Talk:Hardin's Defeat

message: Since they happened on the same day, I think they should be merged as: "The Battle of Pumpkin fields". Any thoughts? InternetHero 23:49, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I changed the date to October 19, which is when Hardin led his men into a well-laid trap.  The following days are obviously relevant, but as InternetHero said, those events also fall under Harmar's defeat. Mingusboodle (talk) 21:45, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we could combine the two articles, if we were careful about it.  Maybe we could name it "Harmar Campaign" and give each individual skirmish it's own section (a section for "Pumpkin Fields", for example).  Hardin's Defeat and Harmar's Defeat could redirect to the new page.  BTW, do we know exactly which battle was "Pumpkin Fields," which one was "Heller's Corner," and which one of the two was "Hardin's Defeat?"  We should nail the names down tight before we start merging articles. Mingusboodle (talk) 04:14, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that would be the way to do it. You want to preserve the fact that they were separate battles, but since one was really a same day counter-attack, they were both part of the same action. None of them are terribly long articles and it would raise the quality to put them all together, so we could do it similar to the Illinois Campaign article. Charles Edward 12:23, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I think the best approach is usually to merge small articles into an article on an overall campaign, because it's easier for readers (and editors) to make sense of one complete narrative rather than a handful of mini-articles. If the campaign article gets too long, individual actions can always be spun out into daughter articles. —Kevin Myers 13:13, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

text: OK, so if I cut & paste the articles together, is Hardin Campaign a good enough title, or should I just use the existing Harmar's Defeat?  Also, if I'm reading this right, the Battle of Heller's Corner is Hardin's 1st defeat on the 19th, Hartshorn's Defeat is the 10th, and the Battle of Pumpkin Fields is the Hardin's 2nd defeat on either the 21st or 22nd (depending on which article you read).  I'll leave the two existing articles as is until we agree that the new article is good enough.Mingusboodle (talk) 15:19, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not terribly familiar with the topic, so I am unsure about some of it. But you are right about the battle of pumpkin fields, and I think Harmar's campaign would be a fair name. We could just redirect the old names to the new one. Charles Edward 15:47, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Merging between Hardin's and Harmar's defeats

message: Are you sure William Clark wasn't on this expedition?  According to the reference, he was with Hardin when he was 19 in the NW Territory... that would put him in the right place at the right time. Mingusboodle (talk) 11:56, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, didn't see your question until now. That reference is to Hardin's 1789 Wabash expedition, which was probably Clark's first military campaign. As the article on Clark now indicates, Clark's modern biographer says Clark was not with Hardin in 1790, for reasons which are not clear. —Kevin Myers 13:05, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent!  Thanks for the clarification. Mingusboodle (talk) 18:04, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: William Clark