Talk:Native American disease and epidemics

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 29 August 2019 and 20 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Emga111 (article contribs). This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 4 September 2019 and 31 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Kaylinmariemarshall (article contribs).

See also:

Talk:Modern social statistics of Native Americans Melchoir (talk) 01:56, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

This page is also under significant construction as a subset of the page listed above. It will also undergo significant changes to provide well documented information about Native American health, which plays a notable role in health services, the history of biological warfare, and more. Please allow some patience to bring the page up to par, and suggestions are appreciated :) Smgaynor (talk) 02:07, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Question about this page and the Contemporary Native American Issues page

I had a question about these two pages. It seems like there is a bit of an overlap when it comes to Native American health, as diseases such as diabetes and alcoholism are contemporary and prevalent issues. Should we clean up the two articles? Combine them? Let me know what you guys think!

Jjgotshwifty (talk) 08:26, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Native American diseases?

The article is entitled "Native American disease and epidemics" and yet there is nothing about any native diseases or epidemics. There are, however, plenty of references to European diseases and epidemics brought to the new world. I think this needs to be re-titled, and the article's incorrect slant needs re-work. Proof of this is shown in part by the first section's statement of "Native Americans have been affected by disease and health concerns throughout their history...". This is left standing without any proof whatsoever. I don't know about other readers, but I come to the article for facts, not speculation. - KitchM (talk) 05:08, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Another thing, Discover Magazine wrote a piece a few years ago contradicting the theories posed in this article. It demonstrated first hand evidence that a lot of the diseases thought to be small pox and other "European" diseases were actually diseases born in the America's. It cited references of actual journals written by doctors at the time describing the diseases symptoms, and they were not symptoms of any disease that was European in origin. This article is so obnoxious in its bias that it even promotes the idea that Europeans intentionally tried to wipe them out with diseases, citing only one instance that's more likely the exception than the norm.66.234.60.139 (talk) 02:54, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I expected to read about gonorrhea, syphilis, Chagas, leishmaniasis... and other american diseases.

Flagged as POV. Same for Siege of Fort Pitt which seems to have the same content pasted in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.253.177.175 (talk) 09:11, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Agree that the title is a little confusing. The article also does not proffer any explanation for why European diseases were so devastating to cause a Native die-off without developing resistance, while Native diseases (which surely exist) presumably did not have a corresponding impact on Europeans. Versus European colonists in other regions e.g. sub-Saharan Africa, South/Southeast Asia etc. where the toll of tropical diseases like malaria on Europeans is well-known. Surely there is something in the literature that discusses this and could be cited. NTK (talk) 06:04, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Regarding the latter, apparently the controversial exception is syphilis, which was unrecognized in the Old World prior to contact, and it's not settled whether this was brought over like the potato (which seems to be the favored theory) or simply wasn't known previously. Either way this could probably be at least mentioned briefly here. NTK (talk) 06:11, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Recent edits re: use of disease as a weapon

I've reverted this bold edit for reasons best described at WP:BRD. There are a number of issues with that problematic edit, including (but not limited to):

• It takes a simple sourced assertion of fact and prefaces it with "Elizabeth Fenn suggests...". This is attribution, which implies that the content is not factual and is merely the opinion of just that source, which is against policy (and against the cited sources). Further, neither cited source says Fenn "suggests" such a thing, as the assertion is actually the central argument of the source. It is the evidence and the broader context of the stigma which "suggests" the prevalence, not Fenn.
• You removed sourced content conveying that efforts have been made to reduce the stigma associated with being the perpetrators of these acts, claiming this was unsourced. Wheelis clearly conveys this point, and even offers examples of the earliest of such efforts. In addition, Mann has documented efforts to sanitize the records, removing or destroying them to change the narrative and redirect culpability. Mann further notes the efforts of "mediocre historians who replace their initial gasp of horror with mealy-mouthed dissimulation. They rationalize the crime, minimize the injury, and even deny that the event occurred at all, using arguments that may work in their day, but that fall flat on their ugly faces in a new milieu." (And like Wheelis, Mann also gives several examples.) Likewise, in Fenn's discussion of the possibility that the perpetrators "acted on some earlier communication from Amherst that does not survive today", the possibility that "documents relating to such a plan were deliberately destroyed" is asserted.
• You added in a sentence beginning with "Other scholars...", implying a significant amount of support, when the cited sources only referred to "some" scholars, which were previously described as "earlier historians", while current scholarship has reversed that archaic false narrative, noting that "Assertions that the Fort Pitt incident typifies widespread and effective uses of smallpox are pervasive." That is not at all reflected in your addition to our article.

