Talk:Siege of Fort Pitt/Archive 1

Archive 1

Journal of William Trent

I rephrased some of the article to add some ambiguity where there was some minor editorializing and add a reference. Given that Trent was negotiating with a enemy who renewed their allegiance to him, it is unclear whether his remarks "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." refer to intentionally infecting them with small pox or merely as being effective tokens of good will.

I cited the source I've seen, although it appears the original, full journal appeared in a 1924 version of the Mississippi Valley Historical Review. Also, the journal has been ascribed to Ecuyer in other sources.

There appears to be an invoice which speaks much clearer as to Trent's intentions, but I haven't been able to track down anything but references to that document. Will add when I find it, as it's quoted in several scholarly publications, I mention it in the article without reference. 66.195.102.82 (talk) 20:09, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

The invoice is mentioned in the section below this, and quoted in full here. —Kevin Myers 01:55, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Have revised it to cite that article. Not sure how much more a direct reference to the invoice we're going to get than that, probably not necessary since the invoice appears to be quoted in full anyway. 66.195.102.82 (talk) 21:00, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Elizabeth Fenn in Proper Context

Brett concurs that the essay, cited here by Elizabeth Fenn, is valuable and she did write a broad and comprehensive thesis, in her book, titled Pox Americana: The Great Smallpox Epidemic of 1775-82. Dr. Fenn also includes the sundries invoice and it's stated purpose - corroborated by the journals of Ecuyer, Trent et.al. and we should accept the facts, objectively, that Captain Samuel Ecuyer devised the plot and Captain William Trent carried it out - only to be supported, after the fact, by Colonel Henry Bouquet and General William Amherst as the dates of correspondence will testify.

However, we should not be too myopic in our sources and try to draw on as many of the relevant eyewitnesses as can be found. If Elizabeth Fenn, claims that "the circumstantial evidence is nevertheless suggestive": whereby, "John M'Cullough, a fifteen-year-old captive among the Indians, reported that the disease took hold after an attack on some settlers sick with the smallpox along central Pennsylvania's Juniata River. 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."

We should have more, local, evidence to finely focus, what Dr. Fenn responsibly and ethically notes as "circumstantial" and "suggestive". Militia Captain Robert Robison wrote a detailed account of the Indian raids in the Tuscarora and Juniata River Valleys of Sunday, July 5th (10th)[1] 1763 - roughly, 200 miles from Fort Pitt.

Two families, of William White (Juniata River) and Robert Campbell (Tuscarora River) were shot, by Indians, in the same manner as they were "laying" or "resting" on the floor of their cabins respectively.[2]

There are some caveats to remember, when citing Fenn's Pox Americana: the narrative begins with 1775 (though background is forthcoming) in her book review on CSPAN (Febuary 7,2002: at the 0:59:59 segment)[3] Dr. Fenn was asked specifically on this point:

"The famous story about the British infecting the Indians at Fort Pitt, in 1763, with smallpox, with infected blankets, is 
not apocryphal: the attempt was made. What's really interesting about that, is that, in fact, two different people thought of 
the idea independently of each other, of trying to affect the Indians with these blankets. It is possible: there have been 
cases, in India, of laundry workers, at a distance from the hospital, being infected with smallpox from linens... dirty 
linens from a hospital. The people who worked on smallpox eradication campaign, that I've spoken with, tend to think that 
infection, that way, is sort of exaggerated in our minds - but it is possible that it did happen."

Finally, we should not use deceptive numbers or exaggerate the effect of the blankets. An American historian, bibliographer, academic librarian and Africanist scholar, Dr. David Henige, asks many historical writers "where do you get your numbers?" in his book "Numbers from Nowhere: The American Indian Contact Population Debate"[4] I have included Major Thomas Hutchin's Map, that he recorded the data from, on his 1762 expedition, that relates the location and size of the Indian towns. Unfortunately, there is no indication of actual populations from his 1762 journal or from his map - only that a catastrophic epidemic hit the Kickapoo, Miami and Shawnee, a year before, in August, 1762.

We can only infer, from Henry Timberlake's March, 1762 map[5] of the Tennessee River Valley the population concentrations of Indian towns - where he itemizes the number of braves (fighting men they send to war). In light of these artifacts, even by extremely (emphasis added) liberal counts, 400,000 to 500,000 is an over-exaggeration by a magnitude of ten.

John McCullough, remarks in his journal about, his time at the new camp on the Muskegon River:

"In the Spring we returned to the west branch of Moosh-king-oong, and settled in a new town, which he called Kta-ho-ling,
which signifies a place where roots have been dug up for food. We remained there dur­ing the Summer. Sometimes in the Summer, 
whilst we were living at  Kta-ho-ling, a great number of Indians collected at the forks of  Moosh-king-oong; perhaps there 
were three hundred or upwards; their inten­tion was to come to the settlements and make a general massacre of the whole 
people, without any regard to age or sex; they were out about ten days, when the most of them returned; having held a 
council, they concluded that it was not safe for them to leave their towns destitute of defense."[6]

No place else does John McCullough make reference to so large numbers of braves.

There is a document that compares Delaware populations by Croghan (1759), Bouquet (1764), Hutchins (1768) and Dodge (1779) in the Virginia Library system.[7]

Brett Gasper (talk) 03:20, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

400,000 to 500,000 Figure

Thomas Hutchins Map of Henry Bouquet's 1764 Expedition

Not to sound like Dr. David Henige, but where do the authors get their numbers from? We can see a map drawn by Thomas Hutchins with the emplacement of Native American camps that Hutchins visited on his 1762 expedition, whose account we find here Further, we have somewhat of a rough census of the Delaware populations by Croghan (1759), Bouquet (1764), Hutchins (1768) and Dodge (1779) in the Virginia Library system found here. No contemporaneous report, direct or inferred, suggests such astronomical figures for even the Eastern Seaboard. When we have source accounts of populations, we don't really need "experts" like Dr David Stannard and Ward Churchill inflating numbers... simply look at the map and the numbers given by the people sent to count them and look for corroborating/disputing sources. Brett Gasper (talk) 01:41, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

I checked the presently cited sources following the 400K-500K sentence. I'm not finding that figure in the sources (and one of the sources doesn't even exist as described). If I'm missing something in those cited sources, please clarify here. Of course we need experts to sift through information, contemporaneous reports, and source accounts for us, because as Wikipedia editors, we know that we are required to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources. All analyses and interpretive or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, and must not be an original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors. Xenophrenic (talk) 00:34, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

source for "bastards" quote?

