Talk:Population history of the Indigenous peoples of the Americas/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions about Population history of the Indigenous peoples of the Americas. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Systemic issues

It seems clear - not just to myself, but to many readers commenting above - that this article, as it currently stands, has a consistent tilt: it endorses a strongly revisionist stand. Incidentally, while any position, however immoderate, will be supported by *some* sources, it seems that the strongest statements in the page have inadequate support:

"Nearly all scholars now believe that widespread epidemic disease, to which the natives had no prior exposure or resistance, was the overwhelming cause of the massive population decline of the Native Americans." ("Nearly all scholars", but only one source is given; this source (pp. 1-11 of "Born to die") is actually mostly about cruelties inflicted by man upon man - it is certainly not a description of the supposed consensus that it should support.)

"While epidemic disease was by far the leading cause of the population decline of the American indigenous peoples after 1492,..." (No sources given)

"Although mass killings and atrocities were not a significant factor in native depopulation, no mainstream scholar dismisses the sometimes humiliating circumstances now believed to be precipitated by civil disorder as well as Spanish cruelty.[41][42]" (Both sources seem to support only the second half of the sentence, if anything.)

These sentences have to go or be supported.

Quite besides that - there are deeper issues at stake.

The article cites next to no Spanish-language sources. This is a major lack, especially given that this is supposed to be a page about "population decline" (death) in the Americas as a whole. Nearly all work done in Latin America on the subject is thus ignored.

The article treats disease, on the other hand, and exploitation, on the other (not to mention the disruption and impoverishment caused by war) as if they were two independent matters. Obviously, hunger and societal breakdown (not to mention forced labor in Andean silver mines) makes people more prone to disease. It is stunning that this is being given less importance than, um, sweat baths.

One might as well blame Anne Frank's death on typhus, to which she had few defenses due to her having grown up in a protected middle-class environment. Feketekave (talk) 17:32, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

You are perhaps correct about lacking good Latin American references. I'm not sure that "Spanish (non-English)" references are required just yet, if they can be avoided.

I am not as certain that South and Central America experienced the "die-off" that North America did. Maybe not as many trappers there? Not as many colonists, percentage-wise? Yes, the survivors were enslaved and, in some cases, worked/starved to death. The Spanish interacted differently with the natives, than did the English. Mortality may have been different. I get the impression, that despite the enslavement, a higher percentage survived, as opposed to North America.

But in the North, the vast and sophisticated Mississipian culture disappeared, so well, that survivors were not even aware of it, prior to the English/Spanish settling the area. This has only recently been discovered. I don't think there is any doubt in any serious researcher's mind that the native American population mostly died out through trapper contact in the 16th century.Student7 talk) 17:08, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

(a) Again, we need more sources, and fewer statements such as "there is [no] doubt in any serious researcher's mind". Note that history is often written polemically, with one generation of researchers trying to profile itself against the previous one. A brief discussion in the article on the historiography of the subject should eventually be in order.

(b) We do need Spanish-language sources; most of the scholarship on what happened in Central and South America is in Spanish, for obvious reasons.

(c) The population drop in South America was enormous. (This is undisputed; see "Demographic collapse: Indian Peru, 1520–1620" by Noble David Cook, one of the main proponents of the disease thesis that this article currently puts forward as the only one.) However - to be blunt - it is very hard to kill off peasants. A sedentary culture with high population density will survive to some extent no matter what. Feketekave (talk) 10:59, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry. I meant serious researchers concerning North American die-off of natives. I don't know about Spanish-settled areas. Very clear in what is now the US that the Mississippi culture just "vanished" so well in the 16th century that their descendants could not explain what the "mounds" were for. In fairness, these supposed descendant-natives had moved and their ancestors may not have been familiar with the Mississippi culture. There were millions, if not tens of millions of people who died long before the colonists arrived. This was only recently realized.

As we know, Spanish hegemony into southern areas was extensive and chronicled at this time. The North's chronology was essentially unknown except for a handful of explorers, both Spanish and English. But we know that there were "trappers" who made contact on a "regular" basis, most likely, and unwittingly, bringing disease. Student7 (talk) 21:51, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Problems

Fernand Braudel has pointed out a problem the Amerindian faced which was not a factor in Eurasia and Africa: "The Indian population ... suffered from a demographic weakness, particularly because of the absence of any substitute animal milk. Mothers had to nurse their children until they were three or four years old. This long period of breast-feeding severely reduced female fertility and made any demographic revival precarious."

This makes absolutely no sense. Breast feeding isn't necromancy. A mother's quality of milk is determined almost exclusively by her diet and if a healthy diet is available, the child could eat it as well. If there is no healthy diet available, the problem is not 'extended breastfeeding', it's the lack of a healthy diet. No animal including humans needs to drink the milk of other animals to survive, nor does breastfeeding decrease fertility. I doubt that the source even corroborates the claims here because they are medically specious. Someone who owns the book please check. If the book does, there are numerous sources to disprove the argument. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boleroinferno (talk • contribs) 16:46, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Tuberculosis

History of tuberculosis notes the disease has been documented in the New World from 1050 BC, which means it probably pre-dates human migration to the Americas? The section "Depopulation from disease" claims TB spread in both directions. Is it referring to different strains? There are no sources cited. -- Beland (talk) 01:12, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Immunity

"Eurasian diseases such as smallpox, influenza, bubonic plague and pneumonic plagues devastated the Native Americans who did not have immunity." This implies that Europeans did have immunity. In those days no one was immune to influenza or smallpox. No one has ever been immune to the plagues that hit Europe in the 14th and 17th centuries. It would be best to remove "who did not have immunity." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Narwagner (talk • contribs) 11:49, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Oral records of pre-columbian population size

Regardless of what caused the depopulation, it occurred over a relatively short time-span, historically speaking. In particular as regards the population of North America, between sometime in the early 1500s and the mid-late 1800s the continent was practically depopulated of indigenous peoples. Do any of those people have stories about how many people were in their groups prior to 1492 or when and how the population shrank so much?69.138.223.87 (talk) 19:54, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Class assignment huh? Yes, lots, and don't constrain your thinking by pegging 1492 as if it mattered beyond the Atlantic Seaboard....there's lots of "oral numbers" out there, especially among western peoples where the population collapse was in almost living memory.....but I'm not going to help you with your paper, and Wikipedia's not the place to be looking for someone to help you write your answer; use the references given on the page overleaf and why not just google "population history" and "oral tradition" together and see what you get?Skookum1 (talk) 07:38, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

you could not be further off-base. I have been out of school for decades, I was re-reading "Blackfoot Lodge Tales" and it occurred to me to wonder why none of the tales were of a massive depopulation. Why would you assume anyone would want your help? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.138.223.87 (talk) 05:24, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Jaded, not dumb. Have seen all kinds of class-assignment-type questions is why my response. I'm not familiar with that book but suffice to say plagues and genocide don't sell well, could have been an editorial decision. The oral traditions among many peoples do have "living memory" of the great smallpox epidemics of the 1800s - the latest of them being even in the 1890s; it is known that the first smallpox reached the Pacific Northwest in the late 1700s, overland, tribe-to-tribe, from Mexico; consider that when large numbers of populations die, whether elders or children, transmission of oral memory is severely reduced; there are no old people to tell the tales, nor children to listen, nor time in the struggle for survival to teach or to listen. Oral memory population estimates of British Columbia indigenous peoples run very high, with individual areas with claims of 25-30,000 each e.g .Bella Coola, Lillooet, Seton Portage. Not all of these are in published form, which is why they are not in wikipedia; The Resettlement of British Columbia is a place for you to start, about the Pacific Northwest anyway; 1492 is a largely meaningless abstraction in history west of the Mississippi, that's why my rejoinder about it. Population numbers in the West remained relatively high for centuries; though successive waves of disease before Contact (1780s-1790s in BC/WA/OR and Alaska) had already reduced huge, mostly unknown and only estimated numbers; what the oral tradition says is largely a function of how much of that has survived both culture collapse and population collapse. Dead people do not tell tales, except to archaeologists. As for your "hitler" and "dumb" comments, those are out of line but I'll forgive you as I'm an ornery old coot myself. Just tired of dumb questions, or questions that people shouldn't be coming to wikipedia to look for answers to.Skookum1 (talk) 05:54, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Chart

Before this is added to the article its first needs sourcing for the data and also needs a major formatting fix. -- Moxy (talk) 17:11, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

