Talk:Black Death

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Black Death article.
Article policies
Archives: 1
Good article Black Death has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
Article assessment An assessment of this article took place along with other articles about Natural disasters during the week starting 20 February 2006.
This article was selected on the Medicine portal as one of Wikipedia's best articles related to Medicine.
This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Version 0.5
 This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.
Other languages WikiProject Echo has identified Black Death as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the Swedish language Wikipedia.
Archive
Archives
Talk:Black Death/Archive 1: 2004 - June 30, 2006


Contents

[edit] Legendary?

"The legendary unproduced Hollywood script "Harrow Alley" is set during the 1665 plague outbreak in London." if this is so legendary, why no article on Wikipedia?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.86.134.79 (talk) 21:32, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ring Around the Rosy

Isn't that Ring Around the Rosy story a legend? I thought it wasn't actually connected to the Black Death. I'll see if I can find out where I read that... Adam Bishop 05:37, 9 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Yup, it's a myth. Reference at Snopes -- Someone else 05:46, 9 Aug 2003 (UTC)
The history textbook we used in high school specifically attributed the origin of the rhyme to the Black Death, and I'm going to trust the author of that text over the author(s) of an apocryphal website. I can attempt to rebut Snopes' arguments upon request, but let it suffice to say for now that they're by no means airtight. --Smack 17:05, 11 May 2004 (UTC)
Umm... Snopes is hardly apocryphal. It's one of the most reputable sites on the Web, and it always has a bibliography/list of references to go along with its articles. Meanwhile, you can dredge up any number of criticisms of high school textbooks wherein they are accused of perpetuating misleading or outright false information. I would easily trust Snopes over any high school textbook. Furthermore, I see no problems with Snopes' arguments or methods. I think you and the writer of your high school textbook need to spend some time with Occam's Razor.--John 02:55, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Well it definitely fooled my medievil history professor then, she said it originated from the black plague too. --Jelligraze 02:20, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
So we're just supposed to take it on faith that your medieval history prof knows what she's talking about? We don't know where she teaches, how reputable she is, what her personality or research methodologies are like, and only the vaguest idea about her credentials. We don't even know that your prof actually said such a thing or that you even have a prof at all; we just have the writings of a more-or-less anonymous person on the Internet. Please feel free to cite an actual, verifiable source next time. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.22.234.213 (talk) 23:57, 25 April 2007 (UTC).

"Some ships didn't have anyone alive when they reached their port" ...um, that's right! just a grinning skeleton manning the wheel. Imagine the over-all training for critical perception offered at this cultural level! Wetman 22:34, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I know, it's very 'Pirates of the Caribbean' isn't it? xD and, I'm with Snopes.

Basically, Snopes is trustable on this topic. I think the subject is closed; Ring Around A Rosie can't be attributed to the Black Plague.

Actually, I thought that ring around the rosie referred to smallpox.

And I've always heard that Ring Around the Rosie referred to the crowds of onlookers in attendance at public hangings in England (for yet another twist on the story). Labyrinth13 21:11, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

The actual term "Ring Around the Rosie" refers to the ring that would form around the inflamated limphnodes when a person contracted the Black Death. "Pocket Full of Posie" is when the people who didn't have the Black Death would carry around posie to keep out the smell of rotting flesh. "Ashes, Ashes" is refering to the burnination of the corpses. "We All Fall Down" is obviously when every body died.70.149.171.27 (talk) 16:53, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that with the collections of folk music and writing on the origins of folk music, this particular interpretation can't be found before the 20th century, and the tune itself before the 1790's. There's a good article Ring Around the Rosie article has the detail. The story of it's origin in the Black Death was too good to check for some writers. patsw 01:56, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

The song Ring around the Rosie is actully related to The Black Death. It has something to do with children having their pockets filled with posies,people burning dead peoples bodies, and then them getting sick and dying. January 27 2008 16:19 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.89.234.40 (talk) 22:19, 27 January 2008 (UTC) Actually, ring aroung the rosie refers to sick kids dancing. the posies mean that they are peeing blood.

