Talk:Smallpox in Australia

Origin of this page

This page has been created, following a SPLIT notice in May 2021, by transferring here a largely-chronological account of the scholarly debate upon Aboriginal "smallpox" epidemics in Australia. This account was originally inside the History Wars site as a section called "Controversy over Smallpox in Australia", but it had grown too long and complex for its then position. It was moved here almost unchanged, and is to be replaced (in its original site) by a briefer piece more relevant to the "History Wars".

This new page is intended to be the main (i.e. most detailed) coverage of a longstanding and still ongoing debate, largely between academic experts in history and medicine, over the history of smallpox outbreaks in Australia, and especially over the origins of those outbreaks in early colonial days that so profoundly affected Aboriginal people. Readers can conveniently be referred here from the briefer or more specialized articles at the following locations:

History of Australia especially the section on Disease,

History of smallpox especially the section on Australia,

Smallpox especially the section on Biological Warfare,

and of course this article's original site in History Wars, viz.:

Controversy over Smallpox in Australia.

The reasons for moving this article to its present free-standing site were set out in the TALKS page for this last site. They include that this lengthy historical account of the scholarly debate

is in the wrong place! All that is required here in the “History Wars” area is an account of those sections of the controversy that constitute a moralized or politicized debate about the culpability of the colonists. In fact, the present article reveals that much of the debate to date has been nearer to a respectful scholarly exchange between epidemiologists and historians puzzled or troubled by what Frank Fenner called “the scanty data available”.

Marcasella (talk) 12:08, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Since the material from the section "Controversy over Smallpox in Australia" was moved to here, there were notices posted requesting that it be broken into thematic sections, which has now been done, and that it be made less like a research paper (also, I hope now done). Marcasella (talk) 23:43, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Contested deletion

This article should not be speedy deleted as being recently created, having no relevant page history and duplicating an existing English Wikipedia topic, because... (your reason here) --Marcasella (talk) 13:05, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Please note the relevant reasons stated on the article's TALKS PAGE. (See below re ===Origin of this page===)

Please note also that the article is not a new article but has been transferred here from the History Wars site following a SPLIT notice. As suggested on its Talks page (see below), it had become several times longer and far more comprehensive than the brief entries cited at three other sites. It is surely better to have one major article that covers the issue thoroughly, while allowing other sites to cover those parts of the issue most clearly relevant to their individual remits.

This point was mentioned in the now-closed discussion on the SPLIT Notice there, which seems to produce no dissent:

An excuse for the delay is that I began by imagining that the split should involve not just removing the main article from here but combining it into one of the other two less-comprehensive articles. But it became clear that the job of “marrying” the materials would prove daunting. I now believe a simpler solution will be much better, viz.: Remove the present article almost unchanged to a potentially free-standing article, titled perhaps The 1789 and 1830 smallpox epidemics in Australia: consequences, controversies and uncertainties.

Note that I did not originate the SPLIT notice, and am simply trying to carry it out in what seems a useful and appropriate way.

===Origin of this page=== (from the article's TALKS page)

This page has been created, following a SPLIT notice in May 2021, by transferring here a historical account of the scholarly debate upon Aboriginal "smallpox" epidemics in Australia. This account was originally inside the History wars site as a section called "Controversy over Smallpox in Australia". It has been moved here almost unchanged, and replaced by a briefer piece more relevant to the "History Wars".

This new page is intended to be the main (i.e. most detailed) argument on these controversies and unresolved problems. Readers can conveniently be referred here from the briefer or more specialized articles at the following locations:

History of Australia especially the section on Disease,

History of smallpox especially the section on Australia,

Smallpox especially the section on Biological Warfare,

and of course this article's original site in History Wars, viz.:

Controversy over Smallpox in Australia.

The reasons for moving this article to its present free-standing site were set out in the TALKS page for this last site. They include the argument that this lengthy historical account of the scholarly debate

is in the wrong place! All that is required here in the “History Wars” area is an account of those sections of the controversy that constitute a moralized or politicized debate about the culpability of the colonists. In fact, the present article reveals that much of the debate to date has been nearer to a respectful scholarly exchange between epidemiologists and historians puzzled or troubled by what Frank Fenner called “the scanty data available”.

Marcasella (talk) 13:05, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Discussion that created this article is being contested

I am contesting the close of Talk:History wars#Split proposal. Please join the discussion if you wish to participate. Do not reply here. --Xurizuri (talk) 00:43, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Removal of the “Multiple Issues” notice?

I hope I have almost finished the task that I volunteered for some months ago–it seemed simple at the time! This was to split out from the overlong section on Smallpox on the History Wars page a single stand-alone article on Smallpox in Australia.

Would some more senior editor please check if the two remaining notices, about “Research Paper” and about “Original Research” should still apply?

Below are my own remarks on these two issues:

Marcasella (talk) 05:09, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

About the Research paper notice

The first draft of this new page led to a request to divide it up into sections (it had previously been one long loosely-chronological history of contributions to the debate). This division into sections has now been carried out (and I have removed the notice requesting this).

In the process I hope I have also translated into readable English most of the more indigestible bits of scholarly prose. (It is largely an account of a debate between academic experts.)

I have made one significant collocation with the shorter account at the History of Smallpox#Australia. The debate between Warren and his supporters versus Carmody and Fenner etc re whether the “variolous matter” in the surgeons’ inoculation jars could still have contained live smallpox virus in March or April 1789 seems interminable and unresolvable. I have inserted three sentences from the History of Smallpox site that more briefly establish the general point that there was an unresolved debate, and that it is unclear if the virus could have survived so long. Though some details of this debate have been removed, the footnotes that are retained will give access to most of them. With this one exception, I suggest that no major section of this complex debate should be omitted or significantly pruned.