The line "I will try to inoculate the bastards with some blankets that may fall into their hands, and take care not to get the disease myself.", attributed to Bouquet, doesn't seem to have a reliable source. Can one be found? It's not in Fenn's article, the most thorough one I've seen. - Metalello ^talk 19:32, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

A quick Google books search shows that quote in mullitple reliable sources. In this case, it's the same sources as the following sentence. —Kevin Myers 22:38, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

My Google Books search returns five books containing the "bastards" line. Two don't have a preview, and two are not scholarly and don't provide a source. The one remaining, Genocide and International Justice, doesn't show the footnotes in the preview, so we can't track their source down further.

Contrariwise, Fenn's well-documented piece contains the sentence "I will try to inocculate the Indians by means of Blankets that may fall in their hands, taking care however not to get the disease myself." This is close enough to the "bastards" version to make it highly likely that one is a modification of the other, or that both are modifications of an original. Given the spelling, capitalization and grammar features of Fenn's version, not to mention the anachronistic-sounding "bastards", I am inclined to think that Fenn's version is the original. A glance at her footnotes shows that she consulted the primary source, making it even more likely that the "bastards" version is incorrect.

Google Books shows three results for the Fenn version, with inoculate spelled in the modern fashion, and one with inocculate. This latter result is Fenn's article.

I am going to change the sentence in the main article to Fenn's version, unless I see solid proof (namely the primary source) that it is not correct. - Metalello ^talk 07:40, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

This came up years ago on the Pontiac's War discussion page. The published primary source, The Papers of Col. Henry Bouquet (1940), omitted one of Bouquet's words in the typescript. It says: "I will try to inoculate the ____ with Some Blankets". (Original is online here). Long's 1933 biography of Amherst has the quote, but with the dash replaced with the word "bastards", suggesting that Long was willing to print a curse word that the editors of the Bouquet papers chose to elide. To complicate matters, Fenn says that the transcript of the letter in the published Bouquet papers differs significantly from the original document. She doesn't say what those differences were, unfortunately, but since she has clearly seen and is quoting from the microfilmed original, it's probably best to follow her wording. This leaves unanswered why the editors of the Bouquet papers would omit the word "Indians", or why Long would insert the word "bastards", but that's a mystery for another time and place. —Kevin Myers 11:20, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

The original handwritten letter says "I will try to Inoculate the Indians by means of blankets that fall into their hands."[8] I hope this helps clear up the "Bastard" question and any necessary changes will be made... cheers. Brett Gasper (talk) 03:28, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

I've seen that same image (also from d'Errico) at a umass.edu website, but it would be nice to verify where that specific image originates. The documents are apparently from the British Manuscript Project as suggested here. Researchers such as Elizabeth Fenn and Barbara Mann have examined the various versions, noting that very early versions include the word "bastards" or "Indians" or simply a blank ______ space, indicating shenanigans by certain editors and transcribers. They also note the unexplained disappearance of these documents from some collections. Xenophrenic (talk) 00:34, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

The original handwritten document, or a mimeograph thereof, should resolve this issue. It makes little sense that an attempt to destroy or alter the word "bastard" would be made while not making that attempt with Amherst's "execrable race" comment. Brett Gasper (talk) 19:25, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

It would still be nice to have the origins of the image. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:22, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Biological warfare

As a warning to readers, the entire section is biased. The wording clearly attempts to imply that the documented usage of biological warfare didn't happen to result in deaths, despite this conclusion being dubious at best. Indeed, it is very sloppy writing, with contrary statements (for instance, "Indians in the area did indeed contract smallpox. Some historians have noted that it is impossible to verify how many people (if any) contracted the disease as a result of the Fort Pitt incident", and "While no existing evidence supports that this attempt was successful, a preponderance of documented evidence suggests that the smallpox among some natives preceded the exchange, was contracted from a different source"). There are many statements not sourced, and of dubious accuracy. I added some "citation needed" tags, but I suspect they will be removed. Consider this a contentious article, where bias of editors making wikipedia an unreliable source for these events.17:14, 4 November 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.143.246.81 (talk)

Please allow me to systematically rebut your criticism that "the entire section is biased":

"The wording clearly attempts to imply that the documented usage of biological warfare didn't happen to result in deaths..."

We simply are under the impression that if there were notable deaths resulting from the exchange (that nobody has contested as your weak straw-man implies) that eyewitnesses would have considered it noteworthy - as they wrote about smallpox sicknesses before the exchange of the sundries. If you have an eyewitness source to extrapolate on this, we would certainly love to see it.

"...despite this conclusion being dubious at best"

The use of the word "dubious" is dubious and wreaks of speculation, ambiguity, argumentum ad hominem and attempting to poison the well. We are simply trying to get at the facts with as many relevant eyewitness accounts as possible.

"Indeed, it is very sloppy writing..."

Originally, it was written in classical argument format with a subsequent paragraph to systematically extrapolate each point of the thesis statement, "While no existing evidence supports that this attempt was successful,[5][6] a preponderance of documented evidence suggests that the smallpox among some natives preceded the exchange, was contracted from a different source, and the attempt to "inoculate" the recipients, Turtle's Heart and Mamaltee,[7] was unsuccessful."