[edit] A Few Suggestions

I have a few suggestions that I think would make the article much more comprehensive:

  • I think a map of the spread of the plague (using arrows or colors) would be great, and they seem to be common in all of the books I have read.
  • I think there should be a lot more about the hygiene and diet of the medieval Europeans, as it was a major factor in the diease's spread. Isn't this the reason it doesn't happen in modern times, after all, we are not vaccinated for it.
  • I think we can also spend much more time talking about the statistics in "Depopulation". For example, I know there are in fact many varying opinions of the mortality rate, many much higher or lower than 25 million. It should also be mentioned where and how hard it hit (i.e. was the mortality uniform throughout Europe, are there areas of particular interest that were ravaged/spared and why?).
  • Also, there seems to be a "Alternate Explanations" section, but no there is no major discussion of the Yersinia pestis theory before it. It should include how it is spread, how communicable it is, the relative mortality, and others pertinent to the main theory itself.

Thats all I have for now, I will contribute more (to the actual article again) once I'm not so busy. I've noticed there have been some changes for the better recently, so this is not meant to be a criticism, but a suggestion. So carry on! --Dmcdevit 23:35, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

"On some ships no one remained alive when they reached their port."

I see an almost scary absence of logic in that sentence. If someone can justify not removing it, please do so.

++

I think a few notes on earlier occasions of "plague" may be in order. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicles record a series of "plagues" between 526 and 1087 CE (particularly in 664 CE) afflicting England, but as with the Black Death the cause or causes are disputed (anthrax, cholera, bubonic plague). There were also numerous outbreaks of pestilence in the classical world (Athens c. 400 BCE among others). The vagueness over the causes would serve to illustrate the susceptibility of historical cultures to disease and the difficulty in in establishing their origins.

Additionally, it has been suggested changes in agricultural practises, specifically longer and better ploughs, may have facilitated the bringing of bacterium, viruses and spores to the surface of the soil. This may be sufficient for a major pestilence alone, or it may have also resulted in the disruption and displacement of ground dwelling rodent populations and resulted in higher human-rodent contacts as the animals were forced to seek food in grain stores. Dobson, A. (1992), People and disease, in Jones, S., Martin, R., Pilbeam & D. (Eds), The Cambridge Encyclopaedia of Human Evolution. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 12 Feb. 2007

This is off topic, but it probably wasn't just christians that burned jews and stuff. I mean, everyone probably thought they were doing witchcraft or whatever if the jews weren't dieing.

[edit] On some ships no one remained alive when they reached their port

How do you get a ship into a port without anyone alive to do it? Jackliddle 01:14, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thet's a really good question. I guess the wind took some to port; probably most ships infected with the black death would just sink.

Skeleton crew. -- Stbalbach 15:25, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Yersinia pestis as cause

Yersinia pestis is generally thought to be guilty of the Black Death.

One extensive reference is Yersinia pestis--etiologic agent of plague RD Perry and JD Fetherston

Clinical Microbiology Reviews, Jan 1997, 35-66, Vol 10, No. 1

http://mmbr.asm.org/cgi/ijlink?linkType=ABST&journalCode=cmr&resid=10/1/35

Meanwhile the thought that Y. pestis is not the cause of the Black Death floats around with few takers, but refuses to die.

Here is a recent article expressing that idea.

Lancet Infect Dis 2002 Jun;2(6):323

Comment in: Lancet Infect Dis. 2002 Aug;2(8):459.

Yersinia seeks pardon for Black Death.

Paterson R. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12144891&dopt=Abstract

Publication Types: Historical Article News

PMID: 12144891 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

hth

Your statement about no takers isn't necesarily true. While I'm not well versed in the Black Death, we've been studying it in my Western European history course at Concordia University. My professor mentioned that while Y.Pestis is in majority viewed as the cause, the argument against this belief is gaining momentum.
One of the flagship papers countering this belief is The Black Death; End of a Paradigm by Samuel K. Cohn Jr.
While it is by no means definitive proof that Y. Pestis was not the culprit, it presents some very compelling arguments and should be looked into before considering the debate closed. This is my first ever contribution to wiki so I'll let someone more experienced look into it and determine whether it's worth adding to the article. Chuckuss 20:04, 16 October 2006 (UTC)Chuckuss
Extra info for people interested in reading this. Samuel K. Cohn, "The Black Death: End of a Paeadigm," The American Historical Review 107 (2002): 703-38 Chuckuss 20:06, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
To elucidate: the establishment thinking, identifying the Black Death with bubonic plague, was purely because haemorrhagic fevers were virtually unknown until very recently. The descriptions of the Black Death in Boccaccio's Introduction to the Decameron do not agree, symptomatically, with the plague: they are much more reminiscent of SARS, and like the recent SARS outbreak, the Black Death suddenly disappeared without reason.
My credentials, before the semi-informed start shooting: active involvement in the SARS outbreak, matching info from the General Administrator, the French Hospital, Hanoi, to historical details about Alexandre Yersin's work in Hong Kong cracking the plague bacillus (see Edward Marriott's The Plague Race, ISBN 0-330-48319-6) and passing on the hyper-lessons to Dr Stephen Ng of the HK SARS outbreak management team. The SARS vector may be a pigeon flea. Jel 03:35, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
The Cohn theory is truely deserved of some consideration. His approach is such to ask questions, rather than to provide answers; and although this isnt the most satisfactory type of history, to ignore such questions would be foolish. To simplify the good professors work, he argues:

Plague in the modern sence is primarily spread in two means; via rats and via air. Bubonic and Phnemonic plague respectively. Bubonic; the disease that has been considered to be the Black Death by such learned scholars as Zimmerman, really struggles to meet the primary descriptions of the great mortality - Most notably Bubonic Plague is always accompanied by dead rats. Rats whom normally die in private, are always found dead in public before a large outbreak of plague, as is shown in the thorough plague records of both Bombay and Glasgow. However there are no refferances whatsoever to this phenomenon in Black Death sources. Considering that the sources mention such things as meteorites in the sky, and raining blood, the fact that huge amounts of dead rats arent mentioned is even more allarming. Efforts have been made to explain this omission, including the claim that people will not notice dead rats when humans are dieing - This however fails to appreciate that the flies will not transfer to humans until the rats are dead; in other words the rat mortality happens before people die. A look at the descriptions given in the many primary soucres (a good deal of which are grouped in a book by Rosemary Horrox) shows that the signs of the 'disease' are many and very different. Although some sources reffer to a Bubo in the arm pits or by the genitilia = signs of Bubonic, other sources refer to more than one Bubo, and Speckles of red dots on the skin , amongst many others. The victims are noted as taking between a few hours and a few days to die. The simple fact of the sources are that there are no set similarities between the symptoms of the Black Deaths victims.

Having in such a manner argued convincingly against the Bubonic claim. Prof Cohn drew the conclusion that the disease that caused the Black Death simply ceased to exist. Although this is not unheard of in bacteriology, it does seem the weakest part of his submission. Horrox argued that the disease may have evolved over time to something far less potent, which is always possible. What the author submits may also be worthy of consideration is that there may have been more than one disease (thus explaining the many symptoms), however this would require that the diseases could co-exist in a manner that would allow them to spread together, which is considerably rare.Dthecat 14:17, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

You are overlooking a couple of very important things here: Cohn's premises are wrong. First of all, the conclusion that because modern plague spreads in a certain fashion it would have had to spread in that fashion historically is invalid. Alternative carriers for the plague have been posited. What's more, the proponents of the theory are arguing far, FAR outside their discipline and thus make statements that are quite and simply born out of ignorance. You cite speckles of red dots on the skin -perfectly understandable if the plague has progressed to the point where it can cause sepis and Disseminated intravascular coagulation (cf. purple lesions in the case of another bacterial infection here: [1]. More than one Bubo means quite simply that more than one lymph node was infected. Plus, some types of lesions might have been thrown into the same kind of things such as Buboes. The simple fact is that the proponents of the hypothesis don't know their biology OR their medicine and that Yersinia pestis has at least been found in victims -so whatever its role, it was there. --213.209.110.45 (talk) 08:33, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
I think you are losing sight of the purpose of a talk page. It is here for discussing improvements to the article, not the subject itself. Whether you think Cohn's premises are right or wrong is your personal point of view. If he has published work on the subject it should be included in the article - end of story. If someone else has published other work that refutes his claims, that work should be cited as well but your opinion of the quality of his work is irrelevant. Richerman (talk) 10:51, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Black Death in China

Shouldn't there be something about China? I thought the plague spread there as well. M.e 10:54, 25 May 2004 (UTC)

Probably. It's an area where future editors can expand the article. Kevyn
The plague didn't spread there, it started in western China Xiao jy 21:41, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