{{Infobox ethnic group
|group      = Pre-Columbian Population areas
|pop        = Approximately 74 million
|region1    = {{Arctic|Arctic}}
|pop1       = 300,000 today 200,000
|region2    = {{Sub-Arctic|Sub-Arctic}}
|pop2       = 650,000 today 360,000
|region3    = {{Northwest Coast|Northwest Coast}}
|pop3       = 250,000 today 115,000
|region4    = {{Northeast|Northeast}}
|pop4       = 1,200,000 today 640,000
|region5    = {{Southeast|Southeast}}
|pop5       = 1,400,000 today 800,000
|region6    = {{North East Plateau|Northeast Plateau}}
|pop6       = 300,000 today 115,000  7mill
|region7    = {{Calif-Coast|Calif-Coast}}
| pop7      = 300,000 today 101,000
|region8    = {{Great Plains|Great Plains}}
|pop8       = 600,000 today 360,000
|region9    = {{Great Basin|Great Basin}}
|pop9       = 200,000 today 60,000
|region10   = {{Southwest|Southwest}}
|pop10      = 2,000,000 today 1,248,000
|region11   = {{Mesoamerica|Mesoamerica}}
|pop11      = 24,000,000 today 25,500,000
|region12   = {{Carribean|Carribean}}
|pop12      = 4,000,000 today 65,000
|region13   = {{Central America|Central America}}
|pop13      = 8,000,000 today 4,340,000
|region14   = {{Andes|Andes}} 
|pop14      = 18,000,000 today 16,000,000
|region15   = {{Amazon Basin|Amazon Basin}}
|pop15      = 6,000,000 today 500,000
|region16   = {{Brazilian Highlands|Brazilian Highlands}}
|pop16      = 6,000,000 today 560,000
|region17   = {{Gran Chaco|Gran Chaco}}
|pop17      = 400,000 today 127,000
|region18   = {{Southern South America|Southern South America}}
|pop18      = 600,000 today 200,000
}}

{{clear}}

15th century violence

There wasn't a whole lot of opportunity for Spanish violence in the 15th century, nor for English/French violence in the 16th. Yet a caption suggests that violence was the major cause of death of indigenous people from the 15th century on, making no allowance for North America. Nor for the fact that certain actions, like King Phillip's War was perpetrated by the native americans, not by the English. And in fact, the English had enjoyed good relations up to that point (late 17th century). Student7 (talk) 20:27, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Maunus, please look at the article! See section: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_history_of_the_indigenous_peoples_of_the_Americas#War_and_violence. This says, in part, "While epidemic disease was by far the leading cause of the population decline of the American indigenous peoples after 1492..." and "warfare and death by other violent means was a comparatively minor cause of overall native population decline.." and "The Indian wars under the government of the United States have ..[taken]..the lives of about 30,000 Indians." Student7 (talk) 22:15, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

You apparently didnt notice that I reverted back to your version. I will grant you that the violence in those last 8 years of the 15th century are probably not the significant. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:35, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

As for the POV issue you mention: the article as it is now does not fairly represent existing literature which is quite clear that violence has been significant and genocidal in many contexts of European colonization. It is correct that it did not account for the majority of deaths, but hardly any contemporary sources fail to mention the significance of settler violence in relation to the depopulation. For some indigenous groups violence has indeed been the main cause of extinction and depopulation, for example in the Putumayo during the rubber boom, in California and Oregon during the Gold rush, and in Mexico and the carribbean during the earliest phases of colonization. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:13, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

It's not like we thought in the old days. There were some nasty little wars. But they killed tens of thousands. Smallpox, measles, the "common" cold, etc. killed tens or even hundreds of millions! It's not even close. Also, the caption of the picture preceding the "violence" one contradicts the following caption, as does the material in the article. I think the "violence" sentence should be rm. Student7 (talk) 01:27, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. Clearly disease is the far more significant driver, and was in effect before settlement.Pokey5945 (talk) 22:39, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

I have changed the order of the two, putting disease first. However I dont think you will be able to produce a recent source about Native american demographic history that does not mention violence (not just killing, but all kinds of violence, also the kind that merely makes you more susceptible to disease) as a factor in the dempographic decline. Hence it should stay.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:58, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Death rate from combating encroachment?

I've either read or heard on television material which suggested that the Mayan descendants, Incas, and Aztecs survived much better (in larger numbers) than Native Americans in the US. The narrator stated that this was due to the former already being under "a system" and finally accepting the fact that the Spanish "new system" was superior to their own. i.e they could "swap governments" if necessary. Natives in the US had little formal organization, Iroquois League, etc. but these were loose. Natives expected to be able to hunt "anywhere", come and go as they pleased, anytime they pleased, and take anything that wasn't inside someone's actual house. This seriously conflicted with the English system of government and the natives suffered more from "fighting back" than did their southern cousins. This should probably be mentioned somewhere in the article if I can find a WP:RS and is not there already. Student7 (talk) 22:49, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

There are larger numbers of indigenous people in Latin America today because the native population was bigger and the conquests of rulers such as the Aztecs from the outset comprised mostly of indigenous allies which resembled a 'civil' war, without their assistance there would have been no 'conquest'. Whereas in North America settlers seldom relied on native allies like those from iberia did. Settlers from Northern Europe started societies and communities that were separate from the native population with little contact other than in wars. Hence why there are is a continuum/spectrum of different skin shades in Latin America whilst in North America 'whites', 'blacks', 'browns', etc.. are labels that are used to distinguish a significant portion of the North American population to this day. What happened in North America was more of a 'conquest' than the collaborative effort that occurred in Latin America.

New Math

"Using an estimate of approximately 30 million people in 1492 (including 6 million in the Aztec Empire, 8 million in the Mayan States, 11 million in what is now Brazil, and 12 million in the Inca Empire)..."

37 = 6+8+11+12. Nitpyck (talk) 19:05, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Using Aztec numeral system. :) Changed. Thanks. (Someone probably changed a trailing number after the 30.. and forgot to re-add). Student7 (talk) 22:11, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 14 December 2014

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 04:18, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Demographic history of the indigenous peoples of the Americas → Population history of indigenous peoples of the Americas – This article was moved to a bad title. The article is about population and sub section of demographics. The article does not talk about any-other part of demographics like "Ethnicity", "Languages" , "Religion" "etc like gender, and age". We should not mislead readers with wrong titles...its not the info they will read about...as the article is only about population...not demographics as a whole. Relisted -- Calidum 00:34, 31 December 2014 (UTC) Moxy (talk) 17:39, 14 December 2014 (UTC)}

Support. Seems closer. As you have stated, "demographics" part of title a bit pretentious under the circumstances. Student7 (talk) 21:24, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

More citations need

The section under "Virulence and mortality" section has no citations at all. This needs to be fixed. Rissa, Guild of Copy Editors (talk) 23:47, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Virus

>For example, in the fifty years following Columbus' voyage to the Americas, an unusually strong strain of syphilis killed a high proportion of infected Europeans within a few months; over time, however, the disease has become much less virulent."

Is this because more people had at least partial immunity to it or because the virus evolved to no longer kill most of its victims outright but instead became less lethal enabling it to linger and thus spread to a much larger population? Rissa, Guild of Copy Editors (talk) 23:42, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Good question. And it existed in the New World before Columbus. I could only find one spirochete that caused one form of syphilis. Student7 (talk) 19:31, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

This article can be expanded

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/pope-francis-apologises-for-catholic-crimes-against-indigenous-peoples-during-the-colonisation-of-the-americas-10380319.html :

"On his first papal visit to his native Latin America, Pope Francis issued an historic apology to the native peoples of the Americas for sins committed by the Catholic Church during the conquest of the continents....."

and

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Benedict_XVI#Indigenous_American_beliefs Paul Gobbs 2000 (talk) 01:09, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, context is everything. All the popes since 1958 have apologized for just about everything to just about everybody. It's what popes do. I don't doubt their sincerity. I doubt the relevance.

In a secular context, Saudi Arabia pumps more oil despite falling petroleum prices. The Saudis aren't interested in making money, which they already have. They are interested in propping up the American sluggish recovery which will hopefully infect Europe and Japan. Else, selling petroleum will be the least of their worries. So is it "news"? Are Saudis trying to "thwart" OPEC? Doubtful.

Slavery existed until the 19th century nearly universally in one form or another. It was not recognized as "bad" until people had the money, time, education, and inclination to look at it closely. It was only through enslavement that the world learned not to enslave people. Natives had done their own enslavement over the millenia. It often wasn't pretty either.

Internal combustion engines will, given enough time, pollute the atmosphere causing global warming. But who was looking at that problem in 1950? Who knew? It was just another part of the Industrial Revolution. Apologizing now is useless. Student7 (talk) 21:02, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

not a population history, more of causes of deteriorated population?