The following subsections systematically dilate on each point of the thesis statement:(with eyewitness source references included)

"Turtleheart and Mamaltee did not get Smallpox"

"Smallpox Preceded the Exchange of 24 June 1763"

"Smallpox from a Different Source"

"No Remarkable Connection"

On these points there are twenty-two citations of the twenty-seven total article citations: your argument "There are many statements not sourced, and of dubious accuracy." is not founded in reality and here is why:

From a philosophical view, it appears (and I may be wrong) that you are engaging in critical theory that requires "storytelling" and "revisionism", to highlight social injustices, while the rest of us are engaging in Herodotus' Method:

1. Gather artifacts and eyewitness writings

2. Test for period and bias respectively

3. Construct a vivid narrative in light of your findings.

Brett Gasper (talk) 00:58, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Adding POV tagging, I agree that the section on biological warfare seems to include a large amount of uncited material. 62.253.177.175 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 09:07, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Please be specific when you criticize. Between Trent, Ecuyer, Turtleheart, Hicks, McCullough, Hutchins, Jameson, et al. these people were eyewitness to the plot and eyewitness to the effect. A piece of prima facie evidence is Turtleheart's signature at the Treaty of Fort Stanwix, five years later. I only mention this because the article is attempting to establish cause and effect from eyewitnesses and artifacts. Also, if you have any eyewitness writings of the event contradictory to this thesis - will you share it? Brett Gasper (talk) 00:58, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

As historians have noted, Indians frequently caught smallpox when they raided white settlements and scalped the victims, bringing home the infected scalps to their own villages. Rjensen (talk) 16:29, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Ha ha, you're the one trying to rewrite my history on wikipedia with some kind of frigging psyop, but it won't work because the rest of the web already knows what happened here. You're just in a glass jar where everyone will see what you did for centuries to come. 71.246.152.185 (talk) 16:36, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Well actually I'm not British-- it was the British Army that was accused of the smallpox attack. please look at : http://books.google.com/books?id=RDVSz5ZnOa0C&pg=PA85 = David R. Starbuck (1999). The Great Warpath: British Military Sites from Albany to Crown Point. UPNE. pp. 84–85. Rjensen (talk) 16:40, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

I am curious as to what documented evidence you have that suggests that the attempt resulted in at least one death? There are a few sources (William Trent, 22 July 1763 and Treaty of Fort Stanwix, 1768) that suggest both recipients of the blankets, Turtleheart and Mamaultee, survived the attempt. I do agree with you, that we should never use the phrase "some historians" without stating specifically who.

Brett Gasper (talk) 03:50, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

As another warning to readers, even the references used in this section are being blatantly misquoted to give a sense that the alleged events that transpired at Fort Pitt are merely "propaganda", and when said biased personal statements are corrected to reflect accurate and exact quotes from the adjunct cited material, they get reverted back to leave the cited references as mere decorations for the fallacies. 96.246.163.148 (talk) 22:35, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

If you are making this accusation, please be specific and cite the specific misquote - so that we may change the alleged misquote to better reflect accuracy. Without this information, the anonymous user, 96.246.163.148, is apparently using a straw man fallacy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brett Gasper (talk • contribs) 19:42, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm fairly certain that "evidence" connecting a specific smallpox infection with a specific exposed blanket isn't something which can be discovered. The "desired effect" of the smallpox gift was intended for the attacking tribes, not Turtle Heart, so common sense tells us that the tainted gifts would have been carefully insulated lest the presenter be infected along with the intended recipients. As noted above, smallpox outbreaks likely occurred in the region before this event, but that means it is equally likely Turtle Heart had already been exposed and was immune. There were plenty of other opportunities for the contagion to spread to the Indians in the region, so pinning a specific death on a specific source will be a fruitless endeavor. What is more interesting is the contortions various 'historians' have gone through to try to mitigate in any way possible the culpability of the British of that period. Xenophrenic (talk) 00:34, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Everything you just stated is speculation: that the blankets were specially insulated against untimely infection and that Turtle Heart was immune. Be careful not to let your bias toward definite causality peek. After all, the final assertion that "pinning a specific death on a specific source will be a fruitless endeavor" shows that infection cannot be positively tracked back to those British blankets. This realization doesn't mean the attempt wasn't abhorrent, but it's an impossible task to show definite causality.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.109.4.48 (talk • contribs) 06:24, 26 November 2015

You just agreed with everything I said, and everything conveyed by our article. Did you have a point, or were you giving an ironic example of "trying to mitigate in any way possible the culpability of the British of that period"? Xenophrenic (talk) 16:43, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Xenophrenic, the unsigned user, 50.109.4.48, did not agree with you: while I don't agree with the blanket statement "Everything you just stated is speculation", I do agree that these specific statements are speculative:

* The "desired effect" of the smallpox gift was intended for the attacking tribes, not Turtle Heart

* the tainted gifts would have been carefully insulated lest the presenter be infected along with the intended recipients.

* Turtle Heart had already been exposed and was immune.

* What is more interesting is the contortions various 'historians' have gone through to try to mitigate in any way possible the culpability of the British of that period.

To the last issue, this exemplifies the importance of verifiable eyewitness sources and being specific. Equally, there is a bias of critical theory to inculpate white Europeans. We have the artifacts that inculpate the British in the plot and no evidence suggests that an attempt to destroy that evidence or mitigate that fact was made.Brett Gasper (talk) 20:19, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, IP:50.x did agree with me (expressed no disagreement). Unless "Turtle Heart" is a euphemism for "the Indians" or the "entire race", then it is not speculation that the blankets weren't specially designed to affect a single individual. As for the next two bullet points, of course those were logical assumptions. On the last issue, I don't deal in biases or theories. The attempts to mitigate the culpability, as well as the reasoning behind such attempts, are subjects covered in reliable sources. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:37, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Response to Biological Warfare

Bias, Dubious The wording clearly attempts to imply that the documented usage of biological warfare DID happen - as evidenced by multiple first hand sources. Specifically, the sundries receipt alluded to in Dr. Elizabeth Fenn's Essay, "Biological Warfare in Eighteenth-Century North America: Beyond Jeffery Amherst"[9] records for June 1763 include this invoice submitted by Levy, Trent and Company, and the June 24, 1763 Journal entry of Captain Samuel Equyer,[10]

"24th The Turtle's 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 ... Out of regard to them, we gave them two blankets and a handkerchief out of the Smallpox 
Hospital. I hope it will have the desired effect." - Journal of William Trent, entry of 24 June 1763

What is being deliberated upon are the questions: "was the attempt at biological warfare successful?" and "are there existing, first hand, eyewitness accounts that supports the answer to this question?".