Article currently states: "the Great Plague of London in 1665-1666 is generally recognized as one of the last major outbreaks." What about Hong Kong - a major outbreak in 1894 is believed to have come from mainland China... (There is speculation that it was this strain that was responsible for the minor outbreaks in San Francisco c.1900, the East of England c.1910, and Persian Gulf c.1913). A future editor could correct this. (submitted by anon editor)
The Black Death is a historical period in which the plague was active and socially devastating. The disease, of course, never died out but it did disappear from varying locals. The outbreaks you cite are usually considered part of the Third Pandemic and are discussed in that article. Best wishes. WBardwin 08:44, 13 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Black Death -not just in Europe

So an epidemic kills 200,000,000 people of which only one-quarter are in Europe. So we write an article that only mentions Europe. We better hope that the Systemic bias group doesn't notice this page. It confirms their worst suspicions. I don't even know where to begin rewriting this article. Perhaps it is best moved to Black Death in Europe and a new comprehensive article begun. Rmhermen 13:24, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

-The term "Black Death" is simply a social-construct used to describe the most prevelant wave of the pandemic in Europe. The Chinese and Indians did not call it the "Black Death" so why is it biased to focus the article on the countries that did? The international orgins of the pandemic are clealy documented here, and the article on the bubonic plague is not at all Euro-centric. --Jleon 13:40, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The Europeans didn't call it the Black Death either. They called it the Great Mortality -in various translations. The bubonic plague article summarizes the entire pandemic in two paragraphs and directs the reader here for more detail. Clearly that needs to be a page which discusses the entire event and there is no reason to beleive that the name Black Death is restricted to the European occurence. Rmhermen 17:36, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)
Umm... Europeans obviously did call it the Black Death, or we wouldn't be calling it that now. In any case, English historians of the time referenced it as the Black Death, so yes, people who lived during that era indeed called it the Black Death.
Next time, feel free to bring some evidence.
Rmhermen is totally right. Feel free to leave me a message if you want source. The actual term was "Great Mortality" as he said, and then "Small mortality" for resurgences of the plague. The "Black Death" is a latter term. Invoquing evidence and common sense is often synonym of doxa and ignorance, and is certainly not an encyclopedic contribution. Tazmaniacs 17:45, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
"Black Death," over time, became the English Term - "Great Mortality", the general European term. As for references -- do a little reading in the references in the article - ie. "The Great Mortality". And "Next time" anon, before you snipe at others, identify yourself and cite your references. WBardwin 20:40, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
It's not only the english name, in german it's called "der Schwarze Tod" meaning exactly "the black death". --84.142.168.157 18:21, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
Der Scharwze Tod is a latter term, as is la peste noire and the Black Plague. Tazmaniacs 17:45, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Point taken. I restructured the article and added information on the Middle Eastern outbreak, and a little more about China. I have no information on India, although popular sources insist they were involved. Some additional information about social/political consequences in eastern areas of the world is available. I'll try and weave that in. Non-European sources are difficult to find in English. Has anyone checked other language Wikipedias? Comments welcome. WBardwin 23:33, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'd vote in favor of keeping the "Black Death" title simply because our English speaking audience will reference the material by that name. "Plague in the Fourteenth Century" might do though. Naming pandemics for public consumption is an awkward thing - while historians like dates, the public does not. WBardwin 00:32, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)


Given the overwhelming number of books, academic and otherwise, that refer to it by "Black Death", there is precedent for the article to remain as is. It would be original research to rename the article, unless someone can show strong evidence to the contrary. We only report on what exists, even if what exists is not optimal. There are lots of things like this, Dark Ages for example. Stbalbach 02:17, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There is a reference in Defoe's "Diary of a Plague Year" which reads: “Therefore were we ordered to kill all the dogs and cats, but because as they were domestic animals, and are apt to run from house to house and from street to street, so they are capable of carrying the effluvia or infectious streams of bodies infected even in their furs and hair. And therefore it was that, in the beginning of the infection, an order was published by the Lord Mayor, and by the magistrates, according to the advice of the physicians, that all the dogs and cats should be immediately killed, and an officer was appointed for the execution”. It is incredible; if their account is to be depended upon, what a prodigious number of those creatures were destroyed. I think they talked of forty thousand dogs, and five times as many cats; few houses being without a cat, some having several, sometimes five or six in a house. All possible endeavours were used also to destroy the mice and rats, especially the latter, by laying ratsbane and other poisons for them, and a prodigious multitude of them were also destroyed." You should note that there is doubt about whether Defoe's account is entirely contemporary since it was published nearly fifty years after the event. Hope this helps? (Quidnunc 14:17, 13 September 2006 (UTC))