I [EDIT] do NOT have sources, just surfed through on my way elsewhere. I expected to find numbers here, not so much talk. I'll willingly grant that no population count was available when Europeans arrived. I'll acknowledge the deaths from disease - I'm even willing to swallow figures as high as 80%. (on the one hand "all historians agree" sounds suspect ... but on the other hand the decimation of Hawaii due to disease happened after we knew how to count heads; presumably the numbers are similar.)

But at some point head counts HAD to have begun in the USA, even if it was just for the purpose of bagging and tagging to funnel them into the reservations. Are those numbers somewhere? It would be great to see them in this article: an actual population history, even if it's only from 1850 to 2010. A comparison to the non-native population figures would put it in perspective.

Thanks for listening.Ukrpickaxe (talk) 06:35, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

One book I know that addresses the many speculative estimates for pre-Contact/pre-epidemic populations in the Pacific Northwest is The Resettlement of British Columbia by Cole Harris, some of which is previewable on googlebooks.`Skookum1 (talk) 06:53, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

There's also a very provocative new history of the Great Smallpox of 1862 in BC by a Victoria writer which discusses the faults of the pre-colonial HBC 'census' materials as greatly low, and exposes what seems to have been an overt conspiracy on the part of the colonial government to spread the disease, I'll see if I can find the author's name and such......usual estimates of the pre-Great Smallpox population was c.60,000 in BC, both him and Harris say it was much higher; as do the natives, of course. The first smallpox hit the region before white men were ever seen, around 1690 I think, overland from Mexico via other tribes and trade.Skookum1 (talk) 06:58, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree it is worthwhile to search for WP:RS to support native populations in the 19th century onwards.

I am aware of at least two "observations" of native treatment of fever resulting in overexposure and death. (The medical establishment would call these anecdotal). One is Ulysses S. Grant's report of his time in the northwest "territory" of the US when fever struck. The natives buried themselves in earth to reduce fever, thereby dying of overexposure. Entreaties were futile.

The second was the missionaries observation of the measles epidemic in Hawaii when thousands of natives (Polynesians, not "native Americans". per se) plunged themselves into the ocean and also died, with the missionaries pleading with them to come out and trying to "rescue" them to scant avail. Student7 (talk) 22:41, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

I am unsure how the opening statement of this article can include, "by the end of the 20th century the scholarly consensus had shifted to about 50 million, with some arguing for 100 million or more" but lower in the section under "Population Overview" It states thusly: "estimates range from a low of 2.1 million (Ubelaker 1976) to 7 million people (Russell Thornton) to a high of 18 million (Dobyns 1983).[7]" Forgive my newbishness. Crgrove (talk) 20:05, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Population history of indigenous peoples of the Americas. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:24, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Recent edits (June 2016)

I changed an edit to more closely reflect what the cited source said. Xenophrenic (talk) 07:51, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

The following sentence makes assertions that are not properly supported by the cited source, and appears to contain synthesis and original research:

According to Guenter Lewy, no other cases of the deliberate use of smallpox against Native Americans have been recorded. Even though hundred’s died from an outbreak after the Fort Pitt episode, smallpox had already spread to tribes throughout Ohio. Thus, making it inconclusive if anyone contacted small pox from the two Fort Pitt blankets or if they caught the disease by natural means. (Were American Indians the Victims of Genocide? Guenter Lewy; Sept. 1, 2004)

A more accurate sentence, if this dubious source is to be used at all, would be:

According to Guenter Lewy, he knows of but one case of the deliberate use of biological warfare against Native Americans. Regarding the 1763 events, he says that, "Smallpox was already present among the tribes of Ohio; at some point after this episode, there was another outbreak in which hundreds died."

This sentence accurately quotes Lewy. Lewy doesn't assert how many cases of "small pox" [sic] have been "recorded", and fails to note that other "cases" have indeed been recorded by Ramenofsky, Mann, Robertson, etc. Adding our own synthesized emphasis (i.e.; "already spread to tribes throughout Ohio") or speculation about what happened to the "hundreds" (actually thousands - another error) is against Wikipedia policy. Xenophrenic (talk) 13:54, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

I wrote the edit in the Deliberate infection section which Xenophrenic (talk) mentioned above.OoflyoO (talk) 20:59, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Having established that the British wanted to infect the Indians with smallpox, it is also important to examine if the plan was successful. My edit addressed that need. Xenophrenic's proposed redo of my edit doesn't quite capture the meaning of the sources quote (No attempt was made by Xenophrenic to convey the context). Regarding the Fort Pitt incident Lewy states,

“…we know of but a single instance of such warfare, and the documentary evidence is inconclusive. In 1763, a particularly serious uprising threatened the British garrisons west of the Allegheny mountains. Worried about his limited resources, and disgusted by what he saw as the Indians’ treacherous and savage modes of warfare, Sir Jeffrey Amherst, commander-in-chief of British forces in North America, wrote as follows to Colonel Henry Bouquet at Fort Pitt: “You will do well to try to inoculate the Indians [with smallpox] by means of blankets, as well as to try every other method, that can serve to extirpate this execrable race.”

"Bouquet clearly approved of Amherst’s suggestion, but whether he himself carried it out is uncertain. On or around June 24, two traders at Fort Pitt did give blankets and a handkerchief from the fort’s quarantined hospital to two visiting Delaware Indians, and one of the traders noted in his journal: “I hope it will have the desired effect.” Smallpox was already present among the tribes of Ohio; at some point after this episode, there was another outbreak in which hundreds died.”

At its core Mr. Lewy is saying (1) there are no other cases of the deliberate use of smallpox against Native Americans that have been recorded (i.e. “documentary evidence” like letters to and from military commanders, trader journals, etc…). (2) the documentary evidence is inconclusive and doubt as to whether or not the two blankets infected the Indians.

I believe my write-up conveys Mr. Lewy's thoughts correctly:

According to Guenter Lewy, no other cases of the deliberate use of smallpox against Native Americans have been recorded. Even though hundred’s died from an outbreak after the Fort Pitt episode, smallpox had already spread to tribes throughout Ohio. Thus, making it inconclusive if anyone contacted small pox from the two Fort Pitt blankets or if they caught the disease by natural means.(Were American Indians the Victims of Genocide? Guenter Lewy; Sept. 1, 2004)

Maybe a better edit would be:

According to Guenter Lewy, no other cases of the deliberate use of smallpox against Native Americans have been recorded. He notes that, "Smallpox was already present among the tribes of Ohio" making it inconclusive if anyone contacted small pox from the two blankets and handkerchief that were distributed out of Fort Pitt. (Were American Indians the Victims of Genocide? Guenter Lewy; Sept. 1, 2004)

Xenophrenic claims Guenter Lewy's article in the Commentary is a dubious source (not to be used at all). Although I don't agree (an maybe a neutral third opinion wouldn't agree either), there are many other sources to draw from. I will revisit Guenter Lewy's statement about “documentary evidence” at a later time. In that light, maybe this entry will suit Xenophrenic's dubious worries. The following sentence makes no assertions that are not properly supported by the cited source, does not contain synthesis nor original research.

It is inconclusive if anyone contacted small pox from the two blankets and handkerchief that were distributed out of Fort Pitt. First, even before the blanket incident, outbreaks of smallpox had already erupted in tribes throughout Ohio. Second, unaffected by smallpox, the Indians continued the attack on Fort Pitt for over a month after receiving the blankets. Furthermore, the two Delaware chiefs who received and carried the blankets from Fort Pitt were also in good health a month later. As the incubation period for smallpox is close to two weeks, the chiefs would have shown full blown symptoms by then (Dixon, Never Come to Peace, 152–55). “Finally, because the disease was already in the area, it may have reached Indian villages through a number of vectors. Eyewitnesses reported that native warriors contracted the disease after attacking infected white settlements, and they may have spread the disease upon their return home.” (New World Encyclopedia.). Historian David Dixon, a noted expert on the subject, concluded that “the Indians may well have received the dreaded disease from a number of sources, but infected blankets from Fort Pitt was not one of them.” (Dixon, Never Come to Peace, pg 155).