By the same source, of William Trent, who recorded McKee's gift to Turtleheart and Mamaultee on June 24, 1763 Turtleheart and Mamaultee appeared at Fort Pitt, about one month later, on July 22:

"22d Grey Eyes, Wingenum, Turtle's Heart and Mamaulter came over the river, told us their chiefs were in council, and that 
they waited for Custaluga, whom they expected that day..." - Journal of William Trent, entry of 22 July 1763

It is apparent that the direct recipients did not immediately contract the disease, further, Turtleheart signed the Treaty of Fort Stanwix five years later, in 1768.[11]

If it is sufficiently put to rest that the direct recipients of the blankets did not contract smallpox. Then what were the effects of smallpox in the region? when did smallpox have it's greatest effect? and where were these effected people situate?

Documented eyewitness, Thomas Hutchins, suggests that the greatest toll was recorded the year before in the August 1762 entries of his journal:

"The 20th, The above Indians met, and the Ouiatanon Chief spoke in behalf of his and the Kickaupoo Nations as 
follows: '"Brother, We are very thankful to Sir William Johnson for sending you to enquire into the State of the Indians. We 
assure you we are Rendered very miserable at Present on Account of a Severe Sickness that has seiz'd almost all our People, 
many of which have died lately, and many more likely to Die." 
-Thomas Hutchins, Journal entry of 20 August 1762[12]

"The 30th, Set out for the Lower Shawneese Town' and arriv'd 8th of September in the afternoon. I could not have a meeting 
with the Shawneese untill the 12th, as their People were Sick and Dying every day." 
-Thomas Hutchins, Journal entry of 30 August to 12 September, 1762[13]

Sloppy, Contradictory Writing The prose was originally written in classical argument format of a five sentence thesis paragraph - with the last sentence stating the itemized thesis of (A)smallpox among some natives preceded the exchange (B) smallpox was contracted from a different source and (C) the attempt to "inoculate" the recipients, Turtle's Heart and Mamaltee, was unsuccessful.

Each subsequent heading (or paragraph) supported the thesis sentence, in an ordinate manner, to dilate on each assertion and supply the relevant eyewitness sources:

(A) smallpox among some natives preceded the exchange

(B) smallpox was contracted from a different source

(C) the attempt to "inoculate" the recipients, Turtle's Heart and Mamaltee, was unsuccessful

(Summary) all sources make no mention of any epidemic, in the time-frame of two weeks (incubation) except McCullough and on the Juniata River, 200 miles from Fort Pitt. Captain Robert Robeson infers that the White and Campbell families were killed in their sick beds.

Further, there are no significant population reductions, of the Delaware, between the census of Croghan (1759), Bouquet (1764), Hutchins (1768) and Dodge (1779)[14]

Unless there is some evidence that exists that suggests otherwise (and we are all open to the evidence) we must conclude that the exchange had no effect.

Brett Gasper (talk) 03:35, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

source

Mann, Barbara Alice (2009). The Tainted Gift: The Disease Method of Frontier Expansion. ABC Clio. this book has a chapter on the fort Pitt incident. It is a well written and researched book and would be useful here,User:Maunus 14:12, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Commentary is nice to get someone else's source material - but really we should concentrate on getting as many eyewitness artifacts as possible and presenting them to the reader. The reader can, then, make their own judgments as how to interpret them. The challenge is accurately reporting the context.

Brett Gasper (talk) 03:31, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Actually, per wiki policy that is exactly what we shouldnt do. We should represent how scvholars have interpreted the evidence. Primary sources do not speak for themselves and the reader cannot be assumed to be competent enough to interpret them. That requires professionals. Mann is one such professional.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 21:40, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Collecting and presenting contemporary primary sources is what we do only when there has been zero secondary scholarship regarding that material, which is not the case here. There are plenty of good quality secondary (and even some tertiary) sources for us to use by experts on Fort Pitt and the smallpox incidents. We let these experts sift through the available information, contemporaneous reports, and source accounts for us, because as Wikipedia editors, we know that we are required to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources. All analyses and interpretive or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, and must not be an original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors. The challenge for we Wikipedia editors is to properly and neutrally convey the available information from these secondary sources. Xenophrenic (talk) 00:34, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Resolving Issues with Article

General

The controversial issue with this article is the cause and effect to wit: we have the eyewitness artifacts to the cause (Trent, Ecuyer, McKee) and eyewitnesses to the effect (Turtleheart, Trent, McCullough, Hicks, Hutchins, Jameson et. al.). The point isn't to disagree with the people who were there, and took the time to report what happened, but to convey the circumstance as accurately as possible. In short, the attempt to deliver smallpox was made - but the attempt was unsuccessful.

Unless more information comes to light that contradicts this causality, we have a duty to anyone reading this to be honest and refrain from critical theory or any other biases... we should simply stick to the facts wherever they may fall.Brett Gasper (talk) 00:01, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Special

Exhibit A

Apparently, we have proponents of Critical Race Theory (CRT) contributing on the page to engage in CRT's key elements of storytelling and revisionism - to highlight social injustices, specifically, "white supremacy" or "white privilege" and acquire some degree of empathic fallacy:

This would be fine if the CRT proponents could cite documented evidence that the effort was successful. The problem with the CRT narrative is that we have documented evidence that the recipients and the deliverers of the sundries did not die of smallpox - at least not within the next five years. The door is always open to present contradictory evidence and this article can always be modified to reflect that evidence.