Marcasella (talk) 05:09, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

About “Original Research”

This article’s subject-matter raises some slightly unusual problems. We need to describe an as-yet-unresolved debate, where there are at least three major incompatible theories still in play (plus sub-variants of each). Worse, even the best-documented secondary sources, like Campbell and Dowling and Carmody/Hunter, are themselves often committed to just one of these theories. I hope the article now steers fairly safely though the resulting dangers, but improvements are always possible. The article makes extensive use of the main secondary sources, noting where and why they agree or disagree, and tries to avoid arbitrating between them or suggesting any possibilities not already argued for in one or more of those sources.

2 important points to note:

1. For the 1789 outbreak the “scanty data” (Fenner’s phrase) consist essentially of a few vivid paragraphs a-piece from 5 contemporary observers: Hunter, Collins, Bradley, Tench, and Arthur Phillip. As one would expect, all the major secondary sources cite most or all of these paragraphs, and often to much the same effect. But the original primary-source testimonies are more vivid than the secondary summaries. Hence, I hope it is reasonable to quote some of these primary testimonies, eg. from Tench re how “Pustules, similar to those occasioned in the smallpox, were thickly spread on the bodies” in paragraph one. If necessary these references could all be replaced by “as cited by” references to secondary sources, but the choice of which secondary source to cite would often be rather arbitrary. It would be good to hear, from more senior editors than myself, that in this particular case the citing of primary sources has been acceptable. (There are, of course, plenty of adjacent footnotes to secondary sources, and there is often already a double footnote, citing both a primary source and at least one secondary source in which the same quotation is reproduced.)

2. About Cumpston. One of the most obvious secondary sources to cite, is Cumpston’s 1914 History of smallpox in Australia. Though over 100 years old, his book is the one of the very few major secondary sources that is not attached to a particular theory. It assembles and comments on the evidence for a range of theories about the 1789 outbreak, and in fact it emphasises the 3 major theories still in play (yet without firmly committing to any one of them). These are: broadly

a. that the 1789 disease was smallpox and recently arrived overland from Macassan outposts in Australia, or

b. that it was smallpox and brought (in some fashion) by the First Fleet, or

c. that it was not smallpox but “varicella” (or some such disease other than smallpox).

The more recent secondary sources are much more polarized, and Cumpston’s uncommitted stance may not have endeared him to some of them. Also, Cumpston’s use of what are now little-used medical terms plus what ADB calls his “gritty” style of painstaking documentation make his book slow reading. Yet it cites and comments upon some highly relevant pieces in early Australian medical journals. Some of this material (e.g. re Busby’s debate with Mair) may be unfamiliar to those aware only of the later secondary texts, but its relevance seems clear. Note that this article’s references to or quotations from this material are not “original research”. All this material comes from, and is clearly referenced to, Cumpston’s History.

For the rest, the article follows the obvious secondary sources: mainly Judy Campbell and C.C. Macknight for the Macassan theory; Dowling’s 2021 Fatal Contact for the smallpox theories (with unspecified origin) but also for numerous other pieces of historical information; Hingston and Fenner on the smallpox versus chickenpox debate; Wright, Ford, Carmody, Hunter, etc for the modern chickenpox theory; Butlin and the independent scholar Chris Warren for the important germ-warfare variant of the “brought by the British” hypothesis, and Willis for a sample of right-wing (but scholarly) counter-argument to this theory.

Marcasella (talk) 05:07, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Still needs work

It has been several years now, and this page still needs work; see WP:ENCYCLOPEDIC and in particular WP:NOTESSAY and WP:NOTTEXTBOOK. Fascinating reading for sure, but really not a Wikipedia page. It needs to be turned into one, starting with a proper lead. As it is, it comes across as a very detailed academic debate that was a part of some larger work. It needs a consistent referencing style, instead of what currently appear to be three different styles. And it probably needs to be layered to accommodate readers ranging from casual to focused. Betterkeks (talk) 21:04, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

True enough. I'll have a go at creating a proper lead, and a layered structure.

We have the problem that the best sources do not agree.

@Marcasella: That disagreement is noteworthy I think, and could be mentioned, if you want. But here you’re merely an observer, so it’s not a problem for you because you don’t need to, nor get to, solve it here. Disagreements don’t stop you from reporting on them, nor are you forced to or even ABLE to pick sides. It is liberating. Betterkeks (talk) 00:33, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

As noted above, this means that: "We need to describe an as-yet-unresolved debate, where there are at least three major incompatible theories still in play (plus sub-variants of each). Worse, even the best-documented secondary sources, like Campbell and Dowling and Carmody/Hunter, are themselves often committed to just one of these theories."

@Marcasella: I don’t know if you need to. Rather, you’re free to 😀. But if you do, the page as a whole still needs to be consumable by anyone that can’t or chooses not to follow you into those details. Betterkeks (talk) 00:33, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

A layered structure that separates a fairly-well-agreed narrative from the (necessary) details of the debates may be the answer? Marcasella (talk) 14:06, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

@Marcasella: Yes, I think so. But even the most detailed layer, if you choose to keep it, could only describe the debate. It cannot resolve it because that would be WP:OR. And you’re free to do that original research where you’re rewarded for it, outside Wikipedia, but then as a participant you have WP:COI. Betterkeks (talk) 00:33, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Sorry for delay in creating proper Lede etc, as I promised. Have been overseas and travelling hard for two months. Will get on to it now. Marcasella (talk)