This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This is the first draft of a merger between Harmar's Defeat and Hardin's Defeat. It was decided in Talk:Hardin's Defeat that the two articles should be merged, and that the existing articles would become redirects to this page. There are some minor conflicts between the existing articles (check the dates, especially), so please do not alter the existing pages until everyone agrees that this article is ready to take the place of the original two. Mingusboodle ( talk) 18:01, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
I think the article is a good read and has incorporated all the important points of the two articles. I think the article has turned out well too, it is much more informative to the reader on the chain of events then just the two articles on the battles, and since the topic is more encompassing, it provides a better title to allow a more comprehensive article to be wrote. I support going ahead and redirecting the other two articles. Charles Edward ( Talk) 01:04, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Harmar Campaign. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 07:38, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Harmar Campaign. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 08:30, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia's name for the action of October 21, the "Battle of the Pumpkin Fields", appears to be erroneous. This name seems to have been entered into Wikipedia in this 2006 edit, by an editor now long inactive. The cited source was this family history article, which in turn cited a 2003 personal blog. That 2003 blog entry appears to be no longer online, but the blogger repeated the story in this 2009 entry, saying that she once heard it from a historian.
I've yet to run across any reliable source using the term, and there appears to be no book references to the term that predate the Wikipedia entry. Since that time, the term has been used in a few books by incautious writers apparently using Wikipedia as a (presumably uncited) source. The "pumpkin" comparison does have a historical basis, but it was used by an American to describe a different battle, St. Clair's defeat the following year: "The freshly scalped heads [of our men] were reeking with smoke, and in the heavy morning frost looked like so many pumpkins..." (Sword, 1985, p. 186). I don't fault the original Wikipedia editor. Back in those days, people often used whatever they found on the internet as a source. Our job now is to weed out unreliable information so that future readers and writers who turn to Wikipedia will be better informed. Kevin1776 ( talk) 21:22, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
As tempting as it might be to recast “Harmar’s Defeat” as “Blue Jacket’s First Victory” and “St. Clair’s Defeat” as “Blue Jacket’s Second Victory” to give credit to the victor and remedy several centuries of anti-Native American historical writing, such a nomenclature would merely perpetuate the one-sidedness and ethnocentrism of previous names, not to mention its great-man-of-history focus. Instead, these battles should be named properly and objectively after geographic features—like the Battle of the Little Bighorn—rather than for any person or belligerent. Thus, “Harmar’s Defeat” would become the “Battle of Kekionga,” and “St. Clair’s Defeat” the "Battle of the Wabash Forks."
I'm removing the entire section on Hartshorn's defeat on 20 October. Hartshorn was under Captain Armstrong when he was ambushed the day before, and he was later ambushed at the Siege of Fort Recovery. I suspect this info about an ambush on 20 October was confused with one of those two other events, especially since there are no citations. Canute ( talk) 19:29, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
On 30 May, Ens. Asa Hartshorne of the 1st United States Regiment reported that he and a small party had been attacked near Limestone; “in the afternoon, myself with five men went up to the place where we were attacked; we found one man, one woman, and three children, killed and scalped. . . . There are eight missing; the whole killed and missing is thirteen souls; they took none of the property but one horse” (ASP, Indian Affairs,description beginsWalter Lowrie et al., eds. American State Papers. Documents, Legislative and Executive, of the Congress of the United States. 38 vols. Washington, D.C., Gales and Seaton, 1832–61.description ends 1:91).
"Diary entry: 9 July 1790". Founders Online. Retrieved 10 December 2021.
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This is the first draft of a merger between Harmar's Defeat and Hardin's Defeat. It was decided in Talk:Hardin's Defeat that the two articles should be merged, and that the existing articles would become redirects to this page. There are some minor conflicts between the existing articles (check the dates, especially), so please do not alter the existing pages until everyone agrees that this article is ready to take the place of the original two. Mingusboodle ( talk) 18:01, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
I think the article is a good read and has incorporated all the important points of the two articles. I think the article has turned out well too, it is much more informative to the reader on the chain of events then just the two articles on the battles, and since the topic is more encompassing, it provides a better title to allow a more comprehensive article to be wrote. I support going ahead and redirecting the other two articles. Charles Edward ( Talk) 01:04, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Harmar Campaign. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 07:38, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Harmar Campaign. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 08:30, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia's name for the action of October 21, the "Battle of the Pumpkin Fields", appears to be erroneous. This name seems to have been entered into Wikipedia in this 2006 edit, by an editor now long inactive. The cited source was this family history article, which in turn cited a 2003 personal blog. That 2003 blog entry appears to be no longer online, but the blogger repeated the story in this 2009 entry, saying that she once heard it from a historian.
I've yet to run across any reliable source using the term, and there appears to be no book references to the term that predate the Wikipedia entry. Since that time, the term has been used in a few books by incautious writers apparently using Wikipedia as a (presumably uncited) source. The "pumpkin" comparison does have a historical basis, but it was used by an American to describe a different battle, St. Clair's defeat the following year: "The freshly scalped heads [of our men] were reeking with smoke, and in the heavy morning frost looked like so many pumpkins..." (Sword, 1985, p. 186). I don't fault the original Wikipedia editor. Back in those days, people often used whatever they found on the internet as a source. Our job now is to weed out unreliable information so that future readers and writers who turn to Wikipedia will be better informed. Kevin1776 ( talk) 21:22, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
As tempting as it might be to recast “Harmar’s Defeat” as “Blue Jacket’s First Victory” and “St. Clair’s Defeat” as “Blue Jacket’s Second Victory” to give credit to the victor and remedy several centuries of anti-Native American historical writing, such a nomenclature would merely perpetuate the one-sidedness and ethnocentrism of previous names, not to mention its great-man-of-history focus. Instead, these battles should be named properly and objectively after geographic features—like the Battle of the Little Bighorn—rather than for any person or belligerent. Thus, “Harmar’s Defeat” would become the “Battle of Kekionga,” and “St. Clair’s Defeat” the "Battle of the Wabash Forks."
I'm removing the entire section on Hartshorn's defeat on 20 October. Hartshorn was under Captain Armstrong when he was ambushed the day before, and he was later ambushed at the Siege of Fort Recovery. I suspect this info about an ambush on 20 October was confused with one of those two other events, especially since there are no citations. Canute ( talk) 19:29, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
On 30 May, Ens. Asa Hartshorne of the 1st United States Regiment reported that he and a small party had been attacked near Limestone; “in the afternoon, myself with five men went up to the place where we were attacked; we found one man, one woman, and three children, killed and scalped. . . . There are eight missing; the whole killed and missing is thirteen souls; they took none of the property but one horse” (ASP, Indian Affairs,description beginsWalter Lowrie et al., eds. American State Papers. Documents, Legislative and Executive, of the Congress of the United States. 38 vols. Washington, D.C., Gales and Seaton, 1832–61.description ends 1:91).
"Diary entry: 9 July 1790". Founders Online. Retrieved 10 December 2021.