Resolution

Exhibit B

Being that the article was flagged POV and disputed by an anonymous flagger, in what appears to be a "hit and run" attempt, and that this article has a long history of sabotage (as far away as Punjab Province, Pakistan) I am going to give considerable response time - then flag this issue resolved.

Consensus

Can we agree on two key points: that an attempt to deliver the infected sundry items was made and that the attempt was apparently unsuccessful? If so, please indicate by writing "Agreed" and signing below.

Agreed Brett Gasper (talk) 06:23, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Disagree with both key points as worded. As we know from reliable sources, there was not just "an attempt"; infected items were indeed delivered to Native peoples. As for "the attempt was apparently unsuccessful", reliable sources do not assert that as a fact. Some certainly have questioned the effectiveness of one well-documented action; wondered how an Indian could transport those infected gifts without himself dying; questioned whether it even made a difference, since there was plenty of other opportunity and sources for those same Natives to contract the disease. Others in the debate have answered those questions, and concluded it likely was a successful attempt. We can't assert as fact, in Wikipedia's voice, one viewpoint in an unresolved debate. Also, we as Wikipedia editors, especially when considering primary sources, must be mindful of the two old aphorisms: "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" and "one cannot prove a negative". Xenophrenic (talk) 00:34, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Point of Clarification The edits made by Xenophrenic do not contradict "both key points as worded": "an attempt to deliver smallpox was made - but the attempt was unsuccessful." As worded, we were looking at the cause and effect. For example, "an attempt to deliver smallpox was made" does not deny, infer, or otherwise allude that an attempt was not made. Reasonably, the attempt to deliver smallpox was either successful or it was not successful - even if it had a small effect. It is some friendly and constructive advice that if you disagree with the key points as worded, you should phrase the key points as worded as opposed to a partial edit argument toward a straw man. Brett Gasper (talk) 21:15, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Please read more carefully. (Just some friendly advice.) According to reliable sources, the infected sundry items were delivered. Saying only that an "attempt to deliver the infected sundry items was made" invites speculation and misinterpretation about what did happen. Likewise, saying "that the attempt was apparently unsuccessful" contradicts reliable sources, which confirm the successful delivery of infected items. Oh, did you mean your second key point to say, "that the attempt to infect the Indians with smallpox was apparently unsuccessful? Then it should have been worded that way. Please note that I disagreed with your two key points as worded. (Anticipating your next question: reliable sources also disagree with the false assertion that "the attempt to infect the Indians with smallpox via blankets was unsuccessful". There has certainly been speculation advanced along those lines, but that doesn't justify saying the effort was "apparently unsuccessful" in Wikipedia's voice.) Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 00:08, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Recent edits to resolve issues

I've reviewed the present article and a major issue immediately became apparent. Over 70% of the article content, and 100% of the cited sources, are dedicated to trying to prove that one specific episode of "biological warfare was ineffective". The title of this article is Siege of Fort Pitt, yet the existing content dealing with that subject is sparse and completely unsourced. I note that there is a NPOV tag on the article, which appears to be a gross understatement. I've implemented the following as a first step to remedying the issues:

• reworded this inaccurate and misleading sentence in the lede: The British commanding general ordered the use of smallpox, but there is no evidence it ever happened. Reliable sources convey that "use of smallpox" not only happened, but has been well-documented.
• likewise removed this inaccurate text from the body, ...ordered the use of smallpox. However, there is no evidence to suggest it ever happened, which is opposite of what reliable sources say happened.
• removed bold-typing and POV emphasis/titling of text per WP:MOS. We need to be mindful of WP:STRUCTURE: Pay attention to headers, footnotes, or other formatting elements that might unduly favor one point of view, and watch out for structural or stylistic aspects that make it difficult for a reader to fairly and equally assess the credibility of all relevant and related viewpoints.
• removed overlinking (for example, "Turtleheart" was wikilinked at least four times.)
• removed the unrelated sentence: Smallpox (variola major) usually has an incubation period approximately 12 to 14 days before eruptions appear on the skin. The source to which it is cited doesn't mention the Siege of Fort Pitt. (Note in passing: closer reading of that source says 7-21 days incubation, plus another 6 days "pre-eruption" before even a rash appears, but this is a moot point.)
• removed the header "Biological Warfare was Ineffective" as inaccurate, unsourced and certainly not a policy-compliant header.
• de-wikilinked Mahoning from within a quotation, per WP:MOS (also note the link was likely inaccurate).
• removed the following as completely unrelated to The Siege of Fort Pitt: Mary Jemison, a Seneca captive, was captured in 1755, in what is now Adams County, Pennsylvania, from her home along Marsh Creek. She married to a Delaware, and later chose to remain with the Seneca over liberation. In James E. Seaver's (Jemison's biographer) interview, she describes her many hardships including travels to Fort Pitt. In her 7th year of captivity, (1762) she reports the death of her first husband from "sickness" - but makes no mention of smallpox among her adoptive people.
• removed the text While no existing evidence supports that this attempt was successful, as not contained in the sources cited to support it. (Citing a primary text which doesn't mention success does not equate to "no evidence exists"; that would be an original research conclusion synthesized by the Wikipedia editor.)
• removed the text rather the allegation was instead propaganda as that claim appears nowhere in the cited source.
• corrected the wording John McCullough, was a Delaware captive, since July, 1756, who was then 15 years old... - he was 8 years old (however, he was close to 15 when he gave his account).
• removed the text With the vast wealth of contemporary eyewitness accounts from the French, British and Native Camps, none make mention of an outbreak in the July, 1763 (two weeks after the exchange) except John McCullough - who claimed, verifiably so, that the Delaware contracted it in the Juniata River Valley. as not contained in the two cited sources. Neither Dixon (p.155) nor the McCullough document mention a vast wealth of accounts, or how many mentions of outbreak are or are not within those accounts.
• removed date "on June 2, 1763" from what McCullough said, as that was not conveyed by either cited source. (Subsequently removed the section as not germane to Siege of Fort Pitt.)
• removed the 400K-500K figure as unsourced (not in cited sources, and I can't find this source: Crawford, Native Americans of the Pontiac's War, 245–250).
• removed the wording On his own initiative as not conveyed by the cited source.
• reworded the inaccurate text This event is best known for an allegation of biological warfare; while there have been many allegations of biological warfare, this one is best known for not being merely an "allegation".
• reworded the inaccurate wording, on June 24, 1763, Captain Ecuyer, gave two blankets, one silk handkerchief..., when the cited source does not specify Ecuyer gave them (but he was present).
• removed Thomas Hutchins paragraph, as it predates the subject of this article by a year, and doesn't refer to the Siege of Fort Pitt.
• condensed the primary information from the narratives of Hicks and McCullough, as it doesn't refer to the Siege of Fort Pitt; expanded reference to those narratives by reliable secondary sources

