Talk:Siege of Fort Pitt

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Siege of Fort Pitt/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

The article as it now reads, seems to bear a clear bias on the European side of the conflict, most notably in the section "the siege" where the passage ""Meanwhile, Delaware and Shawnee war parties raided deep into the Pennsylvania settlements, taking captives and killing unknown numbers of men, women, and children. Panicked settlers fled eastwards." appears, with its ambiguous and suggestive wording, and no apparent citation. Also in the section on "blankets with smallpox" the suggestion that "the disease may have been spread to the Indians by native warriors returning from attacks on infected white settlements" appears to be mostly conjecture. In this humble opinion the entire article needs a complete overhaul to bring it up to any standard higher than bigoted antiquity. Mr-doobs (talk) 07:05, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Last edited at 07:05, 17 January 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 06:07, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

POV

@Xenophrenic: I added this sentence took keep NPOV, I tag the section with an orange level tag without this. Happy to be convinced otherwise but I was not when I read the article without this. Whizz40 (talk) 22:51, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Whizz40. I've (again) reverted your bold edit for reasons best explained at WP:BRD. While I'm certain you made the edit in good faith, your edit introduced undue POV which is against our WP:NPOV policy: which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. Here is the content you added:

Historian Michael McConnell writes that, "Ironically, British efforts to use pestilence as a weapon may not have been either necessary or particularly effective", noting that smallpox was already entering the territory by several means, and Native Americans were familiar with the disease and adept at isolating the infected. (cited to McConnell)

• The content you added is redundant. While it conveys that the effectiveness of the efforts is debatable, that is already noted 4 sentences earlier. While your sentence conveys that smallpox was entering the area from multiple simultaneous routes, that is already noted in the following paragraph. Undue repetition.
• Most problematic, however, is that your 25+ year old source based his speculation on the Hicks and McCullough information, which has since been examined in more detail (see Wheelis, Mann, Fenn, et al.) - and found that it doesn't "ironically" alter the narrative after all. The tribe to which McCullough referred was actually several hundred miles away, and while they had some prior experience with smallpox, the tribes wiped out in the 1763-1764 epidemic did not. And Hicks' deposition, before his retelling of it with no mention of smallpox, actually supports the timing of the Fort Pitt incident as a probable epidemic source.

McConnell is not the only source to use these apologetics ("the attempts probably weren't successful"; "the Indians deserved it because of their barbaric warfare tactics"; "they were already catching the pox from many other sources, so the Fort Pitt incidents didn't matter"; "the militia at Fort Pitt didn't know enough about disease to pull off a successful bio-attack"; etc.), but current scholarship has overwhelmingly relegated these speculations to the minority-theory category, with some traced back to actual white-washing attempts. Adding in that sentence "to balance previous sentences", as one of your edit summaries stated, indicates a serious misreading of what the preponderance of reliable sources on the matter say. I hope that better explains my concerns. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 10:31, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

The section Siege of Fort Pitt#Biological warfare involving smallpox lacks neutral tone and content. As discussed at Talk:Genocide of indigenous peoples#POV, if there is more than one viewpoint on the effects of the actions then due weight should be given to the different views citing reliable secondary sources. It seems like this section was written by and for people who would like to make a point about what happened. This section could be written in a more impartial way - the section heading itself is part of the problem. This is not the sort of standard one would expect to see in an encyclopedia. The section Pontiac's War#Siege of Fort Pitt is a much better example of a more neutral way to cover the topic, as would be expected because this is a featured article. Whizz40 (talk) 21:21, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

NPOV means accurately representing the preponderance of reliable sources, which appears to have been done in this article. "Effects of the actions" is indeed covered, and you haven't given any specifics as to why you feel that isn't the case. Without those specific, there is no reason why your NPOV tag shouldn't be removed from the article. You did mention the section header as "part of the problem". The present header is "Biological warfare involving smallpox" - can you describe what you see as the problem with it, and perhaps suggest alternative wording? Xenophrenic (talk) 16:44, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