Your edit summary warned me: "This is a direct misrepresentation of the cited sources." Um yeah, we don't allow that. And your deletion of sourced content while you cite an essay saying you "don't like it" doesn't work here. You'll need more substantive reasoning than that. Xenophrenic (talk) 23:36, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

The cited source quotes Fenn as saying "actual incidents may have occurred more frequently than scholars have previously acknowledged". Your version states instead "It is likely such incidents have occurred more frequently than scholars have acknowledged". This is a clear cut misrepresentation of the source by changing the word "may" to the word "likely". My version uses direct quotes to avoid editorial interpretation. If you have a problem with the word "suggests" I have no objection to changing it to "stated", but the source (Fenn) should be attributed either way, as both sources quote her for that assertion. The source also states that other scholars still disagree, a sentiment which your edit removed entirely. Representing only one half of what a source says is also misrepresenting the source in accordance with Wikipedia policy. If you have a problem with my substitution of "other" for "some", I likewise have no problem with using the word "some" but the disagreement is noted in the source and should be noted in the article. Could you also provide a direct quote as to where it states that "Efforts have ever since been made to reduce the stigma associated with being the perpetrators of such acts."? Because the only reference to stigma I could find in any of the sources states that the existing stigma could have been the basis for the lack of documentation, not that efforts have "ever since" been made to reduce the stigma of the acts themselves (i.e. no one has argued that biological warfare should not be stigmatized, they argue that because of the stigma evidence of biological warfare could have been suppressed)UnequivocalAmbivalence (talk) 00:09, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

My version uses direct quotes...

Using direct quotes to convey assertions of fact is discouraged. Especially the use of direct quotes which give no indication of the source of the quotation, as with your insertion of "remain unconvinced and maintain..." quote insertion. Quoting and attributing infers opinion or unique viewpoint, rather than assertion of fact, which leaves me very curious about the intent of your proposed wording. You say you are quoting the sources, but you omit a critical part from the Fenn quote: "...to attempt biological warfare with the smallpox virus. Many also adhered to a code of ethics that did not constrain them from doing so. Seen in this light, the Amherst affair becomes not so much an aberration as part of a larger continuum in which accusations and discussions of biological warfare were common...", which immediately precedes, clarifies and adds context to the part you presume to quote.

The source also states that other scholars still disagree...

No, it does not. "Still" is your editorial insertion. And it says "some", not "other", after explaining that those "some" were very early historians, and their narrative has been reversed with more current and broader scholarship. And have you bothered to read the footnote to which that assertion is cited?

...the disagreement is noted in the source and should be noted in the article...

But the way you noted it wasn't the way the sources did, as explained above.

...the source (Fenn) should be attributed either way, as both sources quote her for that assertion

Incorrect. One of those two sources is Fenn, and thus doesn't quote her, and the other only quotes her assertion after qualifying it as persuasive scholarly support. If you want to passively cast a shadow on the credibility of Fenn, a notably reliable source on these matters, by attributing or quoting her assertions of fact, you'll have to come up with an actual legitimate reason to do so. Xenophrenic (talk) 03:44, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Also you seem to have misunderstood my edit summary, so I will repeat it here. You deleted a sourced quote for seemingly no reason other than your not liking it. The sentence I deleted was not because I personally don't like it or don't agree with it, but because I could not find evidence to directly support it in any of the cited sources, hence why I have now asked for a quotation. UnequivocalAmbivalence (talk) 00:13, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Also you seem to have misunderstood my edit summary...

Not at all. Of course I knew what you were trying to say, and I found it mildly offensive. So I simply turned your words around and used them in my response to you. Rather than accept that a fellow editor may have reasonable, policy-compliant reasons for their edits, you jump straight to accusing them of editing based on personal "like it" motivation, rather than reliable sources. So please be specific and tell me which of the 10 bullet-point arguments listed at WP:IDONTLIKEIT I used? Quote me exactly, if you don't mind. Much appreciated, Xenophrenic (talk) 03:44, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

