Talk:Battle of Burnt Corn

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 13 January 2020 and 8 May 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Steven C Elliott.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 15:24, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Source problems

This article needs better sourcing. Where did those direct quotes in the "Background" section come from?

John Ehle's Trail of Tears, cited under "References," is a work of historical fiction that includes footnotes. The sources it cites are often WP:RS, but the book itself is not. — ℜob C. alias ᴀʟᴀʀoʙ 22:59, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

There is a quote that I think I recognize from Woodward's Reminiscences of the Creek or Muscogee Indians by Thomas S. Woodward. Please footnote them with page references, especially if you're going to quote someone saying "High Head told me...." Who's High Head, and who the heck are you? — ℜob C. alias ᴀʟᴀʀoʙ 16:54, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

The article is improving but still not where it should be. I removed the "Aftermath" section which promulgates an outdated Upper Creek vs. Lower Creek interpretation, attributing it to a source that does not support that view. — ℜob C. alias ÀLAROB 20:58, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

This article needs a more detailed aftermath of the events from a reliable source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Warrior3323 (talk • contribs) 10:36, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Creek/Muscogee

The Muscogee people openly prefer the term Muscogee (more on that); however, the historical wars are known as the Creek Wars, and the warring factions are known as the Upper Creeks and Lower Creeks, so the term Creek is still used today describing certain historical topics. —Yuchitown (talk) 16:30, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

@Yuchitown, thanks for looking over the Battle of Burnt Corn article! I've worked on it a while and wanted to just clarify some of the edits. Of note, I meant no disrespect in my revert and based on your userpage, it looks like you have a vested interest in Muscogee subjects. I have no native heritage and want to make the article culturally and factually correct. In regards to the lede, I wrote the article from the perspective of the Military History Wikiproject and was trying to make it "good article" from their criteria. In their "Writing an effective article introduction" they have an entire section devoted to citations in the lede. They recommended not including citations, since the info in the lede should be included in the article. All of that information is included in the article except the clarification that the Muscogee symbol of war is the color red. I felt it didn't need those citations since they're already there, but looks like you're an experience editor, so if you feel that's important I'm all for it.

From all historical accounts, no Cherokee were involved in the battle. Cherokee (and Choctaw) were involved in other conflicts of the Creek War, but not at Burnt Corn.

The Creek War was a regional part of the War of 1812, involving Great Britain and Spain attempting to ally with the Muscogee to attack the United States from a separate front. In the Creek War article, the last sentence in the lede even says the Creek War is "considered an integral part of[,] the War of 1812." The wording of "could be seen" implies that the eventual Creek War may not be part of the War of 1812.

I used the term "métis" for the people of mixed American/Muscogee heritage based on Waselkov's description in "A Conquering Spirit." In it, he said "métis has been applied more broadly to anyone of Indian-white ancestry... Most of the individuals described in this volume as métis were labeled as such (actually, as "half breeds" and "mixed bloods") by European colonial and American writers on the basis of ancestry. But their sense of identity as ethnically métis, as a separate ethnic group distinct from Creek or American, is much more difficult to establish and in most cases remains problematic." Again, I have no native heritage, no if the term "mixed-blood" is preferred by Muscogee today, I'm good with that. Also, in the infobox, I differentiated between métis/mixed-blood and Muscogee fighting with the Americans, since the only ones allied with the Americans were the métis/mixed-blood living in the Tensaw River area. In the Intermarrige section of the Muscogee article, it also talked about "mixed-blood" not being a term that fully encompasses the situation.

Again, in all these explanations, I'm just presenting clarification on why I wrote it the way I did and I mean no disrespect in any of it! Dofftoubab (talk) 00:56, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

No worries about removing Cherokee; I just added what was in the citation, and I see that you are trying to achieve Good Article status here, so I don't want to get in the way of that.

Yes, Gregory Waselkov used métis to describe mixed-bloods Muscogee, but it's not the most common term and wasn't used at the time of the Battle of Burnt Corn (especially since Muscogee people weren't allied with the French). It quickly becomes confused with Métis people in Canada.

A quick Google Scholar count: "Métis Creek": 22, mixed-blood Creek": 104

"But their sense of identity as ethnically métis, as a separate ethnic group distinct from Creek or American, is much more difficult to establish and in most cases remains problematic." That's because the distinction didn't exist then and doesn't exist today. Several of the Red Sticks were mixed-blood, for instance, Peter McQueen, who had a Scottish father. I think Waselkov may have been trying out a hypothesis that wasn't borne out by research. The Lower Creek adversaries of the Red Stick were called "White Sticks" in the Unger citation I used.

