Talk:1793 Philadelphia yellow fever epidemic

Format

The Format of this page has been severely changed for the worse. What happened? Rfts (talk) 03:48, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

This page needs to broaden its sources. I wrote about the epidemic several years ago and since then, thanks to Google Books, many of the primary sources I used are now available on-line. Let me add that fever was the cancer of that day and the books and pamphlets written on the epidemics are many and prolix. If I ever get the time it would be fun to try to redo the page based on those sources alone. In my own writing, the private letters of the period, especially Rush's and a thick file of letters written by Quakers formed my take on the epidemic. Unfortunately, with Wikipedia style editing demanding strict sourcing, it is rather difficult to get to that reality of the epidemic because the sources are not published, save for most of the letters Rush wrote. Perhaps more important are the letters written to him. Bob Arnebeck (what I wrote on Rush and the several yellow fever epidemics he fought is at http://bobarnebeck.com/fever1793.html) Arnebeck (talk) 02:46, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Vandalized?

vandalized. it said the fever outbreak was in 1762 and the page is dated (you know what i mean i don't have time to explain) in 1793 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.44.25.158 (talk) 20:37, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Needs review and editing

I eliminated a paragraph on Israel Israel because I've yet to find a contemporary witness signalling him out for his service. He was an active member of the mayor's committee but no one called him a "saint." Despite his name, he was not Jewish. He also had political ambitions and perhaps contemporaries thought his services not entirely disinterested. (Arnebeck (talk) 04:16, 11 March 2012 (UTC))

Beginning the last week of January, 2012, I started trying to rewrite this. Everything not using the Murphy book as a source is new. It takes time. (Arnebeck (talk) 01:43, 29 January 2012 (UTC))

This whole page needs to be reviewed and edited for both grammar and readability, particularly towards the end. It reads like a child's school report in places. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.57.150.59 (talk) 18:45, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

It also has too much OR - Original Research; however much the editors may have enjoyed using primary sources to construct their history, they are supposed to use secondary sources, according to Wikipedia policy.Parkwells (talk) 15:39, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

That is because the main reference is Murphy's An American Plague. This book is rated for grades 6-10. A better one is The American Plague by Molly Crosby. There are others on Yellow fever, including Bring Out Your Dead: The Great Plague Of Yellow Fever In Philadelphia In 1793 by J. H. Powell. In addition, the section on Afro-Americans as nurses is wrong. It gives the impression that the Afro-Americans were charging high rates to be nurses, even Murphy's book makes it clear that it was mostly white Americans who were doing this. I've read both as well as others on yellow fever in America. The statement that Napoleon sent 33,000 troops to "America" to establish claims to New Orleans also gives the wrong impression that that is where they went. They were sent to Santo Domingo (present day Haiti and the Dominican Republic) where they and numerous reinforcements died. I gave up editing WP pages on this disease when some of my work on Yellow Fever was deleted off that page and I discovered it too late to do an "Undo." Now I just stick to insects and military history. Thomas R. Fasulo (talk) 02:43, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, French troops were sent to Saint-Domingue to try to put down the slave rebellion still underway in 1794, but the yellow fever epidemic in Philly was prior to Napoleon's trying to regain control of the island. He sent more than 20,000 troops in 1802-1803. Most died on the island from yellow fever, and secondarily of warfare; the 7,000 survivors were withdrawn in late 1803. Haiti declared independence as a republic in 1804.Parkwells (talk) 15:39, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Grotesque oversight

This page referring to the Yellow Fever epidemic of 1793 is sorely lacking. Nowhere are the contributions that the Free African Society made to the city mentioned. Mistreated and abused by their white “equals,” they still had no hesitation to help the whites when many other whites fled the city in fear. The society volunteered their time, money, and risked their lives to help their fellow man, woman, and child. The strong and courageous leaders of this organization, Absalom Jones and Richard Allen personally walked the plague ridden streets to find where they were most needed. Richard Allen even contracted the illness himself. Only one hero of this story has been highlighted in this encyclopedia, Israel Israel. It is true that he did his fair share of helping the sickly, dying, and homeless; however, he certainly is not the only person that deserves praise or glorification. One of your listed references, An American Plague by Jim Murphy, contains all of the necessary information on the contributions the Free African Society made during this dark time in American history. I am not African American but still I am an American as were the woman and men of the Free African Society who sacrificed so much to return right back to the bottom of the heap in social standing as soon as the plague faltered. These people were the true Americans during this epidemic, as were many others not highlighted in your article. It was somewhat expected back then that they would never receive the gratitude of those who safely waiting out the epidemic far from the city. But in the year 2010 to still not have all their efforts seen, heard, and appreciated is a further tragedy. So what needs to be done is historically accurate, balanced, and fair mention of all those who pulled America out from the brink of destruction. Starting with the Free African Society who deserve the right to have their heroic actions acknowledged. Thank you, Jodi —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.146.150.69 (talk) 10:36, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestion and it would be great if you would contribute from Murphy's An American Plague. Some content has been added and more is needed; a demonstration of why RS- reliable sources/secondary sources should be used rather than primary sources. This article is based too much on OR of primary sources. Parkwells (talk) 16:30, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I've studied this and the other yellow fever epidemics extensively. Many secondary sources are not accurate. Murphy's book is a nice read for the adolescent audience it is designed for, but it is not accurate. History must be based on primary sources and many of those sources are now on-line. I have read all of the primary sources I've referenced and my selection of the parts I use is not haphazard. Someone else who has read the sources can select and shape the material differently, but you shouldn't undo what I've done with references to books like Murphy's. If you want I can add references from my own on-line books about the epidemic but you would disallow that as being self-serving. You owe it to the people who suffered through their epidemic to let their voices be heard.Arnebeck (talk) 04:04, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Please see WP:PRIMARY for a description of Wikipedia policy regarding the use of primary sources. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:09, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Agree; it may be unfortunate that more primary sources have not been used in histories, but this is not the place for you to create such an article. See WP:NOR - Do not base articles and material entirely on primary sources.Parkwells (talk) 20:36, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

