but this template is live now, you can add to it at Template:Black Hawk War (1832), and if anyone can get the cat to work over there, please help.


Black Hawk War (1832)

IvoShandor 10:04, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am adding factions to it, they should appear. Basically, is this overkill? Or will this be helpful? IvoShandor 10:06, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think the idea is fine - some questions / suggestions though. 1) Would you want to use a nav frame (then each subsection would show and could be collapsed or opened as desired)? For an example see {{Susquehanna River System}}. 2) It seems as if the places mostly duplicate the battles - if they just are the battlefield articles, are they needed? Also a number of places for the map (forts and villages) are not on the places list (so should places be expanded to include those forts and villages)? 3) I know battles are in chronological order and people are alphabetical, but what order are places in? Keep up the good work, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 14:01, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Added second template version, which is better?IvoShandor 00:20, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I like the second version better - tweaked it slightly so the first two topics were not one entry, then a break followed by the rest. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 00:44, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Eventually everything should be alphabetical save the battle which will be chronological. I like your idea on the nav template, how do we implement that? Also, about the battlefield articles, check 'em out, they're not half bad and I think you'll agree they are needed when you see them. : ) IvoShandor 02:25, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Alphabetized, and yes, we are still needing to add to it, not sure what all should be added quite yet so it has been a slow process. This template needs a bit more work before it gets applied to articles. IvoShandor 02:33, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent)I would like to have the nav frame version as a third alternative, see what people like, ya know? IvoShandor 02:36, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right now, I am really liking the second option. I think we can prolly add some more to that template as we go along. I also don't think that we need to have every single fort on there. Basically, what we have done is every single fort that was on a map or named in a article, we have made a list of. We have located roughly where they were back then, and was hoping to have a good looking map with plenty of options to click or show. I think I said it before, but I am sorta envisioning a map similar to how you did the state park map....sorta, except it would be more permanent with lines drown to show movements. I would also like to have a map similar to that one that lincoln took under his name. Would you be able to do that too Ruhr?--Kranar drogin 03:04, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can make a navframe version given some time. I have looked at some of the place articles and agree they are worth including. My problem is that a casual reader my be confused when "Kellogg's Grove" is listed twice. Two ideas to lessen this confusion (and I will probably incorporate them into the nav frame mockup): 1) Perhaps split the places into an Illinois row or section and a Michigan Territory (Wisconsin) row or section. 2) Perhaps put the full names of battles (so Attacks at Fort Blue Mounds would not be confused with Fort Blue Mounds). I think I can do the map similar to the state parks clickable map (one problem is that I am waiting to get the background map so it is the right size to start - if we have to expand it 10 miles west halfway through, then all the "dots" would have to be repositioned). I also have to learn how to draw with a transparent background for the "dots" (symbols in the shapes of a red X, blockhouse or fort, and teepee?). As for the last request, sorry but could you please remind me what the Lincoln map is (again, probably I forgot - i.e. give a link)? Thanks, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 16:23, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I made the nav frame. The colors of the subtopics are slightly pinker (less red) than the header. I also went back to "Black Hawk War (1832)" as I think "Black Hawk War of 1832" makes it sound as if there was another Black Hawk War in another year (you guys aren't planning anything, are you? ;-) ). I also split the locations into IL and WI (with Pecatonica River in WI as the battle was on it there). I may have put someplace in the wrong state - did this quickly and from memory on some of the red links (and Gratiot's was a guess). I also conflated the two Blue Mounds links in the first two examples into one (to the state park, split them again if needed). Finally, I used the full title of each engagement article - on my browser it is still only two lines of text and seems less confusing. Hope this is useful, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 18:30, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I like your template, and the new ideas you incorporated, I am torn between 2 and #3. Good thoughts on avoiding confusion by including the whole battle article. The only reason I included of 1832 was to avoid confusion with Utah's Black Hawk War of 1865 or whatever. : )IvoShandor 21:03, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was not aware of the Utah Black Hawk war, makes sense. Feel free to pick and choose from the features of the nav frame - it does take a bit more space. Which Lincoln map was it again? Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:33, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent)Not sure, I have seen a couple, there are some links to some sources about Lincoln on the articles needing created page, but I am not sure if the map I remember Kranar showing to me is there or not. Is there a way to incorporate a show/hide feature for the whole template while keeping the individual show/hide options available for each topic area? IvoShandor 01:58, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The third template is very nice also. That is the map, and I am hoping that we can have something similar as far as statewide coverage. Maybe a bit more of Wisconsin showing though. That also shows you all the rivers and creeks, which I hope helps.--Kranar drogin 04:20, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should go with #3. Any problems with that? If not, I am going to start adding it to the pages. IvoShandor 02:45, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No problems with that, go for it. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:17, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Added Fort Jackson that was located in Mineral Point Wisconsin to master template

added photo of Fort Cosconong to Fort Koshkonong page Marker in front of fort uses Cosconong spelling Rattis irrittis 15:08, 18 August 2007 (UTC)OOps! it was there, why I did not see that[reply]

No prbs, thanks for your work so far. IvoShandor 23:00, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A remark about the war

[edit]

While unrelated to the actual improvement of the encyclopedia I have to say this. The Black Hawk War is one of the saddest, and most easily preventable atrocities in the history of the United States. I cannot believe what we did to these poor people. Clearly, this could have been prevented, and I would have to agree with critics of Atkinson and Reynolds, if they hadn't sent Stillman's militia to meet the British Band at Old Man's Creek, this probably would never have happened. : ( IvoShandor 21:56, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Amen to that - I also find it tragic that Black Hawk's band tried to surrender at least twice (at the start and end of the war) and was fired on each time, at last by a cannon. I am more used to the earler Pennsylvania and Ohio conflicts with the Native Americans - hard to believe that 50 years before natives twice swept the West Branch Susquehanna valley in Pennsylvania clean of settlers (at least for a few months), and wiped out Crawford expedition in Ohio. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:27, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was pouring over some of the articles that link to and from Indian Wars and its categories, the vast number of conflicts is absolutely astounding. And you bring up a good point, this was part of a broader effort that spanned many decades, ethnic cleansing and genocide on a massive and never ending scale. IvoShandor 02:00, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Major and important announcement!