For Muscogees, red symbolizes war, while white symbolizes peace. Here's a quick source for that, which was co-written by the late Muscogee scholar Blue Clark.Yuchitown (talk) 01:33, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for that info on the term! Definitely want to be corrected on things and I appreciate that. Would you be ok if I added "mixed-blood" in front of "Muscogee" in the infobox in regards to the Muscogee who fought with the Americans (just to emphasize that it was mixed-blood Muscogee who lived in the Tensaw)? Also, would you be ok if I removed the citations in the lede and moved the info about the atássa being painted red down to the "Background" section? I don't want to just flat-out remove your contributions. Dofftoubab (talk) 03:10, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Sure, that all works. Yuchitown (talk) 18:07, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

GA review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Battle of Burnt Corn/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Dofftoubab (talk · contribs) 20:31, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

Reviewer: Dumelow (talk · contribs) 11:07, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

I'll take a look at this one - Dumelow (talk) 11:07, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

1. Well-written

Criteria: the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

Background

• I would link Creek War, Muscogee and Mississippi Territory again as some people go straight to the main article without reading the lead
  • Updated.
• I think it might benefit from a mention of where the US stood in all of this. Were the Creek lands claimed by the US at this point?
  • Added sentence at the end of the first paragraph.
• "opposed the Council's action and began assaulting Tukabatchee, where Big Warrior (Tustanagee Thlucco) lived"

Why did they attack Big Warrior, was he on the council?

Clarified in fourth sentence of second paragraph.

• "Settlers in the Mississippi Territory were worried about impending attacks from Red Sticks, so Volunteer Regiments and militias were formed to protect the settlers."

Were the "Volunteer Regiments" United States Volunteers, or something different?

Yes, they were U.S. Volunteers. Link added.

• Our article says mixed-blood "is often seen as pejorative"; is this used by the more modern sources in the article? Is there an alternative?

I see this has already been discussed on the talk page and looks like mixed-blood is preferred

Prelude

• "In January 1813, Little Warrior (Tvstvnvkuce), traveled with a band of Muscogee warriors to fight with Tecumseh's warriors at the Battle of Frenchtown."

"To fight with" is ambiguous as it could mean "to fight against" or "to fight alongside".

Clarified

• "These Muscogee then purportedly traveled on to Canada and received a packet or letter with directions from the British for the Muscogee to go to Spanish West Florida to receive guns and ammunition from the Spanish to attack American settlers"

This is the first time the British and Spanish are mentioned. I think you could do with introducing the War of 1812 somewhere

Added short paragraph at the beginning of the section.

• Josiah Francis (Hillis Hadjo)

Elsewhere you have kept the native name out of the link (eg "Big Warrior (Tustanagee Thlucco)")

Updated for continuity. I originally included both names in the link as the article including his Anglo and Muscogee name in the title.

• "The combined force proceeded in a southerly direction down the Wolf Trail and reached the ford unobserved between 10:00 AM and noon"

I am not sure what the "combined force" refers to, did more men join it on 26 July?

Clarified what the "combined force" consisted of.

Battle

• "Later reports revealed Caller's soldiers showed little interest in fighting while Bailey's men attacked and pursued the Red Sticks, leaving Caller's men to loot the supplies"

Do we know the source of these reports?

Added source

• "A small American rearguard fought the Muscogee counterattack and covered the retreat"

Do we know whose command the rearguard came from?

Clarified

• "The Red Sticks were reportedly only armed with 13 guns and traditional weapons"

Reported by whom?

Clarified

Aftermath and preservation

• "After the battle, Bailey led a group of warriors and damaged McQueen's homestead."

Was the homestead defended at the time or empty?

I've not found anything saying explicitly either way, but I would at least assume McQueen was not present. McQueen was preparing for later Red Stick attacks, specifically the attack on Fort Mims, so I'd assume he would have defended his homestead if he had been present. Should I rewrite this or remove it completely?

• "The mixed-blood specifically had guided the mixed American force at the Battle of Burnt Corn, were responsible for most of the Red Stick deaths, and had covered the American force's retreat"

Doesn't read right to me, needs a plural on "mixed-blood"

Seems like we should say what happened with the attacks on Fort Mins and Fort Piece as you have left it on a bit of a cliffhanger. Perhaps also a sentence on what the result of the overall war was?

Added.

• "no definitive artifacts have been recovered as of 2012"

Any more recent developments on this?

Not that I have seen. I've inquired about this, but the Poarch Band of Creek Indians (the Muscogee people remaining in Alabama), have been very sensitive about site information and details.

Lead/infobox

• "Ten to twelve Red Sticks were killed, and they lost most of the weapons and supplies they had obtained in Pensacola."

The main body says they obtained no weapons in Pensacola. It also only says that the US forces only captured "some of the Red Sticks' ammunition, cloth and salt"

Fixed.

• "The battle held little overall strategic importance, but escalated the Creek War from an intratribal conflict into a broader conflict that involved multiple countries and became a regional part of the War of 1812. ultiple participants in the Battle of Burnt Corn were subsequently involved in the Fort Mims massacre, which was a retaliatory attack carried out by the Red Sticks on American settlers. Additional fighting ensued over the next year, culminating in the Battle of Horseshoe Bend, the signing of the Treaty of Fort Jackson, and the eventual removal of most of the Muscogee from Alabama and Georgia."

This section isn't supported by the main text

Would the addition to the "Aftermath" section support this now?