A more impartial section title would help, for example "Efforts to spread smallpox" would fit the context. There are multiple quotations from primary sources and multiple secondary sources referenced of the same or similar viewpoint. Despite the article briefly saying "the effectiveness of individual instances of biological warfare remains unknown" there are no sources or quotations supporting this viewpoint. The intent is clear from the letters but the effects are more uncertain. However, reading the article gives you a sense of certainty about the effects because of the number of quotations and references all supporting the same viewpoint. I would expect to see the other views about the uncertainty articulated with due weight, including inline cites so readers who wish to examine them can. In the lead, a more neutral wording could be chosen for the summary, for example "this event is best known for deliberate efforts to spread small pox". Whizz40 (talk) 20:59, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Regarding the section title, and likewise your concern about "biological warfare" in the summary, shouldn't our article reflect the terminology used by the sources? Most of the cited sources refer to these events as "biological warfare", "biological aggression", "germ warfare". Two of the most detailed sources have "Biological and Toxin Weapons" and "Biological Warfare" in their titles. As far back as the 1950s, historians (even semi-apologists like Knollenberg, Dixon, McConnell, etc.) were referring to the events as "germ warfare" and "biological warfare". Wouldn't an "impartial section title" be a title that conveys what sources convey, rather than be "partial" to just one rather sanitized perspective?

Any "primary source" quotations in our article were actually conveyed by high-quality secondary sources as relevant to the subject matter, so I'm not clear on what your concern is there. Our article doesn't just "briefly" say that the effectiveness of the attempts is unknown, it notes it twice (unnecessarily, in my opinion); see the concluding sentence, which reiterates that "the effect of each attempt is impossible to determine". That rather obvious fact is conveyed by most of our cited sources in that section (i.e.; the Wheelis source says, "Whether the infected blankets had 'the desired effect' is unclear"; Fenn clarifies, "The timing, however, is uncanny: the eruption of epidemic smallpox in the Ohio country coincided closely with the distribution of infected articles by individuals at Fort Pitt. While blame for this outbreak cannot be placed squarely in the British camp, the circumstantial evidence is nevertheless suggestive." While we have two undeniable facts (1 - infecting the Native Americans with smallpox was discussed and attempted, 2 - large numbers of Native Americans in the area subsequently died to smallpox), no amount of forensic sleuthing 250 years later can elevate the connection between the two facts beyond "highly likely". This information is indeed already sourced, but as a matter of formatting, if you prefer, we can duplicate one of the existing citations and place it immediately following the first iteration of the 'unknown effectiveness' content.

I know I'm repeating myself, but it is very important to understand that being impartial and neutral doesn't mean avoiding descriptive, nonjudgmental terminology widely used by our reliable sources, and it doesn't mean presenting minority views on equal footing with the consensus view of present scholarship. WP:NPOV Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects. Your suggestion that, "I would expect to see the other views about the uncertainty articulated with due weight", has already been met and exceeded, as we have not only two iterations that the effects are uncertain, but that is followed up by Dixon and Ranlet proposing "failure" to achieve the desired effect. That already unduly elevates that minority view to a position of parity simply not conveyed by the preponderance of reliable sources on this subject. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 07:49, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Concerning the fact that "large numbers of Native Americans in the area subsequently died to smallpox," this epidemic began well before the blankets in question were distributed, according to William Grant, who was captured in May of 1763. Had the attempts in late June been the cause of the epidemic, we would not expect to see any symptoms until mid-July. Furthermore, Turtleheart was unaffected by smallpox. He was present throughout this conflict and lived to sign the Treaty of Fort Stanwix five years later. Mhswlee (talk) 02:04, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Reliable sources say your assertions are incorrect. While there certainly were previous outbreaks elsewhere, the epidemic near Fort Pitt coincided with the blanket incident. William Grant was never captured. However, Hicks was, but neither of Hick's two different accounts contradict the evidence concerning this epidemic. We did indeed see symptoms in mid-July. Neither Trent, nor McKee nor Turtleheart were affected by the smallpox blankets involved in their exchange, which were carefully wrapped in linen and presented along with other supplies befor their late-night travel. Furthermore, the Native Americans in that region were quite aware by this time that survivors of the pox would not catch the ailment again, and they chose their emissaries who would interact with the carriers of this evil spirit accordingly — so I fail to see the significance of Turtleheart not succumbing to the attempt. Our article never claimed that Turtleheart died of smallpox. Xenophrenic (talk) 13:35, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