Xenophrenic (talk) 00:34, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

• reworded this inaccurate and misleading sentence in the lede: The British commanding general ordered the use of smallpox, but there is no evidence it ever happened. Reliable sources convey that "use of smallpox" not only happened, but has been well-documented.

Agreed Brett Gasper (talk) 21:15, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

• likewise removed this inaccurate text from the body, ...ordered the use of smallpox. However, there is no evidence to suggest it ever happened, which is opposite of what reliable sources say happened.

Agreed Brett Gasper (talk) 21:15, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

• removed bold-typing and POV emphasis/titling of text per WP:MOS. We need to be mindful of WP:STRUCTURE: Pay attention to headers, footnotes, or other formatting elements that might unduly favor one point of view, and watch out for structural or stylistic aspects that make it difficult for a reader to fairly and equally assess the credibility of all relevant and related viewpoints.

Agreed: the article desperately needed revision for editorial style - initially, it was written in classical argument. Brett Gasper (talk) 21:15, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

• removed overlinking (for example, "Turtleheart" was wikilinked at least four times.)

Agreed: Brett Gasper (talk) 21:15, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

• removed the unrelated sentence: Smallpox (variola major) usually has an incubation period approximately 12 to 14 days before eruptions appear on the skin. The source to which it is cited doesn't mention the Siege of Fort Pitt. (Note in passing: closer reading of that source says 7-21 days incubation, plus another 6 days "pre-eruption" before even a rash appears, but this is a moot point.)

Agree with caveat: this information is relevant to the effect of smallpox at Fort Pitt: according to William Trent's Journal, Turtleheart and Mamautee arrived at the Fort to parley a full month after receiving the assumedly infected sundry items (we could err with a conservative estimate of 21 days). Further, Turtleheart and Killbuck were signatories to the Treaty of Fort Stanwix five years later in 1668. We shouldn't attempt to be dishonest and conceal those facts.

• removed the header "Biological Warfare was Ineffective" as inaccurate, unsourced and certainly not a policy-compliant header.

Agree with caveat: removing the header as a matter of editorial style is warranted - but the majority of article sources (primary, secondary and tertiary) suggested that this was accurate, excepting a secondary source of Robert McCune - who arrived to Fort Pitt nine years after the fact. An additional caveat with McCune is that he didn't cite his source and neglected to mention the Battle of Bushy Run.Brett Gasper (talk) 21:15, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

• de-wikilinked Mahoning from within a quotation, per WP:MOS (also note the link was likely inaccurate).

Agree Brett Gasper (talk) 21:15, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

• removed the following as completely unrelated to The Siege of Fort Pitt: Mary Jemison, a Seneca captive, was captured in 1755, in what is now Adams County, Pennsylvania, from her home along Marsh Creek. She married to a Delaware, and later chose to remain with the Seneca over liberation. In James E. Seaver's (Jemison's biographer) interview, she describes her many hardships including travels to Fort Pitt. In her 7th year of captivity, (1762) she reports the death of her first husband from "sickness" - but makes no mention of smallpox among her adoptive people.

Agree with caveat: Mary Jameson was in the Delaware camp, the year before, in 1762, and mentions the death of her husband to corroborate Thomas Hutchins' narrative of a sickness in 1762.

• removed the text While no existing evidence supports that this attempt was successful, as not contained in the sources cited to support it. (Citing a primary text which doesn't mention success does not equate to "no evidence exists"; that would be an original research conclusion synthesized by the Wikipedia editor.)

Disagree: if such evidence exists that at least one native died from the blankets - please cite it.

• removed the text rather the allegation was instead propaganda as that claim appears nowhere in the cited source.

Agree

* corrected the wording John McCullough, was a Delaware captive, since July, 1756, who was then 15 years old... - he was 8 years old (however, he was close to 15 when he gave his account).

Agree

• removed the text With the vast wealth of contemporary eyewitness accounts from the French, British and Native Camps, none make mention of an outbreak in the July, 1763 (two weeks after the exchange) except John McCullough - who claimed, verifiably so, that the Delaware contracted it in the Juniata River Valley. as not contained in the two cited sources. Neither Dixon (p.155) nor the McCullough document mention a vast wealth of accounts, or how many mentions of outbreak are or are not within those accounts.

Disagree: this was a summary statement in the classical argument format that was inclusive of 22 of the 24 aforementioned citations. The citations in that statement was to include independent verification of Indian raids in the Juniata Valley, specifically, the murder of William White's family and Robert Campbell's family who were killed in their sick beds.

• removed date "on June 2, 1763" from what McCullough said, as that was not conveyed by either cited source. (Subsequently removed the section as not germane to Siege of Fort Pitt.)

Disagree Anthony Thompson was the name of the tanner entered in Ecuyer's journal giving the specific date of McCullough's account. Brett Gasper (talk) 21:15, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

• removed the 400K-500K figure as unsourced (not in cited sources, and I can't find this source: Crawford, Native Americans of the Pontiac's War, 245–250).

Agree Brett Gasper (talk) 21:15, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

• removed the wording On his own initiative as not conveyed by the cited source.

Disagree: The Officers at the Fort and the exchange of sundries predate any mention by Amherst or Bouquet - a conclusion arrived by Fenn.