I don't see any reason not to insert my newest edit while I wait for more discussion regarding the edit that was source from Guenter LewyOoflyoO (talk) 20:59, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the detailed response. I can see you put a lot of time and consideration into your reply. As I mentioned above, and as a reminder here, we aren't allowed to apply our personal interpretations to what isn't conveyed by a cited source. Some of Lewy's initial comments are about biological warfare, not specifically smallpox. Also, he admits he knows of but a single incident, while there are indeed other instances. He says nothing at all about documents or records on other cases. Also, if you are going to use half of a quoted sentence from the cited source, I must insist that you use the other half of the same sentence, in order to not mislead our readers.

it is also important to examine if the plan was successful

I disagree. At present, the section doesn't mention anything about how successful the attempt was, which will always remain technically unknown. There is no question or ambiguity that attempts were made, and the intent was expressed in clear terms. Since the act of biological warfare with the intent to "extirpate a race" of people is considered such an odious and contemptible act, there will of course be many who will go to great lengths to try to minimize or justify or even revise the darker accounts of what transpired in the distant past. I'm very, very familiar with Lewy and Dixon, and similar writers. You do realize there are also scholars who have carefully dissected their work and arrived at opposite conclusions, right? Are you suggesting that we add a whole additional section here devoted to that one single incident of attempted bio-warfare, in order to lay out all the arguments on why it was probably effective versus why it might not have been effective, and including all the attempts to cover up and bury the records of it being attempted, etc.? We can't just give the apologist side of the story without covering the prevailing academic viewpoint as well. Do you think this would be the proper venue for that content? I'm curious about one thing... when you say "it is also important to examine if the plan was successful", may I ask you to explain in more detail what you think that importance would be for our readers of this article?

New World Encyclopedia...

About that, it's not such a good idea to cite that as a source. Per this advisory about unreliable sources, and also at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard, we shouldn't cite that as a source. However, you may find usable reliable sources within the NWE article that you can use here in Wikipedia. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 23:17, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

all scholars regularly dissected opposing views of others to arrived at opposite conclusions. What can be said of one side can be said of the other. The sources seem rational and logical.

I can remove the quote from New World Encyclopedia. It doesn't change the gist of it so much.

Wouldn't readers want to know if attempted germ warfare succeeded as implied by its inclusion in the article?

Anyway, it seems like you'll revert every entry I attempt. Rather than have a non-productive edit war or a forum type discussion full of rabbit trails, I'll look for a neutral third opinion regarding the Lewy and Dixon additions to finish out the Fort Pitt entryOoflyoO (talk) 04:04, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Wouldn't readers want to know if attempted germ warfare succeeded...

Maybe, if it could be proven one way or the other - but there is no way to determine how successful their efforts were. Which is why our article doesn't imply that it failed or succeeded. That is why I asked you to explain in more detail what you think that importance would be for our readers of this article. You are proposing to add content only from one half of that discussion, which goes against our editing conventions.

it seems like you'll revert every entry I attempt

No. Only those which do not adhere to Wikipedia policy. Seeking additional input is a good step. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 04:36, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

I specifically said it is inconclusive and gave reasons why. However, IMO, your originally desired editing of my entry made it seem as if it was not inconclusive. Posted to 3o for third opinion OoflyoO (talk) 04:56, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

That brings us back to what the cited source said, verses what you added instead. Are you saying that adding Lewy's whole quote, instead of just your selected half, makes it sound "not inconclusive"? If so, then your complaint is with Lewy. Also, are you suggesting that we add a whole additional section here devoted to that one single incident of attempted bio-warfare, in order to lay out all the arguments on why it was probably effective versus why it might not have been effective, and including all the attempts to cover up and bury the records of it being attempted, etc.? Xenophrenic (talk) 05:12, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

I am suggesting we stop chasing rabbit trails and see what a neutral party thinks. Remember, i presented two versions, one without the quote. And, a third version with an entirely different source (although it is only a rough draft at this point). I believe you are overthinking this. As demonstrated, saying it is inconclusive and giving reasons why can be done in several sentences. OoflyoO (talk) 05:50, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

The third Part Opinion really has an issue with using The Commentary as a source. And, he didn't seem to go beyond that. I'll abandon my attempt at using the Commentary as a source. However, I'd still like to add a neutral point about the outcome of the Fort Pitt situation (without using Lewy). — Preceding unsigned comment added by OoflyoO (talk • contribs) 00:14, 24 June 2016

Regardless of what Lewy admits he "knows" or doesn't know about incidents of biological warfare, the not-inconclusive-at-all documents from the era indicate several facts about one Fort Pitt incident:

The militia at Fort Pitt gave items from their smallpox hospital to a delegation of Native American emissaries.

They stated that their intent was to convey smallpox to the Indians with those gifts.

Many natives in the area died of smallpox in the subsequent weeks and months (and the epidemic continued to plague tribes in the Ohio Valley for more than a year), with some tribes becoming completely extinct.

Now is there documentation that indicates which specific natives died from specific exposure to those specific items given as gifts on that date? No, of course not, because knowing that is impossible. Nor does our article make any such claim. What "neutral point" did you wish to add that isn't already conveyed? Xenophrenic (talk) 02:39, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

None of that means the efforts succeeded. Just because many Native got smallpox does not mean it was due to Fort Pitt blankets. There are other things you failed to list that do make it inconclusive:

even before the blanket incident, outbreaks of smallpox had already erupted in tribes throughout Ohio. Because the disease was already in the area, it may have reached Indian villages through a number of vectors.
unaffected by smallpox, the Indians continued the attack on Fort Pitt for over a month after receiving the blankets. (the incubation period for smallpox is two weeks).
the two Delaware chiefs who received and carried the blankets from Fort Pitt were also in good health a month later. As the incubation period for smallpox is close to two weeks, the chiefs would have shown full blown symptoms by then.
Eyewitnesses reported that native warriors contracted the disease after attacking infected white settlements, and they may have spread the disease upon their return home.

So, a neutral point of view regarding the outcome of the Fort Pitt situation is to neither say it was or was not a successful. It was inconclusive.

The situation of Fort Pitt in a nutshell:

Did they talk about using biological warfare, yes.
Were attempts made to carry out biological warfare, looks like it.
Did the attempted biological warfare have an effect: It is inconclusive.

Those are the facts. OoflyoO (talk) 03:13, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Nothing in our article says that specific attempt succeeded. (Not that it even matters, as it is the intent & attempts at "Deliberate infection" that matter for that section, not the effectiveness.) What "neutral point" did you wish to add that isn't already conveyed?

By the way, your information is a little off. Yes, smallpox had already plagued the area for years. (Centuries, actually.) So? And yes, sometimes warriors can contract the disease when those they attack have the disease. So? What does that have to do with our article? Many of the wiped out tribes might have been hit by an asteroid that fell from the sky, and we're simply unaware of it; "it's inconclusive". And no, attacks didn't continue for over a month - there was actually a several week break of relative quiet. Coincidence? And when another group of warriors arrived from the Fort Ligonier area, of course they were "unaffected by smallpox" - why would a warrior dying of smallpox travel to participate in a fort attack? The incubation period for smallpox, by the way, is 7-21 days incubation, plus another 6 days "pre-eruption" before even a rash appears, but this is a moot point. Of course the delegates looked healthy a month later; it was already becoming fairly common knowledge among many native Americans that survivors of smallpox were immune to further contagion, and these were the tribe's most widely-travelled emissaries who routinely interacted with the colonists. So? You'll need to look to the tribal village that received the tainted gifts (carefully wrapped in a linen sheet, according to the transaction record) if you want to see if and where the outbreak would occur.

So, a neutral point of view regarding the outcome of the Fort Pitt situation is to neither say it was or was not a successful.

Exactly! Which is what our article does right now. But it appears you want to also interject the obvious: that the effectiveness of this one specific attempt is unknown. Are you aware of what that kind of interjection looks like? Xenophrenic (talk) 07:44, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Nothing in our article says that specific attempt succeeded.

by leaving it out, it is implied under deliberate infection. OoflyoO (talk) 03:07, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

No, it isn't. You are reading into it that which is not there. Xenophrenic (talk) 04:25, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Incorrect picture?

The image seems to be the wrong image. Not only does it not seem to match the description, but it is also the same image currently used in the article titled 'Native American disease and epidemics'. KurtHLarson (talk) 00:21, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Typo, or just cryptic?

I am not sure what is meant by this statement:

"The population of Mexico may have been 8-12 total after all regions are considered."

My first idea is that there is a missing 'million', which would make the sentence: "The population of Mexico may have been 8-12 million total after all regions are considered."

Does that seem correct? Can the original author weigh in?