[edit]

I have a friend that works at a local newspaper, he was talking to the President of Northern Illinois University and somehow the Black Hawk War came up, I guess he is quite the Black Hawk War buff. In this conversation he called the Wikipedia article on the war "blatantly wrong." This is really bothering me, I have been working extraordinarily hard on this article, and I strive for accuracy because I think the dissemination of knowledge is only useful if it is correct, with history especially. I have poured over hundreds upon hundreds of pages of text on the internet, in books, on microfiche etc, to make this article move toward shining. I don't know if this person read an older version weeks ago or came upon yesterday, I just don't and can't know that, but the fact that he pointed out an article that I have put so much energy into has really discouraged me. What I am wondering is, can anyone take a look at the article, maybe together we can flesh out any inaccuracy. It doesn't seem to me that the article is in any way "blatantly wrong." At least not based on everything I have read and studied thus far. Unfortunately, I don't know any historians on the Wiki, which would be a great thing if I did and had a professional with knowledge on the topic help flesh it out, but we make do around here with what we have. I am no stranger to historical research and don't think I have made any missteps along the way, I am very careful to consult multiple sources before writing, sometimes they disagree but I almost always note this unless I think it's just too trivial or the source too biased to be useful. Basically disregard the stray point on the graph, you know?

If anyone can help flesh this article out with me, please do. IvoShandor 07:47, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I imagine you saw my comments about this here. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 18:28, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No problems - I understand needing to take a break and took no offense. Glad you made it through the flooding OK. The Christmas Tree Farm work looks interesting. I will reply about the map above. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:02, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I also wanted to say to take your time getting back into this - your mental health is more important than any article, so do what is best for you. I am not in a hurry on this, take care Ruhrfisch ><>°° 17:29, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I just took Christmas tree cultivation to the main space (it is one of several daughter articles to the main Christmas tree farm article). It is currently at GAC if you feel like doing a review. : )

IvoShandor 18:41, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A Black Hawk War Award

[edit]

I have thrown together an award for our little collaboration, some of you may have already received it via me. :) You can see it at User:IvoShandor/Black Hawk Award, there are also usage instructions to be found there. That is all, thanks for tuning in.IvoShandor 11:34, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where we stand

[edit]

Well, the Black Hawk War collaboration is progressing quite well. We have raised the following articles to good article status.

  1.  Battle of Stillman's Run
  2.  Buffalo Grove ambush
  3.  Plum River raid
  4.  Indian Creek massacre
  5.  St. Vrain massacre
  6.  Attacks at Fort Blue Mounds
  7.  Spafford Farm massacre
  8.  Battle of Horseshoe Bend (1832)
  9.  Battle of Waddams Grove
  10.  Battle of Kellogg's Grove
  11.  Battle of Apple River Fort
  12.  Sinsinawa Mound raid
  13.  Battle of Wisconsin Heights

This leaves only three articles to get to GA: Battle of Bad Axe (which I am working on in my user space: see User:IvoShandor/Battle of Bad Axe), Attack at Ament's Cabin and Minor attacks of the Black Hawk War, these shouldn't be too hard to raise up and Ament's Cabin is almost there as is. After this we will aim to get the main article to FA, along with at least two of the battle articles, which will probably be what we need to get this to a featured topic. IvoShandor 10:06, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Great - so there will be a total of 15 "battles" (engagements?) on the big map, each marked with a wikilinked red X. I was thinking of making the battle specific maps different - maybe a black X for that battle (and the other Xs red). Ruhrfisch ><>°° 11:35, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, unless we add in all the minor ones, which we might want to do. This is great news!--Kranar drogin 22:44, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Let's see, yep, 15, the minor attacks were too minor to put on the map, though I suspect that most of their locations will be noted anyway, maybe we should do it the other way around, black Xs for regular fights and red Xs for the battle that is the subject of the article (just because red seems to stand out more, no?) Thoughts? I think we should go with engagements, it'll be hard to call all of these battles and still be accurate. IvoShandor 22:46, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's been awhile

[edit]

It's been awhile, and I don't know who is still listening but we've come a long way. We have maps, good articles, and a hell of a lot more knowledge than we used to. So anyway, I've been ramping up the drive to get Template:Black Hawk War (1832) red link free. There are only a handful, one dozen to be exact, red links left. Any help would be appreciated, there may even be some sources already gathered on one of our project/collaboration subpages. List of red links on template follows.

  1. Illinois Militia: may or may not be combined with Illinois National Guard
  2. Michigan Territorial Militia: same as above, but with Michigan/Wisconsin
  3. Jesse B. Brown
  4. Rachel Hall
  5. Sylvia Hall
  6. Weesheet
  7. Indian Creek (Illinois)
  8. Fort Hamilton (Wisconsin): located at Hamilton's Diggings
  9. Fort Union (Wisconsin)
  10. Fort Jackson (Wisconsin)
  11. Gratiot's Grove
  12. Neutral Ground (Iowa)

Some of the fort articles existed at one point but some copyright nazi actually deleted them because they violated the copyright of a historical plaque marker thingy, um, yeah. Anyway, stepping off the soapbox, please feel free to create any of these.--IvoShandor (talk) 01:10, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:IvoShandor/Black_Hawk_War&oldid=1078842144"