• reworded the inaccurate text This event is best known for an allegation of biological warfare; while there have been many allegations of biological warfare, this one is best known for not being merely an "allegation".

Agree with caveat: the attempt was definitely made - but the effect, if any, is not so certain. Brett Gasper (talk) 21:15, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

• reworded the inaccurate wording, on June 24, 1763, Captain Ecuyer, gave two blankets, one silk handkerchief..., when the cited source does not specify Ecuyer gave them (but he was present).

Agree Brett Gasper (talk) 21:15, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

• removed Thomas Hutchins paragraph, as it predates the subject of this article by a year, and doesn't refer to the Siege of Fort Pitt.

Agree with caveat: An epidemic that occurred the year before is significant to the effect of smallpox on the native populations. Otherwise, it could be perceived that a great sickness occurred after the exchange - which is inaccurate. Brett Gasper (talk) 21:15, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

• condensed the primary information from the narratives of Hicks and McCullough, as it doesn't refer to the Siege of Fort Pitt; expanded reference to those narratives by reliable secondary sources.

Agree with caveat: so long as those secondary sources don't contradict the primary source with no explanation. Brett Gasper (talk) 21:15, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Briefly addressing only your caveats and outright disagreements, in order:

→ The fact that Turtle Heart, Maumaultee, either or both, appeared years later has nothing to do with the subject of this article: The Siege of Fort Pitt. We shouldn't attempt to be dishonest and conceal those facts, you say? Those facts aren't in the article for the same reason the final score from last night's NFL football game aren't in the article, and not because someone is trying to conceal it. I am aware that some have tried to stretch the fact that they didn't die into some weird proof that the gifting of tainted sundries never happened; others have thoroughly refuted that speculation.

→ As a general rule, people writing in their diaries generally do not "cite their sources". It is a fact that biological warfare was planned; it is a fact that biological warfare was attempted. Just how effective individual attempts were will likely remain unknown and unknowable.

→ I'm sure we are all sorry for Mary Jameson's loss. But that occurred long before the Siege of Fort Pitt, so we will have to express our sympathies in another article.

→ You asked, if such evidence exists that at least one native died from the blankets - please cite it. What an odd request, and nonsensical to me. Are you suggesting that there is a way, through genetic marker identification perhaps, of determining that person X died of smallpox specifically from blanket Y over 250 years ago? Interesting. Please remember "absence of evidence ≠ evidence of absence"; and who's to say we haven't already dug up the journal of a fur trader in which the final rantings of a pox-stricken Delaware were recorded cursing Maumaultee's name for trading that linen-wrapped blanket of doom to him?

→ We probably should avoid "classical argument format" when it violates Wikipedia's policy against WP:SYNTH.

→ Regarding me removing the wording "On his own initiative", you said, The Officers at the Fort and the exchange of sundries predate any mention by Amherst or Bouquet - a conclusion arrived by Fenn. No, that's not exactly what I remember from the Fenn I read: "He does not mention who conceived the plan" and "Usually treated as an isolated anomaly, the Fort Pitt episode itself points to the possibility that biological warfare was not as rare as it might seem. It is conceivable, of course, that when Fort Pitt personnel gave infected articles to their Delaware visitors on June 24, 1763, they acted on some earlier communication from Amherst that does not survive today. The sequence of events, however, makes it more likely that Amherst and Fort Pitt authorities conceived of the idea independently. In each case, the availability of contagious material (thanks to the smallpox epidemic at the post itself) seems to have triggered the plan of infection. ... The fact that a single wartime outbreak could prompt two independent plans of contagion suggests that the Fort Pitt incident may not have been an anomaly. Evidence from other fields of battle indicates that in the minds of many, smallpox had an established, if irregular, place in late-eighteenth-century warfare." We, as Wikipedia editors, need to be careful not to present just one of several sourced possibilities as an asserted fact in Wikipedia's voice.

→ Regarding smallpox plaguing the region during the years both before and after the Siege of Fort Pitt, the article notes that. Xenophrenic (talk) 00:08, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Documentation of giving blankets?

Are you sure that the officers definitely gave infected blankest to the Native Americans? Where is your source for this specific event? From what I read, there is no documentation of the actual giving of the infected blankets.

You've been misinformed. Before the middle of the 20th century, historians knew that British officers considered trying to infect the Indians, but it was not clear if the attempt was made. Proof was discovered in an account book kept by William Trent in which he charged the government for the items he used "to Convey the Smallpox to the Indians". For an online scholarly source, see here. Google Trent's phrase to discover more sources.

Scholars have therefore known for 50 years that the attempt to infect the Indians was definitely made. (Whether the attempt worked is another question.) However, some modern authors, either because they have not read the modern scholarly literature, or because they have another agenda, still write as if there's no proof. They're wrong. Part of the confusion no doubt comes from the fact that a second incident in 1837 appears to have been fabricated. —Kevin Myers 15:37, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Another source of confusion, by the way, is that there's no evidence that Amherst or Bouquet had anything to do with the blanket incident. They both discussed it, to be sure, but by that time Trent and Ecuyer had already made the attempt, and there's no record of Amherst or Bouquet communicating with anyone else about the idea.