Fixed it. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 21:29, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Third Opinion

There are two issues here. The first concerns this source from "Commentary Magazine". In my opinion, this source does not meet the standards for inclusion as a reliable third party publication. The magazine describes itself as "COMMENTARY is America’s premier monthly magazine of opinion and a pivotal voice in American intellectual life" and goes on to say "Many of COMMENTARY’s articles have been controversial". This article needs a better source for the controversial topic of genocide of Native Americans. The second issue, the content, is secondary in the absense of a reliable source and especially a source that isn't put forward as an opinion based on a selection of quotes chosen to support the opinion of the author, Guenter Lewey. For such a controversial topic, this is probably the worst type of reference as it is not neutral (and is not intended to be). -- HighKing⁺⁺ 14:19, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for taking you time for this opinion. Of the three reliability checks (the article, the writer, and the publisher) your opinion is focused on the publisher. The article is also published in History News Network. Does this publisher meet reliablility in your opinion?

How much more neutral can Guenter Lewey be when he says the evidence that the "desired effects" took place is "inconclusive"? It seems to me a non-nuetral point of view would be to claim either yes or no. OoflyoO (talk) 23:45, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

...he says the evidence that the "desired effects" took place is "inconclusive"...

No. He never said that. Please read again?

Xenophrenic (talk) 02:31, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi - the article is simply a reprint from Commentary. It says This article was first published by Commentary and is reprinted with permission at the bottom. As to whether historynewsnetwork is a reliable source ... I would say overall, it is. It states in their mission statement Each week HNN features up to a dozen fresh op eds by prominent historians and goes on to say on their submissions that articles are written by experts. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 12:13, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes that is right. However, if the historynewsnetwork is reliable, they must trust in the author of the article. Now that the source can be one you approve of, will you get passed the source issue to give an opinion on the rest of our discussion? Thanks for your time. OoflyoO (talk) 03:02, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi OofluoO, it appears that the second issue, the content, is divided along the lines that you say that there was a very deliberate policy to introduce smallpox to kill native americans and that these deliberate actions directly resulted in deaths (excuse my paraphrasing). My comments are limited on whether the section entitled "Deliberate Infection" is supported by Lewy's referenced article. The first incident opines on a thesis put forward by Ward Churchill involving the gifting of smallpox-infected items to two Indians:

..Or did they? Ward Churchill, taking the argument a step further than Stannard, asserts that there was nothing unwitting or unintentional about the way the great bulk of North America’s native population disappeared:"it was precisely malice, not nature, that did the deed." In brief, the Europeans were engaged in biological warfare.

Unfortunately for this thesis, we know of but a single instance of such warfare, and the documentary evidence is inconclusive.

The last line makes it clear that in Lewy's opinion, the documentary evidence for the thesis is inconclusive. Having read his account in the article, I agree. The next incident is framed as follows:

A second, even less substantiated instance of alleged biological warfare concerns an incident that occurred on June 20, 1837

If the first account is described as inconclusive, it is difficult to assign a greater weight to an incident even less substantiated. I believe that Lewy's opinion on the thesis put forward by Ward Churchill (that the Europeans were engaged in biological warfare) is inconclusive. He states that Stiffarm and Lane supported Churchill's ideas and cite the journal of Francis A. Chardon. Lewy disagrees and states that Chardon's journal does not support this thesis and goes on to say that another scholar (who remains anonymous) drawing on newly discovered source material (which is not identified) has also refuted the idea of a conspiracy to harm the Indians (but doesn't elaborate on the refutation).

On reading the section "Deliberate Infection" in this article, I find the section has been written in an unbalanced way, pushing a POV that is not evident in Lewy's article and also provides an interpretation that is not supported.

Having said all that, Elizebeth A. Fenn's essay contains much more detail regarding the trader William Trent who submitted an invoice for the blankets and hankerchief with the following description:

To Sundries got to Replace in kind those which were taken from people in the Hospital to Convey the Smallpox to the Indians

This text ties the provision of the blankets and hankerchief with a desire to spread smallpox but Fenn's essay is equally inconclusive in tieing this event to a deliberate policy that resulted in deaths. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 14:26, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree that the section has been written in an unbalanced way, pushing a POV that is not evident in Lewy's article and also provides an interpretation that is not supported. My attempt to fix this have met uncompromising resistance. I will revert to the previous edit which is more balanced, as per the outcome of the third party. OoflyoO (talk) 20:00, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

User:HighKing, thank you for the input, but I'm having trouble seeing where you stand specifically on the matter for which a third opinion was requested. To recap, this edit by OoflyoO to the subsection titled "Deliberate infection" sparked the disagreement. The disagreement we are having can be summarized as:

One editor thinks we should add content about one event (a Fort Pitt incident) saying that the effectiveness of that specific attempt is unknown.
One editor thinks that adding that content is not only unnecessary (our article neither affirms nor denies the effectiveness), but is also WP:UNDUE as a round-about way of implying that those responsible for "attempting" biological warfare should not be held responsible for the thousands of deaths by smallpox that occurred shortly afterward.

I see you have discussed tangential matters like whether or not the political scientist Lewy is a reliable source, and an editor has suggested using Dixon instead. (It is worth noting that even Dixon states, "there is no doubt that British military authorities approved of attempts to spread smallpox among the enemy", and "it was deliberate British policy to infect the indians with smallpox". Pgs. 152-155.) I see you mention Fenn, who is not only an actual professor of American History, but also the Chair of the History department at University of Colorado. But all of this is beside the weight issue at hand. Is there justification for adding the proposed content (which will open the door for also adding all of the refuting content and evidence about that same isolated incident)? My opinion is no, it will appear to the reader that we are trying to insert Amherst/Trent/Gage/Ecuyer/Bouquet apologetics. I'd like to hear HighKing's position and accompanying reasoning. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 22:43, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi Xenophrenic, I had tried to make my reasoning clear in my previous posting. I attempted to provide my reasoning based solely on the references produced in that section - as that is the way it should be done. From the references provided it is clear that WP:UNDUE applies. Although I attempted to provide my reasoning based solely on the references produced, in following some of the references through, it is clear that this event has been written about by numerous academics and historians alike, and it also appears to produce contentious and divisive opinions. My conclusion is that there may well be a justification in including the event but it requires a rewrite into a neutral voice and the addition of other sources. In addition, I believe the current paragraph as written expresses a non-neutral point of view and unsupported opinions/conclusions and should be deleted. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 13:16, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

I believe HighKing has agreed yet again that 1) the older section is pushing a point of view 2) an inclusion (stating the result of the Fort Pitt blankets is "inconclusive") is justified. Please correct me if i misunderstood you. OoflyoO (talk) 01:13, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

You should get that clarified before pushing your edit into the article. Xenophrenic (talk) 08:50, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Citations from the other article:

https://books.google.com/books?id=UeaN0-Ra64oC&pg=PA152&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false

This says the epidemic wasn't likely caused by Ecuyer's distribution of blankets and that it was already decimating both Indians and Europeans.

"The most probable source of the smallpox epidemic that struck the Indians during the late summer of 1763 was not British perfidy but the Indians themselves, who contracted the disease while raiding isolated wilderness settlements."

https://books.google.com/books?id=lpEBUfQjoIAC&pg=PA195&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false

This reports similar accounts of smallpox having already existed at the settlements before.

http://people.umass.edu/derrico/amherst/lord_jeff.html

This is already used in this article but it's not quoted here having stated "some have doubted these stories". 93.106.50.229 (talk) 02:13, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

I've finally read the other provided references. This is certainly a divisive and contentious topic and different scholars have voiced different opinons. That said, all state (either directly or indirectly) that there is no evidence linking the provision of blankets and a hankerchief with the outbreak of smallpox. In this article, Elizabeth Fenn notes:

As the historian Michael McConnell has pointed out, it is possible and perhaps likely that the epidemic stemmed from multiple sources of infection. 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. While blame for this outbreak cannot be placed squarely in the British camp, the circumstantial evidence is nevertheless suggestive.

Additionally I note that in a related topic, the article Siege of Fort Pitt (and in particular the section entitled "Biological warfare involving smallpox") does not strike the required balance either.

Finally, it is worth reading the essay Verifiability, not truth to understand that Wikipedia must present a balance using references and by putting as much as possible into context. "Wikipedia articles are intented as intelligent summaries" and "we include all significant views on a subject".