"Still" is not an editorial assertion, and the word does not appear in my edit. The source states "Some scholars, though remain unconvinced..." by Finn's assertions. The legitimate reason to attribute Finns assertions of fact is exactly that. They are her assertions that this is a fact. Furthermore, she clearly states that events such as this "may have occurred more often that previously acknowledged, which you have chosen to state as a definitive fact by removing the "may" and to do so in Wikipedia's voice without attributing said assertion to her. I am not "casting doubt" on what she says simple by attributing it to her, I have not added weasel words such as "claims" per WP:SAY, and have instead specifically followed the guideline set out in the policy you referenced, WP:YESPOV: "Avoid stating opinions as facts. Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources, or where justified, described as widespread views, etc. For example, an article should not state that "genocide is an evil action", but it may state that "genocide has been described by John X as the epitome of human evil.". The fact is, Finn states that it may be more prevalent, you have removed the "may" and all attribution to her, substantially changing the assertions put forth in the quoted material. You have also removed all mention of opposition to her assertion, something which is present in the same source you allow to definitively indicate that her evidence is persuasive. I do not see how it is okay to accept the part of the source that says she is reliable and reject entirely the part of the source that says there is opposition to her views. The way I noted it is exactly the way the source did. This is the full quote from the source. "This broader context, Finn argues, suggests that 'actual incidents may have occurred more frequently than scholars have previously acknowledged.'[11] Some scholars, though, remain unconvinced and maintain that Amherst's correspondence was mere musing and what happened at Fort Pitt remains a singular event.[12]". Could you explain how exactly my way of noting it differed from the source other than breaking it into two quotes? Can you explain to me how it is somehow not POV to change "may have" to "likely did"? If I was wrong about your reasons for deleting the sourced quote, can you offer a reason other than it contradicting your preferred narrative? And can you provide a direct quotation regarding the bit about "ever since efforts have been made to reduce the stigma..."?UnequivocalAmbivalence (talk) 04:54, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

If I was wrong about your reasons for deleting the sourced quote...

You were, and we could have moved past that if you'd left it alone. But instead you launch another volley by off-handedly suggesting I have some sort of "preferred narrative". Really? Why would you even say that? So what, exactly, is my "preferred narrative", and where did I present it? Quote me exactly, if you don't mind. Thanks in advance, Xenophrenic (talk) 21:06, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

I find your complaints to be highly hypocritical considering that this all started when you reverted me with an unsubstantiated accusation of WP:YESPOV. I also find your continued refusal to answer my questions with anything but more questions to be frustrating and not at all conducive to actual progress towards accurate representation of the sources. UnequivocalAmbivalence (talk) 02:28, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

...you reverted me with an unsubstantiated accusation of WP:YESPOV

Incorrect. Getting back to reality, here is my actual edit summary: (rmv attribution of sourced fact, per WP:YESPOV; +rtn sourced content) What I did was remove your attribution of pre-existing sourced fact, per WP:YESPOV which states "Avoid stating facts as opinions." The only "accusation" implied by my edit summary is that there was attribution added to assertions of fact by reliable sources, which is against policy. Not only is that a completely substantiated description of events, but you continued to argue for such attribution in the paragraphs above -- unless you are now contending that it was someone else who said "the source (Fenn) should be attributed". And "this all started" when you decided to apply attribution, which predates my response. (You are aware that all of these edits on Wikipedia are recorded and time-stamped, right?)

I also find your continued refusal to answer my questions with anything but more questions...

More fiction. I've never "refused" to answer any of your questions, nor have I answered any of them with more questions (I count exactly 5 question marks in your above comments). There is one question of yours to which I have intentionally not yet responded (your request that I do you the favor of providing you with a "direct quote" about the "reducing the stigma" content), because I have this nagging suspicion that you haven't even bothered to review the sources on that. And after you have accused me of editing based on "I Don't Like It" instead of policy and reliable sources; and after you accused me of editing based on some sort of "preferred narrative" instead of the narrative conveyed by cited sources; and now after you have accused me of "hypocritical" complaints for reasons even you can't seem to muster up intelligent support, I'm not inclined to do you any favors. But if you could see yourself ever returning to a collaborative state of mind, please let me know. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 18:48, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

You have ignored (better than refused to answer?) almost every question that is actually related to the article or its sources. I don't care what "nagging suspicion" you have, the responsibility is on you to provide verification of the source saying what you claim it says. Please do not re-add until a quote is provided so that this information can be verified and consensus for its inclusion has been reached per WP:ONUS which clearly states "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." Also, until you can calmly focus on the article and accurate representation of sources, I feel no need to continue discussions with you.UnequivocalAmbivalence (talk) 23:41, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

You have ignored (better than refused to answer?) almost every question that is actually related to the article or its sources.