• You list the US Volunteers, Mississippi Territory militia and mixed-blood Muscogee separately in the infobox but the main text says the latter were part of the Baldwin militia.
  • Corrected.
• You only list McQueen as commanding the Red Sticks in the infobox but mention High-head Jim and Josiah Francis as commanding the force that went to Pensacola and the "Battle" section mentions "Red Sticks under McQueen and High-head Jim". If McQueen held the senior command then this should be stated in the main text.
  • Added High-head Jim to the infobox. Francis was present in Pensacola, but there's no mention of him at the actual battle, since a considerably smaller force was present at the battle than the size of the force that was in Pensacola.
• That there were around 60 Red Sticks in the battle is only stated in the infobox.
  • Added in the battle section.
• Infobox says 10-15 American wounded but the main text says only "approximately 15 wounded"
  • Corrected in the infobox.

That's everything on the text, will get around to the other criteria as soon as I can - Dumelow (talk) 16:01, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

2. Verifiable with no original research

Criteria: it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline; reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose); it contains no original research; and it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.

• Sources used all look to be reliable enough
• Inline citations are used throughout
• Where you are only citing one page with the sfn template, you should change "pp=" to "p=", "pp" is the abbreviation for "pages" and "p" for "page"
  • Fixed.
• Spotchecks on sources I could access:

" In January 1813, an additional group of settlers were murdered by Muscogee (who were mostly from the Upper Creek towns)" is supported by citation 3

"Tecumseh shared the sentiment of many Muscogee and sought to resist American encroachment and return Native Americans to their traditional way of life" I couldn't find support for on page 146 of Martin 1991?

Updated the reference to include the next two pages that clarified this overall theme, not just the "dance" the Shawnee taught

"The Red Sticks were reportedly only armed with 13 guns and traditional weapons" checks out to page 32 of Owsley 1981

"A faction of Muscogee known as the Red Sticks (for the atássa, the traditional weapon that was painted red, the Muscogee color symbolizing war" checks out partly to Unger 2011, I am happy to presume the name of the weapon and the significance of the colour is from the other source cited which I don't have access to

• I didn't pick up on any overly close paraphrasing during the spotchecks and Earwig shows nothing of concern

Resolved

Looks good to me - Dumelow (talk) 07:04, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

3. Broad in its coverage

Criteria: it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

Resolved

Level and depth of coverage feels appropriate, but note my comments above about including some detail on the later events of the war

4. Neutral

Criteria: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.

Resolved

I found no issues with NPOV

5. Stable

Criteria: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

Resolved

Page history shows no major issues and there has been friendly co-operation on the talk page

6. Illustrated

Criteria: media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

• The photo of Burnt Corn Creek is captioned in the article as being in Monroe County but on the Commons page as Escambia County
  • Corrected.
• The infobox image checks out to the source as published in the US in 1895 so is PD, the other map I couldn't load the source page but happy to AGF is published in 1851 as stated.
  • Will this page load? The map is under the "Creek War" subject category as "Map of the War in South Alabama, in 1813 and 1814." Thanks for taking on this review! Dofftoubab (talk) 04:54, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

Resolved

Link still doesn't work but probably a problem my end, no issues here - Dumelow (talk) 07:01, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for your improvements Dofftoubab, I have passed this for GA. Great work! - Dumelow (talk) 21:17, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

Appreciate it! Thanks for your time and help on this! Dofftoubab (talk) 02:48, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. You can locate your hook here. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Bunnypranav talk 14:54, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that the first literary work published in Alabama criticized a participant in the Battle of Burnt Corn?

• Source: "The first published imprint known from the region now called Alabama is a pamphlet-long satire, in verse, by Lewis Sewall about Colonel James Caller's 1813 skirmish with the Redstick Creeks at Burnt Corn Creek." Found on page 181 of Gregory Waselkov's 2006 work "A Conquering Spirit: Fort Mims and the Redstick War of 1813–1814."

• • Reviewed:

Improved to Good Article status by Dofftoubab (talk). Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has fewer than 5 past nominations.

Dofftoubab (talk) 03:37, 7 October 2025 (UTC). New enough in the sense that it was promoted to GA on 5 October; certainly long enough and well-written. The hook is excellent, and supported by an inline citation to a reliable source (offline source accepted in good faith). No QPQ needed, no image. This should be good to go. Yakikaki (talk) 19:41, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy compliance:

• Adequate sourcing:
• Neutral:
• Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:
• Other problems:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: - Offline/paywalled citation accepted in good faith Interesting:

QPQ: None required.

Overall: Maximilian775 (talk) 18:16, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi Maximilian775, just wanted to bring your attention to the fact that I already reviewed this DYK above, I just forgot to put the tick. Yakikaki (talk) 18:23, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

Yakikaki, thanks for the heads-up, I completed another QPQ and removed this article from the template. Maximilian775 (talk) 18:51, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

Thanks Maximilian775, and apologies for the hiccup on my side. Yakikaki (talk) 19:07, 20 October 2025 (UTC)