Therefore, the onus is on us, as editors, to note that there is no evidence to support the theory that the provision of infected items lead to an outbreak of smallpox. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 16:32, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

I understand that you are trying to clarify your opinion, but your response has left me even more baffled. Specifically:

scholars have voiced different opinons. That said, all state (either directly or indirectly) that there is no evidence linking the provision of blankets and a hankerchief with the outbreak of smallpox

Yet in the same paragraph, you reprint where Fenn directly contradicts you and states, 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. There is certainly evidence, although much of it is circumstantial, and there obviously could have been other sources of infection as well - that has never been disputed. Perhaps you meant to say, "all scholars, except Fenn, state there is no evidence linking the epidemic to the actions at Fort Pitt"? But that would still fall short of accurately conveying what "all scholars" say, as noted elsewhere: After extensive review of surviving documentary evidence, historian Francis Jennings concluded the attempt at biological warfare was "unquestionably effective at Fort Pitt" (Jennings 1988); Barbara Mann deduced "it is important to note that the smallpox distribution worked" (Mann 2009); Howard Peckham noted the resulting fatal epidemic "certainly affected their vigorous prosecution of the war" (Peckham 1947); and Wheelis has concluded that while there may have been several simultaneous routes of transmission for the epidemic, and the effect of each attempt is impossible to determine, "the act of biological aggression at Fort Pitt is indisputable" (Wheelis 1999). So perhaps you meant to say, "all scholars, except Fenn, Jennings, Mann, Peckham, Wheelis and others, state there is no evidence linking the epidemic to the actions at Fort Pitt"?

the article Siege of Fort Pitt (and in particular the section entitled "Biological warfare involving smallpox") does not strike the required balance either

Really? I would be very interested in hearing in more detail your specific concerns with that content. I note that the Siege of Fort Pitt article says: A devastating smallpox epidemic plagued Native American tribes in the Ohio Valley and Great Lakes area through 1763 and 1764, but the effectiveness of individual instances of biological warfare remains unknown. That appears to be what some editors want emphasized here. And I note it also says: Dixon has suggested that the attempt to infect the Indians near Fort Pitt "may well have been a failure" (Dixon 2005), and Ranlet has speculated that "either the smallpox virus was already dead on the unpleasant gifts or that the presents simply failed to fulfill Trent's ardent desire to infect the Indians. (Ranlet 2000)" That also appears to be what some editors want emphasized in this article. Are you saying such content is un-balancing? Perhaps I am misunderstanding your use of the word "balance" here. I think it might be helpful if we reviewed Wikipedia policy (not an essay) regarding WP:FALSEBALANCE versus WP:BALANCE (both parts of the same core policy), when considering the proposed content here.

the onus is on us, as editors, to note that there is no evidence to support the theory that the provision of infected items lead to an outbreak of smallpox

Please propose the wording of such content, including reliable sources. And if you could, please indicate your position on whether we should also include, or try to hide, the arguments and reliable sources which refute that "no evidence to support the theory" position. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 18:49, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

I think my usefulness (if there was any) is nearing its end as I feel that I am starting to repeat what I've already stated and I also get the impression that in order to add to anything I've already stated, I need to get deeper into the topic (which is not my area). I say that it is unbalanced and fails NPOV mainly because of how the sections are worded. For example, one POV sentence states that "one" of the "most notorious and well-documented events" ... "concerns the Europeans' deliberate infection of indigenous peoples with diseases such as smallpox" yet there is a divide among the opinions of the selected sources as to the veracity of this statement. A casual reader of both this section in the current article and the Siege of Fort Pitt article would be given an impression that the Europeans deliberately infected Indians with smallpox and presents statements to this effect with the refutations, qualitifications (where presented at all) and lack of evidence as secondary information. To achieve "balance" and present a NPOV this needs to be addressed. You use the example of Fenn stating that the circumstantial evidence is highly suggestive but this is not used in any article, nor her qualifying statement that "blame for this outbreak cannot be placed squarely in the British camp". The choice of language used in the articles is highly unbalanced and suggestive. For example in the Fort Pitt article, Fenn "has observed" and Peckham "noted" - all positive verbs - whereas when referring to a refutation Dixon "has suggested" and Ranlet "has speculated" - chosen to imply doubt. Even the refutations are subsequently refuted. You also quote Jennings who comes closest to agreeing with the POV sentence I referred to above and states "Pitt rescued itself by infecting its besiegers with smallpox. The garrison presented negotiating Delaware chiefs with blankets from the smallpox hospital, thus starting a terrible epidemic amont the Delawares" (The Founders of America, pg 298), yet this doesn't appear in either article as far as I can see.

As a practical example in how to balance the text and present a neutral summary, the text should not use statements like the POV sentence I pointed out above, nor should the text take statements out of context or use "phrases in quotes" that have been picked out of context to support a particular POV. It should be written so that a casual reader could read the text and not leave with a particular POV as a result of the style of writing. You've asked me to suggest something more concrete. I've presented something for you to think about below. And I would change the heading from "Deliberate infection" to something like "Biological warfare".

One of the most well-documented events relating to biological warfare in the Americas concerns the attempt at Fort Pitt to spread smallpox among the neighbouring American Indians. The Journal of William Trent, who was the local militia commander, recorded the following transaction: "we gave them two Blankets and an Handkerchief out of the Small Pox Hospital. I hope it will have the desired effect." The tainted gifts were, according to the camp inventory accounts, given to the Indian dignitaries "to Convey the Smallpox to the Indians". While some writers such as Jennings are clear that the attempt to spread smallpox were successful and responsible for starting an epidemic, others cite the lack of evidence and are clear that blame cannot be placed solely at the British camp".

Not perfect I'm sure, but hopefully the example will clarify many of the points I raise above. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 19:18, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

One of the most notorious and well-documented events relating to disease depopulation in the Americas concerns the Europeans' deliberate infection of indigenous peoples with diseases such as smallpox.(Mayor 1995) Letters between two British officers, General Jeffrey Amherst and Colonel Henry Bouquet, explicitly advocate the idea of using smallpox-infested blankets to kill Indians at the Siege of Fort Pitt.(d'Errico 2010) Amherst suggests the distribution of blankets to "inocculate the Indians." Bouquet approves this plan and they agree "to try Every other method that can serve to Extirpate this Execrable Race." The Journal of William Trent, who was the local militia commander, recorded the following transaction: "we gave them two Blankets and an Handkerchief out of the Small Pox Hospital. I hope it will have the desired effect." The tainted gifts were, according to the camp inventory accounts, given to the Indian dignitaries "to Convey the Smallpox to the Indians", and were acknowledged and approved by the Fort Pitt commander and the Commander in Chief General Thomas Gage.(Peckhan 1947; Anderson 2000)

Thank you, HighKing, for that clarification of your position. We've both been repeating ourselves — or more accurately — rephrasing for clarity, and I think the process has finally managed to reveal some specific obstacles to finally resolving this specific issue. Before I continue, I'd like to thank you for the time you've already invested in researching the subject matter, and for sharing your thoughts, and for your patience as I've queried and prodded you on the matter. Your efforts are appreciated, even though I sometimes forget to express that appreciation while I'm busy pestering you for specifics and disagreeing with assertions during the discussion.

Obstacle (1): You say, "there is a divide among the opinions of the selected sources as to the veracity of this statement." A divide, perhaps, but the division is not down the center of the pie, as your proposed example re-wording would lead our readers to believe. Our WP:NPOV policy does not instruct us to write, for example, "While some writers such as Smith and are clear that the Earth is round, others cite the visual evidence all around them and are clear that the Earth is flat." "NPOV" doesn't mean "striking an appropriate balance" (a phrase I've seen used by both you and OoflyoO) between the academic consensus view and minority views, apologetic views, and fringe views. Presenting all views as "in balance" with each other misleads our readers, and actually goes against NPOV policy. When I look at your sample re-write and compare it to the existing text (see the box-quote above), I note that every mention of Amherst, Gage, and Bouquet (a General, the General's replacement, and a Commander, respectively) have been excised. I further note that their expressed intent and agreement to "extirpate" the race of natives was also excised. You also introduced the fact that there was an epidemic (true, but previously omitted), only to immediately explain away "blame" for it. I note an interesting use of attribution (to Jennings) to imply POV bias specific to him, while the contrary position is presented as supported by the nebulous "others", implying this fringe view enjoys wide support. It appears to me that your re-write paragraph pulls us farther from NPOV presentation than the present paragraph.

I understand that you only volunteered to give an opinion, and not to become an expert on this subject matter, but you've indicated that you have reviewed at least some of the relevant reliable sources. But even after just a cursory review, it should be evident to you that as soon as we expand the paragraph beyond the basic undisputed facts (British officers conspired to spread smallpox to the race of natives; British at Fort Pitt attempted it), you are opening an academic can of worms — and you can't pick and choose just the worm of your choice to add to the paragraph. We can certainly add content explaining that there was a devastating smallpox epidemic, but then we'll have to add the content that assigns blame for the carnage to the Fort Pitt blankets, and how effective it may or may not have been, which means we'll also have to add the content which dismisses or excuses the blame for a myriad of reasons (pox was already spreading from other sources - blankets are poor carriers of contagion - the recipients of the blankets didn't die), and then we'll have to include the even more recent scholarship which refutes the older refutations, and then we'll need to add the meta-scholarship which shows how efforts to hide or obfuscate the blame has been ongoing since 1763, up to and including the removal and destruction of archived historical records. There's even scholarship which dissects the special methods Amherst and his underlings used to handle their more damning and sensitive correspondence relating to these matters.