There is no reason the term biological warfare or similar should not be used, it should be used and linked to that article. I am saying it is overused, used in places where it need not, and used in bold in the section title which looks odd because it is a 20th century term being used in an article about 18th century history. I would support a more simple section title, such as the one I suggested above, and then explain in more specific language in the text. Where the term is used, "germ warfare" sounds less 20th century in my view.

Epidemiology is a complex topic, requiring detailed study, see for example a modern case [1] West African Ebola virus epidemic#Epidemiology. The efforts in question were rudimentary, the data are sparse and the article giving the strong impression the connection to the outbreak is "highly likely" as you say is not neutral in my view, which is specifically the issue I am raising. The changes you are suggesting would be beneficial and I support those changes being made as we discuss if you wish because then we can see the current consensus in the article.

We need to keep in mind even reliable sources do not have to be neutral. A preponderance of sources writing from one point of view may represent a prevailing school of thought, what was popular (or what is unpopular to write about among those who are writing) or who, or from whom, or for what the funding was received. This is a relatively obscure topic in comparison to the study of the modern example given previously. So given the uncertainties and lack of data from such a time ago, in order to be neutral it requires more than to argue there are lots of reliable sources offering such views. Let's ask ourself what would be needed to get this article to good article or even featured article standard in the eyes of uninvolved editors and readers. As a sense check, perhaps we should ask ourselves what would be needed to make the article neutral in the eyes of uninvolved expert readers in various relevant fields as well as historians.

The section in question, particularly the first paragraph, also has a sudden change in style and tone of writing, which makes the article less well-written but in my view is also a symptom of the article trying to make a point. Whizz40 (talk) 21:50, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

I'd like to address the rest of your points, but before I do, could you elaborate on your view "of the article trying to make a point"? Specifically, what would that point be? Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 09:58, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

I mean the section is written like an essay- opening statement, build up the case behind that, quote from sources, acknowledge other points towards the end.

I am not saying significant changes are needed or that large aspects are missing or misrepresented. The content and references to give balance are present, as you say but the way it is written is not easy for the reader to parse, without further discussion as we are having here.

I am advocating some changes in wording and structure of the section to achieve an encyclopaedic tone, style and balance throughout. Whizz40 (talk) 21:13, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply (and your patience). Of greater concern to me than the structure of the information is that it is accurately conveyed, with appropriate weight, according to reliable sources. I doubt that I would have any serious concerns with editorial changes that only modify style and tone. My question for you was about what "point", specifically, you felt that section of the article was "trying to make". Since you didn't specify, may I assume you were again referring only to this point:

...the article giving the strong impression the connection to the outbreak is "highly likely" as you say is not neutral in my view, which is specifically the issue I am raising. --Whizz40

If so, I guess the next step is to help me understand why, or in what way, you feel that is not presently neutrally worded. Please remember that our article doesn't say it was "highly likely" that events at Fort Pitt caused the epidemic. Our article presently says (in Wikipedia's voice) only that the effectiveness of the attempts is unknown, despite the vast majority of scholarship affirming the likelihood of correlation between the Fort Pitt events and the major epidemic. Our article then goes on to quote, with attribution, a couple of scholars who maintain high certainty of the correlation, and a couple scholars who express doubt -- in a presentation of false equivalency, in my opinion, but I haven't bothered to fix that. So, again, I would be interested in hearing your thoughts on what "point" you feel that section is making, and more importantly, why you feel that is an "NPOV" issue, given the state of scholarship on the matter. With that clarified, we should have a path forward. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 13:35, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

My apologies, I saw the comment from Mhswlee and your reply above on the 16th but missed your reply here. The section is written like an short essay that makes an argument (takes a point of view or makes a point). It follows this Harvard guide pretty well "Writing an academic essay means fashioning a coherent set of ideas into an argument." ... "Even short essays perform several different operations: introducing the argument, analyzing data, raising counterarguments, concluding." However well written, this style isn't appropriate for an encyclopedia article, particularly a topic like this. It affects the way the reader processes the information and therefore affects the neutrality of the article. The section needs to be written in a encyclopedic style.

