Talk:Battle of Fort Frontenac

deletions/vandalism: magicpiano(!)

The deletion of the 1765 Smollett account of the battle because there is a 'more modern, less biased' account (published 2006) does not hold water. The very reason given indicates a personal point of view. It is really up to the reader to decide which is relevant and not an editor. The inclusion of the Smollet account is arguably relevant because it is a compilation of near contemporary information and 'magicpiano'(!?) has decided that readers shall not have access to it. The Smollett text was inserted as 'an account of the battle' without comment. Additionally, there is no discernable 'bias' in its text, unless, of course one is viewing it through a fenian prism.Miletus (talk) 20:42, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

If he had access to "contemporary information" why does he not tell why the fort was garrisoned as it was, rather than claiming it a mystery? Surely this was available in the records he consulted -- after all, William Fowler found out why. (The allegedly-informed Mr. Smollet also did not even report the French fort commander's name, while mentioning the British commander's name, and does not even mention that Bradstreet had to actually fire on the fort.) The previous version also had this gem (among others) of original research: "His [Smollet's] style is clear, concise and unbiased." Shall I continue?

Smollet's account is still generally available. Feel free to add the link to the article.

Oh, and what I did is not vandalism. If you disagree with an edit, discuss it, don't throw accusations around. Magic♪piano 21:44, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps a major revision such as removing the passage should have been discussed first, but that's water under the bridge. IMO, the Smollet passage has historical significance even though it's not particularly complete (what historical rendition is ever complete?). I suggest we put the passage into a separate blockquoted sidebar because it is historical, but with a clear explanation that the original writing is not modern and is an (obviously) incomplete interpretation of the events. Keep in mind that any historical interpretation will not be completely accurate, with perhaps a bit of bias. This includes modern interpretations. BC_{talk to me} 15:50, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

The passage at issue was the entirety of the description of the action [1] (about 4 paragraphs, preceded by the encyclopedic voice attesting to its stellar qualities). We don't use these sorts of early-historian accounts in other battle articles that I'm aware of, except as sources. I don't think this one deserves any special treatment; it's (to me) a fairly typical 18th-19th-century history, exhibiting all of the sorts of bias and omission those histories usually do (his account of the Battle of Carillon, just a few pages earlier, suffers from the same sorts of issues). It's not bad to use as one of several sources, but it should not be claimed to comprehensive or unbiased, since it it clearly is not (see Chartrand in the External Links for a somewhat better modern account). If you want some sort of useful extended period quote, perhaps Bradstreet's report should be excerpted instead. Magic♪piano 20:50, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you are correct; it was the entirety (except for the intro), and therefore not suitable for the main article since it was an old, early-history account that left out a lot of important information that modern research has uncovered. And, indeed the claim that it was "unbiased" with stellar qualities should have been removed. Frankly, I don't know how these claims stayed in the article as long as they did. I guess what I'm saying is that the quote is interesting, and with its 19th century style and flavour, adds another perspective to the article. Not that that's really important to the article, however. What's really important is that the article be as unbiased as possible with as much accurate background as possible, with a good description of the battle, the consequences/aftermath clearly laid out, and everything properly sourced. The perspective of someone who actually was there is certainly more important (e.g. Bradstreet), and if this can be excerpted, would add much more than the Smollet excerpt. I would be in favor of that. It would also be great if we had the perspective of the garrison's commander.--BC_{talk to me} 22:13, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Battle of Fort Frontenac. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081230001320/http://www.ospreypublishing.com/articles/18th_century/fort_frontenac_1758_saving_face_after_ticonderoga/ to http://www.ospreypublishing.com/articles/18th_century/fort_frontenac_1758_saving_face_after_ticonderoga/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:54, 16 July 2017 (UTC)