Obstacle (2): You say, "The choice of language used in the articles is highly unbalanced and suggestive." I absolutely agree, but that is required by our editing policies. The question you need to ask is, does the "unbalanced and suggestive" language come from Wikipedia editors (against policy), or is it actually conveyed by the reliable sources? When our Wikipedia articles discuss the "round" and "flat" points of view regarding Earth, they most certainly will be "unbalanced and suggestive" that the "flat" point of view is long-abandoned speculative belief compared to the scholarly consensus. And so they should be. So when you see this incident described as "infamous" or "notorious", are those the words of Wikipedia editors or do reliable sources (see Ranlet; Daybell and Gordon; etc.) consistently describe it as such? When you see a source's assertion prefaced by "has suggested or speculated", is it because Wikipedia editors have injected weasel words of doubt where there absolutely was no doubt, or was some doubt actually conveyed by the cited sources (see Dixon's "May..." or Ranlet's "suggests..." wording)? When the language in a Wikipedia article says, "Historian Bob says XYZ may have happened. Historian Joe later researched claims that XYZ may have happened, and discovered that it did not because of A, B and C", that is not POV wording; that is simply conveying the state of present scholarship. Or, to quote an essay you brought to our attention: Wikipedia's articles are intended as intelligent summaries and reflections of current published debate within the relevant fields, and maybe next year, the refutation of the refutation will itself be refuted. And our Wikipedia articles will eventually reflect that as well.

Anyway, by now your eyes are probably bleeding. I know that you have one foot out the door already, but I would like to suggest some wording changes later tonight and get your critical input on it, if I could impose upon you one more time. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 23:53, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Just checking back. Still can't see any suggested wording. I am still of the opinion that the style of my suggested edit (whether the names I quoted are used or not) fits the requirements. It is a succinct summary that captures both sides of the current argument without getting bogged down in detail or declaring a position either way. It is limited to the Fort Pitt incident as that is really all that is discussed in this article.

I get the impression based on what you're saying in your "Obstacle 1" paragraph that you believe the summary is inadequate. Perhaps. But I certainly don't agree that it is necessary to put in a blow-by-blow account, complete with refutations and counter-refutations, of the argument as might be presented at a debating society. This is not the job of Wikipedia.

Under Obstacle 2, you disagree with my assertion that the language used is inappropriately unbalanced and state that this is because the lanuage in the article reflects that of current reliable sources. Again, I disagree. The language used in this article reflects only one "side" of the debate and is highly suggestive and emotionally charged. You appear to be of the opinion (as per your example of "round" and "flat" earth) that scholars and historians are all in agreement that the British deliberately infected the native Indian population with smallpox and therefore the language used is justified, and the "others" are crackpots. From my (little) reading on the subject, the impression I was given is that while there is evidence that the British conspired to spread smallpox, the Fort Pitt incident appears to have occurred before the senior officers' approved the actions, and secondly that there is no evidence (beyond "circumstantial" evidence?) that there is a link between the smallpox outbreaks and the provision of infected items.

I am being given the impression that *your* opinion is that the British did, in fact, infect the native Indians and that the current scholarly view is that they agree with this POV. If current scholarly POV is as such, then perhaps I have been reading the wrong cited references. But if current scholarly thinking remains divided, then I'm afraid that what I have said previous hold true. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 13:07, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

I thought I had added the proposed wording to the article a week ago, but after reviewing the edit history, I see now that my edit wasn't saved. Please accept my apologies. I just now reconstructed my proposed wording (most of what I had, anyway) and placed it in the "Deliberate infection" subsection. Just a heads-up though: there is also significant expansion of the section. I basically converted it from a subsection only about the Spanish & Fort Pitt into a subsection on deliberate use of disease to infect indigenous peoples of the Americas. I've addressed a couple of your disagreements below, but they may be moot after the rework of the section. (I'm still considering how to improve the first paragraph - the "poison water" stuff, but I need to dig up some better sources.) Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 10:59, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

New wording based on above discussions

"You should get that clarified before pushing your edit into the article. Xenophrenic (talk) 08:50, 3 July 2016 (UTC)"

I quote the third Party Opionion, "...that there is no evidence to support the theory that the provision of infected items lead to an outbreak of smallpox. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 16:32, 6 July 2016 (UTC)"

We now have a third Party opinion and another, although unregistered user, who do not agree with you Xenophrenic. It sure does seem the consensus is to complete the Deliberate infection section by adding the additional information. Lets not filibuster indefinitely or refuse to allow any consensus except the one you insist on. OoflyoO (talk) 03:29, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Where do you see consensus to add the problematic edit you added? What you added certainly doesn't "complete the Deliberate infection section by adding the additional information"; you only added one-third of the information being discussed above. And by the way, you selectively quoted the 3rd party opinion, which also said, "...different scholars have voiced different opinons. That said, all state (either directly or indirectly) that there is no evidence linking the provision of blankets and a hankerchief with the outbreak of smallpox", which is demonstrably false. So when you say you wish to "complete the Deliberate infection section by adding the additional information", do you mean just Dixon's theory, or also the more prevalent theories? Xenophrenic (talk) 07:07, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

You will filibuster indefinitely. It is clear to anyone who reads that HighKing, the neutral third party opinion, did not agree with your position. OoflyoO (talk) 04:09, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

If by "filibuster indefinitely" you mean I will discuss matters until resolutions are achieved, then sure - you don't need to remind me of that simple fact, it's rather obvious. As for my positions, anyone is free to agree or disagree with them; but as for content in our articles, that is solely dependent upon reliable sources and Wikipedia policy, regardless of editor positions. Xenophrenic (talk) 10:59, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi - you say above that my statement is "demonstrably false". Can you please provide below the evidence that links the supply of infected items with the outbreak of smallpox. Or are you simply relying on the statement of "circumstantial" evidence by Fenn? -- HighKing⁺⁺ 13:09, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi, High. (Been dying to type that!) Sorry if I was unclear; the "demonstrably false" assertion was the blanket assertion (been dying to say that, too!) that all scholars "state" that there is no evidence linking attempts to infect with the epidemic. Many scholars (and even contemporary writers) do not state that, neither directly or indirectly, and simply express their conclusion that the epidemic (a fact) and attempts to deliberately infect the indigenous people (also a fact) are connected. Jennings, for example, stating affirmatively, "There is on record a fully documented case of deliberate British infection of enemy Indians with smallpox at Fort Pitt in 1763". Hopefully that is more clear. Now you also asked, Can you please provide below the evidence that links the supply of infected items with the outbreak of smallpox. Even if I could, it wouldn't matter - we need to base our content on what reliable sources provide, not what Wikipedia editors can provide. I don't have personal access to all "evidence" evaluated by the reliable sources making such affirmative statements. But taking your question as a hypothetical thought exercise: no, I can't - can such absolute "evidence" even logically exist? Are you asking if the actual blankets were found, and were positively identified by monogrammed labels as belonging to Trent, and were then tested in a lab which conclusively determined that they contained residual traces of the very same exact unique strain of pox found on the remains of natives known to have died precisely of that specific strain? I can't answer that, as it is not my field of expertise. All that aside, you claimed that ALL sources say there is no evidence, and I'm pointing out that such an assertion is false - all sources do not point it out. A few sources certainly do make that claim, of course, especially those strongly motivated to defend various actors (Lord Jeff specifically, or "the British" generally, or even more broadly "colonists" in general) and minimize, excuse or otherwise attempt to justify their depredations. I find those arguments most frequently in sources which also endeavor to argue against the describing of the conquest of the Americas as "genocidal". Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 10:59, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi Xeno, I've reverted the changes you made as per WP:BRD but mainly because despite what you said in your edit summary, it has not been agreed here on Talk. I'm especially dismayed that you have deliberately written your section to promote the view that there is no doubt that deliberate infections occurred. You have relied on hand-picked references (many of which are good, but can you really rely on a speech) to promote this single POV without producing any balancing research - despite lots of references discussed above. The current and contemporary view among scholars is what exacly? Is it that biological warfare was deliberately carried out, or that there were a lot of claims that it was carried out but none can point to real evidence? You mustn't push your own POV into this contentious area - which is what I believe you are now doing - and the section must be written in a balanced dispassionate voice putting forth *all* sides of the debate and not just the side you believe is the truth. Even if you don't like it. I have a very serious problem with the way you attempted to put your POV into the article despite what we've discussed here but that pales against the unbalanced nature of what you wrote. I believe you need to go back to the Third Opinion and ask for another to look at this. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 15:55, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't mind the revert at all, and my edit summary only said "see Talk" - it didn't imply that we have total agreement. Now let's see what your specific concerns are:

you have deliberately written your section to promote the view that there is no doubt that deliberate infections occurred

I disagree. To the contrary, the section lists some examples of the more notable "threats to deliberately infect" & "acts to deliberately infect" native peoples. As to the efficacy of those well-documented incidents, the article states: Whether the threats were carried out, or how effective individual attempts were, is uncertain. Just so we're clear, it isn't a "POV" that these threats were made, or that these actions were taken - those are simple historical facts, and the scholarship is quite uniform and uncontested on that point (unless you know of sources that I do not).