I appreciate that you are now trying to walk back your previous ridiculous hyperbole toward something more credible, but you are still falling short of reality: I've neither "refused" to answer, nor "ignored", your questions. As I previously noted, you have asked 5 questions during our discussion, so let's break it down: You asked, Could you explain how exactly my way of noting it differed..., so I explained to you that your way places unwarranted attribution on what should be an assertion of fact in Wikipedia's voice. Please let me know if you wish to revisit that. You also asked, Can you explain to me how it is somehow not POV to change "may have" to "likely did", and I explained to you that "may have" is just one quote from one sentence from one cited source. If taken in isolation as the only source (or indeed, the only thing said in that Fenn source) on that assertion, then you might have a valid concern, but that isn't the case. While Fenn diplomatically said biological warfare "may have occurred more frequently than scholars have previously acknowledged" in her opening summary, you are forgetting that (1) Kelton then elevated the likelihood beyond "may have", noting the "persuasive scholarly support" in the evidence that bio-warfare was actually more widespread, and (2) Mann then updated the "may have occurred" to "did occur" at least three more times, as noted by Johansen (see "the deliberate dissemination of disease, in these four cases"), and (3) and Fenn herself concluded, after noting the evidence, that it not only "may have" occurred more often, it actually had "an established, if irregular, place in late-eighteenth-century warfare". And Wheelis, who is cited by Fenn, Kelton and Mann (you really need to pay attention to the footnotes), notes that "it most likely occurred more frequently than is reported in surviving accounts." Based on the aggregate of cited reliable sources, not just the Fenn source, the "may have" wording is not accurate. You also asked about my reasons for deleting the sourced quote, which was already asked and answered (see my first comment in this thread, third bullet-point), and I further prompted you to pay closer attention to the footnote appended in support of the text you quoted. And lastly, there is one question of yours (asked twice) to which I have intentionally not yet responded (your request that I do you the favor of providing you with a "direct quote" about the "reducing the stigma" content), because you haven't indicated that you have even bothered to review the sources on that.

...do not re-add until a quote is provided so that this information can be verified...

No. A quote of what? A citation to reliable sources has been provided for your review, so that the information can be verified. If you have concerns that the reliably sourced content is verifiable but still not suitable for our article (which is what WP:ONUS is for), then please present your dispute reasoning here. Deleting sourced content without presenting an actual dispute is disruptive.

...until you can calmly focus on the article and accurate representation of sources, I feel no need to continue discussions with you

I've been quite comfortable multitasking so far: calmly focusing on article improvement and accurate representation of sources (as detailed above), while simultaneously calmly responding to your unsubstantiated personal attacks and incivilities (also detailed above). No one can force you to engage in discussions here, but if you feel you can resume without further personalizing our interactions as you have been, that would be most welcome. A reset, or fresh start, if you will. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 16:15, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

There certainly is a real problem here in that there is only evidence of smallpox-infected blankets ever being given to Indians once. Claims that it must have happened many times and the evidence must have been destroyed are 100% speculation because by definition there is no evidence. To make any claim about anything there must be some evidence, but here there is none at all. One might as well equally claim, say, that Aliens did it but wiped people's memories using mnemonic ray-guns. Logically a rewrite is I order |I believe. Cassandra. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.210.219.246 (talk) 13:39, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

In light of the fact that it wasn't until the mid 1800s before germ theory was widely accepted, how can it be possible that Biological warfare was intentionally used during the Siege of Fort Pitt in 1763? The accepted theory at the time would not have seen blankets as a disease carrier. This definitely looks like revisionist history to me.

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Native American disease and epidemics. 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/20150403033815/http://www.politicsandthelifesciences.org/Biosecurity_course_folder/readings/fenn.html to http://www.politicsandthelifesciences.org/Biosecurity_course_folder/readings/fenn.html

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 14:11, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

"There is persuasive scholarly support that such incidents likely have occurred more frequently than scholars have acknowledged"

The article currently states, "There is persuasive scholarly support that such incidents likely have occurred more frequently than scholars have acknowledged". Is it just me or is this contradictory? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:28, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

I can imagine several sets of scholars with differing opinions (and knowledge and level of scrutiny and biases and axes to grind) in any discipline. So, not contradictory, just understated. Are there historical reasons to suspect more 'such incidents'? I suspect so. Scrutiny would probably show such tactics going back thousands of years ... and still ongoing in places. Man's inhumanity to man is fairly well-established, as is the dictum of 'MAnifest Destiny'. Twang (talk) 01:15, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Shouldn't the sentence read "There is persuasive scholarly support that such incidents are likely to have occurred more frequently than primary evidence has revealed", or some such thing? Even if it's not a contradiction, it's certainly poor phrasing with the repetition of the word scholar.Enelson (talk) 01:22, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

I've spent some considerable time investigating and trying to find such 'persuasive scholarly evidence' but can't find any. The Fort Pitt incident is certainly real - but anything else is in the realm of legend and myth, unless some evidence actually turns up. My suspicion is that modern writers just can't grasp how contagious smallpox was quite naturally, and therefore simply assume some evil persons must have been responsible. Cassandra — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.149.174.141 (talk) 17:20, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

One key source of unfounded claims of genocide by smallpox has been the discredited writer Ward Churchill:

The "preponderance of evidence" standard of proof strongly indicates that Churchill fabricated events that never occurred—namely the U.S. Army's alleged distribution of smallpox infested blankets to the Mandan Indians in 1837. The analysis additionally reveals that Churchill falsified sources to support his fabricated version of events, and also concealed evidence in his cited sources ...

https://quod.lib.umich.edu/p/plag/5240451.0001.009/--did-the-us-army-distribute-smallpox-blankets-to-indians?rgn=main;view=fulltext