No wonder the Wikipedia is generally so inaccurate. I can pair a secondary source to almost every primary reference but not all because most historical treatment of this epidemic has been piecemeal and like a chain of rumors inaccuracies seem to get magnified. That will take more time, and I will do it, if that is kosher. By the way the sole source of the previous article was Murphy's book for high school students. Is that the level of referencing and the level of research Wikipedia is after? Finally, believe me, what I have written is not original research. But because I have done original research I'm able to use primary sources to illuminate a more or less standard narrative of the epidemic. Since many primary sources are now on line, they are more accessible than most secondary sources about this epidemic. The Wikipedia policy is backward and without a change the Wikipedia will tend even more, especially in its US history and US biography articles, to become a melange of inaccuracy.Arnebeck (talk) 15:23, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

The level of referencing requirements are described in WP:RS. If you are uncertain as to whether content you have added or want to add would be regarded as original research here, you can always post a question at Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:00, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Coastal city of Philadelphia?

I live in Philly and I have to drive an hour and a half to get, as the locals say, down the shore.

I have changed this to port city. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.32.58.131 (talk) 02:16, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I started a page on "A Short Account of the Malignant Fever." i am looking for suggestions on how to improve the page and keep it growing. Please take a look. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kpilkington (talk • contribs) 03:33, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Merge proposal

I don't think editors have identified sufficient independent material for the article A Short Account of the Malignant Fever, based on a pamphlet published the year of the epidemic. Its notability is not established, the article is an orphan, and considerable overlap is developing related to the main article on the epidemic, Yellow Fever Epidemic of 1793. I recommend this be merged with this main article, in order to avoid errors and duplication of content. If sufficient content is developed from reliable secondary sources for the pamphlet, a separate article could later be created for it. Parkwells (talk) 16:02, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

As of this date, the purpose of the article on Carey's Account seems to be to highlight his criticisms of the black nurses. In this article, I have added a paragraph on Carey's criticisms and Allen and Jones reply to it in their Account. Carey's Account is obviously a good source for what happened during the epidemic, but I don't think any article on the epidemic should be merely a summary of his Account. He wrote in large measure to restore the pride of Philadelphia and contrasted the city's rational response after an initial panic with the cruel ostracism accorded to refugees from the city. He left the city on business himself for a few weeks. As Allen and Jones admit, and as other sources indicate, there were abuses by black nurses. Allen and Jones point out that many whites were just as bad. Emerging victorious from a civic trial and settling scores along the way is not what the epidemic was about, and raising Carey's Account to the level of a classic and thus deserving an article in its own right, in my opinion, only confuses a good understanding of the epidemic. In the article I used several primary sources that are now on the web: Carey, Rush, Deveze, Allen and Jones, and the Mayor's Committee's Minutes. Needless to say much could be written about each source but I don't think this is the place for that. (Arnebeck (talk) 09:03, 20 March 2012 (UTC))

That was my impression as well, which is also why I thought it should be merged into this article, where the overall issues could be dealt with through secondary sources. The primary sources can be identified and added as External Links, but WP editors are not supposed to be writing their own interpretations based on them, as that is Original Research (OR). We need to use published secondary sources by recognized scholars. Parkwells (talk) 18:37, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Rush treatment

The following is the beginning of a contribution: "Rush actually cuased some deaths even if people thought they were cured." FOR MORE INFO read Fever 1793 by Laurie Halse Anderson. - Please get to know the guidelines for inline citations; book information needs to include location and name of publisher, publication date, and page number of the reference. Book titles are italicized. Thanks!Parkwells (talk) 18:38, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Quakers and Yellow Fever

So, the information included here about the Quaker reaction to Yellow Fever is not right. That source cannot be correct. The Arch Street Meeting House wasn't built until 1804 so the yearly meeting was certainly not having their meeting in that space. Drgreengrass (talk) 00:26, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Got a citation on that? It'd be a starting point on improving the article. Of course, if both are correct, we'll need to expand the time travel article.Wzrd1 (talk) 07:11, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Per the Arch Street Meetinghouse history on its website <https://www.historicasmh.org/history-1>: "The East Room and central meeting space were built in 1804 and the West Room followed in 1811."Parkwells (talk) 19:27, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Short citations

This article is crying out for short citations because there are lots of primary sources that are repeatedly cited in the References section, e.g. Carey appears at least 10 times, refs. 17, 20, 27, 30, 36, 41, 43, 44, 45, 47, 61. Rather than defining the source multiple times, the whole thing can be simplified using shortened footnotes that link you straight to the book citations down below. I can do that today unless there are any objections?

P.S. In response to previous discussions above, I would say it's fine to use these particular primary sources because they are authoritative, high-quality, etc., and (for the most part) published by a reputable publisher. See WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD.

Rodney Baggins (talk) 08:50, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

I agree that this article desperately needs shortened footnotes. Whoever originally cited it seemed to do so in the Chicago format, which is nice for a paper, but makes reading a Wikipedia article very confusing. I would also suggest either adding a citation or changing the information in the lead section about "5,000 or more people were listed in the official register of deaths..." since it is directly contradicted at the end of the article where 4,044 people are listed. Additionally, adding citations to the information given in the picture/media descriptions might help with their reliability as well. K8t3s (talk) 03:45, 5 February 2024 (UTC)