The section is out of context with the rest of the article. The article is about a historical event and presents a narrative then this section stands out like a study of modern biological warfare looking back at early examples of the use of disease in warfare.

Whatever conclusions the reliable sources cited in the article are reaching, the article text is missing discussion of the uncertainty inherent in studying disease transmission from this incident. From Medical Aspects of Biological Warfare

In retrospect, it is difficult to evaluate the tactical success of Captain Ecuyer's biological attached because smallpox may have been transmitted after other contacts with colonists, as had previously happened in New England and the South. Although scabs from smallpox patients are thought to be of low infectivity as a result of binding of the virus in fibrin metric, and transmission by fomites has been considered inefficient compared with respiratory droplet transmission.

The text cites a World Health Organisation study Smallpox and its eradication. Whizz40 (talk) 21:14, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

To summarize your concerns, (1) You don't like the present "style" of the content we're discussing. Skipping past the fact that "encyclopedic essay" is an actual style, I've already addressed this concern above when I assured you: I doubt that I would have any serious concerns with editorial changes that only modify style and tone. I was rather expecting to see your proposed changes here, which, providing that the information is still accurately conveyed, with appropriate weight, according to reliable sources, likely wouldn't encounter much resistance. (2) You say the "text is missing" regarding the uncertainty of the effectiveness of the attempt, and you quote Medical Aspects of Biological Warfare where it briefly mentions two mitigating facts (the disease could have come from other contacts, and the method used was inefficient). I've already addressed this as well, when I pointed out to you that this information is indeed not missing; the uncertainty of the effectiveness of the attempt is already covered in our article, it notes it twice (unnecessarily, in my opinion), and it also already notes the concerns that the transmission could have come from other points of contact, and that viruses on blankets are likely already dead. So perhaps you missed where I addressed your two points already? And as an aside, to your comment that the Fort Pitt-related text cites the WHO source, please note that it also cites Fenn, Anderson, Harpster, Geissler ... all of whom are cited by our article as well.

You haven't yet given a reason or an example of why the content is not presented in a NPOV fashion. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 18:10, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

I am happy to propose changes if you wish, and equally happy if you wish to make the changes directly since I have already given examples, sources and the conversation has been summarized as we went. Talk:Europe first#Roosevelt's decision is an article where we got directly to consensus and I made the changes, but you know this topic well and would want to review any proposals I make so it might be quicker. Whizz40 (talk) 19:32, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

...equally happy if you wish to make the changes directly... --Whizz40

As I am presently satisfied that the wording and tone meet our NPOV requirements, I'm not motivated to make such changes. So I have left the proposing up to you. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 01:21, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Proposal: Write the 'Diplomacy and siege' section as a narrative with a subsection 'Efforts to spread smallpox' and create a level-2 section following 'Aftermath' to cover 'Modern evaluation of the efforts to spread smallpox'. The existing article content can be placed in the relevant section with some minor rewording and improvements as discussed above. Whizz40 (talk) 19:04, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Removed the POV tag, changes made per discussion and proposal here. Whizz40 (talk) 22:07, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

The proposals to "Write the ... section as a narrative" and "minor rewording and improvements" are vague enough that one can't really properly evaluate them. Thank you for letting me see what your proposed actual wording entails. My comments on your recent series of edits, most of which I have reverted:

• I retained most of your minor copy editing.
• I agreed with your removal from the lead of the recent addition, which said: The event is often cited as an early example of biological state-sponsored terrorism. The "state-sponsored" part isn't really supported (but is possibly implied) by the sourcing, and it is worded as if it applies to the "siege", when it really only applies to the biological warfare attempt. I've moved it into the appropriate section, and reworded it.
• I replaced, grudgingly, "biological warfare" with "germ warfare" in the section header in deference to your objections stated above, but the replacement of both "biological warfare" or "germ warfare" with the misleadingly euphemistic "Efforts to spread smallpox" header is a gross violation of WP:NPOV, which demands that we accurately convey what the reliable sources say.
• The article subject is the Siege of Fort Pitt, which presently details the background, the actual siege, and the aftermath - and there is a subsection about the biological warfare (within the actual Siege section). Leaving the biological warfare subsection to resume content about the Siege of Fort Pitt (i.e.; the Aftermath), and then re-opening another completely separate (top-level header, no less) section on biological warfare again strikes me as nonsensical. All content regarding the attempted biological warfare should remain in the section devoted to it.
• Regarding the uncertainty of the effectiveness of the attempt, you pull-quote from Medical Aspects of Biological Warfare where it briefly mentions two mitigating facts (the disease could have come from other contacts, and the method used was inefficient). I've already addressed this as well, when I pointed out to you that this information is indeed not missing; the uncertainty of the effectiveness of the attempt is already covered in our article, it notes it twice (unnecessarily, in my opinion), and it also already notes the concerns that the transmission could have come from other points of contact, and that viruses on blankets are likely already dead. And as an aside, please note that your Army source also cites Fenn, Anderson, Harpster, Geissler, Wheelis ... all of whom are already cited by our article as well. You placed this prominent pull-quote at the very end of a dedicated section you created, misleadingly after the more current content which directly addresses that quoted assertion, without any justification that I can see in our discussion above. I've removed that bit of editing. An explanation of your intent with that edit would be appropriate at this point.

Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 01:21, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

The proposal was clear enough to have commented on earlier and that would certainly have been helpful and welcome given that you requested a proposal. The lead and the body say the article topic, the Siege of Fort Pitt, is well studied as an early example of biological warfare. It is entirely appropriate for a level-2 section to be devoted to the modern evaluation of this. I would recommend we reconsider this as an improvement towards good article status.

The article text as restored is less clear because it mixes the narrative of the events in the eighteenth century with the nineteenth, twentieth and twenty-first century study of those events.

I agree the section states both sides of the argument, quoting or paraphrasing sources which say the efforts were successful, and others which say they were unsuccessful or they outcome is uncertain. The issues is how it is written. The article is written to build up and then knock down the sources that say the efforts were unsuccessful or the outcome was certain. The section does this more than once, and is written to build up an argument which leads the reader to a conclusion that the former has been discredited by the latter, rather than leaving the reader with the view that more than one point of view exists in reliable sources, and that there is a high degree of uncertainty.

Medical Aspects of Biological Warfare is written relatively recently, 2007, by experts on the subject. Since we agree these events are well studied in the context of biological warfare, the views of reliable tertiary sources on this topic are relevant. Indeed, if major texts on this topic do not say much about this incident, that is also relevant. The summary in this source, quoted again below, is much more balanced than the summary in this Wikipedia article. No satisfactory explanation for this difference has been given.

In retrospect, it is difficult to evaluate the tactical success of Captain Ecuyer's biological attack because smallpox may have been transmitted after other contacts with colonists, as had previously happened in New England and the South. Although scabs from smallpox patients are thought to be of low infectivity as a result of binding of the virus in fibrin metric, and transmission by fomites has been considered inefficient compared with respiratory droplet transmission.

If you feel the addition of this quote was too prominent, the usual editing approach is to improve it; the removal of that source entirely from the article strikes me as odd given your arguments that this is a case of biological warfare.

Since the section is largely unchanged from the previous version discussed above and again not written from a neutral point of view when compared to reliable tertiary sources on this topic, I restored the POV tag.