The current and contemporary view among scholars is what exacly? Is it that biological warfare was deliberately carried out...?

Yes, exactly. Even the most critical and apologetic sources at least agree on this as a minimum.

...or that there were a lot of claims that it was carried out but none can point to real evidence?

No one has claimed that there was no "real evidence" of actual germ-warfare attempts since Knollenberg's 1954 work, and even he subsequently issued a retraction and agreed there was evidence that the British tried to deliberately infect the natives around Fort Pitt. But that doesn't mean there isn't still a divergence of views; with the "you can't prove deliberate infection was tried" argument no longer tenable, the defenders of the Fort Pitt folks (to focus on that specific example) shifted to saying "Okay, the British tried biowarfare, but you can't 'prove' that they were effective, because the natives might have contracted the pox from any number of other sources - and besides they deserved it, after massacring poor settlers".

You mustn't push your own POV into this contentious area - which is what I believe you are now doing...

Oh, please stop. I don't have my "own POV" about this subject, and your suggestion is offensive. I've read extensively on this subject, so any POV you think you see is actually that conveyed by reliable sources. If you feel all reliably sourced views are not being fairly or properly conveyed, then please explain how so we can discuss it. But accusing a fellow editor of POV-pushing after asking what the "current and contemporary view among scholars is" in the same breath - wow. Please indicate to me what "balancing research" you feel needs to be added here, so it can be discussed and introduced to the article. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:03, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi Xeno. I came here to comment as a neutral third party. I've done that. I've no interest in becomming your fencing partner. I've explained numerous times above why the article is unbalanced. You choose not to take my views on board.

You asked at my Talk page to retract what you see as a personal attack by me above. Sorry to disappoint. My comments on your behaviour are not exaggerated and are clearly visible to all. It is (now) very clear to me that you are pushing a POV. One telling paragraph above begins "the defenders of the Fort Pitt folks ..." and this clearly draws the line between what your POV is, and others. I note with interest that now, above, you've decided to argue about "attempts" to infect as opposed to actual infections that were carried out. I believe you are incapable of writing the section in a neutral fashion and my advice is for you to step back and let someone else edit that section. I also believe that the sample section I produced above is closer to what is required for this article and I suggest it as a starting point. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 11:40, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your response, HighKing. Your response is indeed disappointing, but I've about run out of solutions. I was hoping to engage in a collaborative effort to develop and improve a section of this article, but your "fencing" remark tells me you are approaching this endeavor with an attitude incompatible with mine. Since you've chosen to make unsupported "comments on [my] behavior" in this discussion, rather than comments on article content, it would probably be best for us to disengage. You opined that the section was "unbalanced", to wit: I say that it is unbalanced and fails NPOV mainly because of how the sections are worded. For example, one POV sentence states that "one" of the "most notorious and well-documented events" ... "concerns the Europeans' deliberate infection of indigenous peoples with diseases such as smallpox" yet there is a divide among the opinions of the selected sources as to the veracity of this statement. So I took your views on board and removed the wording you deemed problematic (even when it was from reliable sources), and I also petitioned you for further input on POV concerns. You characterize that as "not taking your views on board". That's just weird, and I don't know how to interact with that. I've already explained to you that descriptions such as "Amherst apologists" and "defenders of the colonists at Fort Pitt" come directly and verbatim from reliable sources such as Mann and Ortiz, yet you fall right back to inaccurately mischaracterizing such verbiage as evidence of "my POV". That is also very weird, and leaves me at a loss as to how to respond. There is nothing I (or any editor, really) can do with that kind of disconnect. Your very words, ""attempts" to infect as opposed to actual infections that were carried out" reveal that you are still struggling to comprehend what reliable sources say about this subject matter. Sources say that attempts were made to infect the Native Americans with smallpox, and there is nothing more I can do to help you get your head around that fact - a fact that hasn't changed between the start of this discussion and now. I should have taken the hint when you had to ask me what the current view is among scholars on this subject. My bad.

Anyway, you were asked to provide a third opinion regarding adding a sentence from Commentary Magazine. As you say, you've done that. Thank you for your input. The subsequent discussions have been ... informative. I'm going to be undoing your recent revert of several paragraphs of well-sourced and neutrally presented content, much of it new, since you decline to provide specific reasoning for its removal. If you would like to reconsider and actually discuss that new content, rather than simply giving your "belief" that it is unbalanced while declining to explain specifically why, please let me know. In addition, if you would like to add content from your proposed sample that you mentioned, we can certainly consider that as well. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 19:33, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

I was asked to comment based on what had already been written. I did that. I read the citations that were in the article and even read one or two others. I reverted your amendments to the article because it wasn't agreed here. Still isn't as far as I can see.

As an easy test, if a reader happened upon this section before I expressed my opinion, I have no doubt that a reader would be left with an impression that "Deliberate Infections" took place, and that "one of the most notorious and well-documented events" was that of Fort Pitt - even though having read the references relating to Fort Pitt, this is (in my opinion) a false view and one not reflective of the sources. This is the opinion I attempted to express although I get the impression that I failed to get this across or it was not understood or accepted.

The references that I read which were included in the article are all very measured in what they say. None that I read state as "factually" as the tone in this section that deliberate infections took place. You state that you took my views on board - and as a result you've expanded the section (unnecessarily in my view) but the "tone" has not changed and many "statement of fact" phrases are still used. This is not a neutral method of presenting a contentious subject such as this.

As a suggestion, you could preface some of the statements so that they are not read as "statements of fact". For example, sentences could read as "Some historians such as Jennings state that documented accounts ...etc". I am also of the opinion that citing books written 60 or 70 years ago in order to include "quotes" from people at the time is contradictory to the ideal of using current and contemporary sources.

You state above that I'm still struggling with "attempts" as opposed to "actual infections" - I don't think I am.

You express surprise that I asked about the current and contemporary view on deliberate infections and in response you stated "Yes, exactly. Even the most critical and apologetic sources at least agree on this as a minimum." Can you expand please? What exactly do all sources agree on? If that can be reduced to a simple statement like "Contemporary and current historians agree that deliberate infections took place [at X and Y]", fantastic! Progress!

As a final comment, overall your suggested amendment is overly long and in my opinion still takes too much material out of context and is weighted towards an attempt at leaving a reader with the impression that there is a lot more agreement on the matter of "deliberate infections" than actually exists among historians (from my limited reading of the references provided in this article). -- HighKing⁺⁺ 20:25, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

I am in complete agreement with you HighKing and have reverted to the last stable version that reached consensus (with 2 editors + your third opinion makes it 3 vs 1 for the consensus). However, I believe he will ignore consensus once again. OoflyoO (talk) 20:37, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

The trouble is that other than the Fort Pitt incident there is no other documented case of any attempt to infect Indians with smallpox.

Thus the following from the main text is nonsense:

"Documented accounts of incidents involving both threats and acts of deliberate infection are numerous, and may have occurred more frequently than scholars have previously acknowledged.[33][34] Many of the instances likely went unreported, and it is possible that documents relating to such acts were deliberately destroyed,[34] or sanitized.[35][36] "

Firstly there are not 'numerous documented accounts' there is only one. Secondly the rest of the text is 100% meaningless unevidenced speculation. Logically one might as well write that Indians were possibly victims of unreported abductions by aliens. The absence of evidence leaves the door open for anyone to claim and write anything - surely not approved Wikipedia practice.

The whole thing would better (i.e. more accurately and factually) read:

"Documented accounts of incidents involving both threats and acts of deliberate infection are scarce".

Cassandra. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.74.233.22 (talk) 12:59, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Population history of indigenous peoples of the Americas. 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:

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.—InternetArchiveBo t (Report bug) 17:24, 25 December 2017 (UTC)