The incident appears to have been common knowledge in Pittsburgh for years afterwards. David McClure (1748–1820), a missionary who passed through in 1772, wrote in his diary:

I was informed at Pittsburgh, that when the Delawares, Shawanese & others, laid seige suddenly and most traitorously to Fort Pitt, in 1764, in a time of peace, the people within, found means of conveying the small pox to them, which was far more destructive than the guns from the walls, or all the artillery of Col. Boquet's army, which obliged them to abandon the enterprise. (Diary of David McClure, pp. 92–93)

—Kevin Myers 07:18, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

This is some good and valuable research Kevin. Using eyewitnesses defeats modern revisionisms (eg. Ward Churchill) and similar critical theorists of the Native American Studies clique. It is interesting, through research, that we were able to draw on the same conclusions independently. On this note, David McClure, arriving nine years later, can be considered a second hand source - but his memoires report that it was smallpox that caused the Delaware to abandon their mission. We, of course, know that this is not the case - as Colonel Henry Bouquet fought a two day battle from Bush's Fort to Grant's Hill to drive off the Delaware, Shawnee, Mingo and Wyandot Confederation. Still, we should keep him in our mind as a corroborating second hand source should an unknown primary source surface. Brett Gasper (talk) 17:11, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

I, too, agree the David McClure primary source and the Fenn secondary source information are good and valuable. As I am sure we all agree, revisiting and revising historical record is essential whenever new evidence has been discovered which shows our present historical assumptions to be inaccurate and obsolete. It is interesting, though not unexpected, that McClure notes that the locals at Pittsburgh confirm, a mere 8 years after the event (contemporaneously), the devastating effect the smallpox had on the will of the tribes to continue their hostilities. As we all know, Bouquet's 2-day battle 26 miles away from Fort Pitt at Bushy Run, while notable for its intensity and fierce fighting, its casualties of ~60 lives from both sides, and the uncharacteristic victory for British in the wilderness, was certainly not the impetus for the confederation of tribes to abandon their efforts to reclaim their land. (re: Fort Pitt specifically, reliable sources indicate that the Native peoples had already withdrawn and ceased their offensive before Bouquet's relief regiment of Royal Americans, Highlanders and rangers arrived at Fort Ligonier, still more than 40 miles from Fort Pitt. Other sources say, however, that the Indians disengaged with Fort Pitt specifically to intercept Bouquet. Like Jennings noting the battle was a draw, p448, "The battle was not a rout. Bouquet did not try to pursue the retreating Indians, and the battle did not destroy their capacity to fight. Smallpox was doing that, and a question seems legitimate as to how much effect the smallpox had already taken on Indian forces before the battle. There are no statistics. Peckham remarks that 'it certainly affected their rigorous prosecution of the war.'") Regardless, the diary entry doesn't specify which act of smallpox conveyance from Fort Pitt people to the attacking Natives was responsible. Xenophrenic (talk) 00:34, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Let us not be mistaken, Xenophrenic McClure is not a primary source - as he arrived to Fort Pitt nine years after the fact - and he would be a secondary source reporting hearsay without citing his source. Also he neglects to mention the Battle of Bushy Run that resulted in causing the Confederation to abandon the siege (not smallpox). Unless there is corroborating eyewitness, primary sources we have to weigh McCune for what he is... a secondary source reporting hearsay from an uncited, possibly primary, source. Brett Gasper (talk) 19:10, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

The privately printed diary of McClure is a WP:PRIMARY source (see Wikipedia's description), and another source evaluating and referencing the McClure diary would be a secondary source. No mistake. It's a personal diary, not a history textbook, so I'm sure there are a great many historical events he doesn't mention. The siege of the fort was mostly stalled by the end of July, and completely abandoned a week and a half before the Bushy Run conflict. Did the arrival of Bouquet's several hundred troops on August 10th dissuade further harassment of the fort? Possibly, but it certainly was not the cause of the Native's diminishing efforts to remove the British from their lands. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:22, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

A primary source is commonly understood to be an eyewitness to the event or involved in the event as defined in the WP:PIMARY section "Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved. They offer an insider's view of an event, a period of history, a work of art, a political decision, and so on. Primary sources may or may not be independent or third-party sources. An account of a traffic incident written by a witness is a primary source of information about the event; similarly, a scientific paper documenting a new experiment conducted by the author is a primary source on the outcome of that experiment. Historical documents such as diaries are primary sources." Robert McClure was a secondary source, as defined in the aforementioned article, "A secondary source provides an author's own thinking based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event." Brett Gasper (talk) 01:37, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Not exactly. Sources, primary or otherwise, in Wikipedia terms, are always published materials - not people. We do not, as Wikipedia editors, cite people, eyewitnesses, etc. Do you see where it says "materials", and not "eyewitnesses"? Now with that clear, see where it says "Historical documents such as diaries are primary sources"? McClure's diary is a primary source because it does not cite or reference other published sources - it is a direct account. Just because he says "townies in the area told me such and such" doesn't elevate his diary to a "secondary" source. If he writes, "I heard it through the grape vine that Mrs. Smith was told by her friend that someone in her bridge club mentioned overhearing a neighbor complaining about something he saw in the local paper about an outbreak of malaria...", his diary entry is still a primary source. But don't take my word for it; you might consider raising the issue at say, the Reliable Sources Noticeboard and asking what other editors think. Xenophrenic (talk) 02:03, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Coordinates missing?

Why does * {{coord|40.4412|-80.0098|display=inline,display}} Fort Pitt Blockhouse not appear?

•  Done--DThomsen8 (talk) 16:56, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

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 [15] 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.[16] 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.[17] Doug Weller talk 13:47, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

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

Speculation not fact

The following paragraph seems to suggest that the absence of evidence is somehow proof that something happened. This seems to be reversal of logic and is simply pushing a POV. Suggest removal. Cassandra

It is likely such incidents have occurred more frequently than scholars have acknowledged, but with such actions considered beyond the pale of civilized behavior, incriminating documentation would of course be scarce. Efforts have ever since been made to reduce the stigma associated with being the perpetrators of such acts.[12][19] Captain Ecuyer's official report, written at the time of the incident and in great detail, notably did not mention the tainted gifts. According to microbiologist Mark Wheelis, Ecuyer considered concealing the event and acknowledged the deed in his ledgers only after learning that his superiors were ordering the same course of action.[20] The most widely cited expert on the subject, Elizabeth Fenn, has observed, "It is also possible that documents relating to such a plan were deliberately destroyed."[12]  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.149.171.35 (talk) 20:00, 3 November 2018 (UTC) 

Germ Theory?

How could they have thought to infect Indians with smallpox if they didn't know about the existence of germs back then? I've never understood that. Can someone please explain that to me?Reversalmushroom (talk) 07:14, 24 July 2019 (UTC)