Nonetheless, I expect we can relatively easily and quickly reach consensus on a neutral wording and organization of the article and welcome your thoughts on achieving this given the discussion and sources provided. Whizz40 (talk) 20:38, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

An additional source, History of biological warfare and bioterrorism from Clinical Microbiology and Infection, Volume 20 Number 6, June 2014. The authors state they have no conflicts of interest. source

Captain Ecuyer, of the British forces, after offering blankets from a smallpox hospital to Native Americans, noted in his journal: ‘I hope it will have the desired effect’ [2]. However, in the light of contemporary knowledge, it remains doubtful whether his hopes were fulfilled, given the fact that the transmission of smallpox through this kind of vector is much less efficient than respiratory transmission, and that Native Americans had been in contact with smallpox >200 years before Ecuyer’s trickery, notably during Pizarro’s conquest of South America in the 16th century. As a whole, the analysis of the various ‘pre-micro- biological” attempts at BW illustrate the difficulty of differen- tiating attempted biological attack from naturally occurring epidemics [2]. Whizz40 (talk) 15:03, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Blankets and Dates - a conflict of evidence

There is a problem with the 'chain of evidence' here. The letter suggesting using smallpox infected blankets was dated 13th July. And the invoice for the blankets was dated 13th August. This implies a direct and obvious action and reaction.

But according to what I've read elsewhere the blankets and handkerchief had actually been handed out on 24th May. And the full correspondence concerning that event does not directly suggest nor imply that the purpose was to infect the Indians, but rather to reward them for their help. So it's all a bit of a puzzle.

Maybe someone can throw a bit more light on this issue. Cassandra — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.74.239.219 (talk) 10:24, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

The little mystery with the dates not matching comes from the Journal of William Trent, 1763 from Pen Pictures of Early Western Pennsylvania, John W. Harpster, ed. (University of Pittsburgh Press, 1938), pp. 99, 103-4.

[May] 24th [1763] The Turtles Heart a principal Warrior of the Delawares and Mamaltee a Chief came within a small distance of the Fort Mr. McKee went out to them and they made a Speech letting us know that all our [POSTS] as Ligonier was destroyed, that great numbers of Indians [were coming and] that out of regard to us, they had prevailed on 6 Nations [not to] attack us but give us time to go down the Country and they desired we would set of immediately. The Commanding Officer thanked them, let them know that we had everything we wanted, that we could defend it against all the Indians in the Woods, that we had three large Armys marching to Chastise those Indians that had struck us, told them to take care of their Women and Children, but not to tell any other Natives, they said they would go and speak to their Chiefs and come and tell us what they said, they returned and said they would hold fast of the Chain of friendship. Out of our regard to them we gave them two Blankets and an Handkerchief out of the Small Pox Hospital. I hope it will have the desired effect. They then told us that Ligonier had been attacked, but that the Enemy were beat of.

https://www.umass.edu/legal/derrico/amherst/trent.html

This seems to be good evidence that the blankets and handkerchief were in fact handed out as genuine gifts before it was suggested that infected blankets be given out. Most puzzling.

Cassandra. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.74.229.200 (talk) 12:26, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Just checked the published journal: it is not 24th May but in fact the entry is for 24th June. But it's therefore still just as puzzling since Amherst's letter is dated July. Cassandra — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.74.229.200 (talk) 12:42, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Ah. Correspondence to Amherst dated 24th June however confirms that there was a smallpox outbreak at the fort on or before that date. So the solution to the puzzle seems to be simply that the commander at the fort had already acted independently before Amherst made his suggestion, and that William Trent was merely being somewhat ironic in his journal on 24th June. Cassandra — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.74.230.11 (talk) 13:18, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Legacy

This academic source discusses the role of this story (accepted as true) and at times lack of mention in later centuries.[2] Another academic source says that this is the only authentic use of smallpox infected blankets against Indians (although the British did use them during the American revolution.[3] Doug Weller talk 13:47, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

See discussion at Talk:Biological warfare. Whizz40 (talk) 20:06, 20 July 2017 (UTC)