There's no actual "doubt" as to whether Defoe's work was contemporary; it most definitely was NOT. For one thing, Defoe would have been about four years old when the Black Death reached London. Most literary historians are also agreed that his Journal was a work of fiction and presented as such; modern readers, however, sometimes assume it's fact, which can be tricky when they use it as a secondary source. --Charlene 22:01, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

It clearly isn't conteporaneous as it wasn't written during the event but he was alive at the time and lived through the experience. That he didn't write it at the time gives rise to some hesitation about exactly how accurate it is but doesn't make it a work of fiction. One presumes that in order to be a survivor, one must escape the event and record one's memories afterwards, otherwise one might perish at one's desk in the act of recording say the "Great Fire"? 217.34.53.35Qidnunc

[edit] "34 million"

I despise reverts, especially since you can't explain much reasoning in an edit summary, so let me just explain here. I don't think it's a great idea to have a specific number in the very first sentence, as the figure varies so widely among reliable estmates that prominently placing "34 million" unduly implies some kind authoritativeness where there is little. The previous just "one-third" worked well. The depopulation section exists to analyze the figure, and does it more justice. Incidentally, that section cites 25 million as the most common figure, which is what I have always thought it was (though I may have wrote that section, so, eh). i.e., Europe's population was about 75-80 million, 1/3 die, equals about 25 million, but these are just very rough guestimates, extrapolated from smaller data. I'm interested which reference 34 million comes from, especially as 34 and not a rounder figure like 35 implies some kind of exactitude. Dmcdevit·t 22:08, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Per the manual of style, the lead section is a summary generalized account designed to give an overview and draw readers attention, with the body of the article to detail specifics. Stbalbach 23:06, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

I reverted back to the 34 million because I think a number is important for a reader who has no idea of the base population of Europe at the time. Numbers project the reality of the massive death toll more than percentages. Historical numbers are always suspect, subject to debate, and estimates at best. I suspect the 34 million is a quote/reference in an early version of the article. However, it wouldn't hurt to try and come up with a list of estimates and refine our figure. We could put in a low to high range.
I will try and go through my library in the next couple of weeks and see what estimates are available. Why don't you guys do the same. I have a couple of relatively current books -- but modern estimates are always based on the primary documents. During my academic lifetime at least, opinions have swung widely --- from "they were all exaggerated" to accepting their accounts without question. Since English speakers more readily access English primary documents, many estimates are based on the English experience, which most historians agree was higher than 30 percent. Areas in Eastern Europe had so few plague accounts that their information is usually not included. Outside of Europe, Middle Eastern and Asian sources are even harder to deal with. All these things make the process a frustrating one. Please don't take my revert personally. WBardwin 03:40, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

I would suggest that fixing the entire population of Europe at "75-80 million" is not much more exact than the "34 million" in question. But, I would also agree that it's more palatable to say "1/3rd" of the population - but again, fixing approximately 1/3 implies comfort with two ideas - the total population number, and the death toll. If I pick up 5 textbooks and get more than one number for total population of Europe, then this entire argument is difficult to sustain. 25 million dead, 34 million dead... I think we can all agree there were not more than 125 million in Europe and not less than 50 million at the time. I'm curious how EXACT we can assume the record-keeping was for every village, hamlet and berg in medieval Europe...?

At the end of the day, my argument isn't whether 25 million is more orthodox or accurate than 34 million; I'd suggest that sticking with 1/3 is better than nothing.

Also, it's not altogether true that fixing a number would be more impactful than simply leaving it as a 3rd. 25 million people dying in China is, by pure numbers, not as significant as 25 million people dying in Canada. Why? 25 million out of 1 billion is 2.5%. 25 million out of 30 million is 83%. In other words, the sheer magnitude of the death toll is that it wiped out a 3rd of the population. Anyone can extrapolate that to any relevant comparison in whatever country they are reading the article and get some economies of scale to appreciate the impact. Had the plague happened with today's population in China, we'd be looking at over 334 million deaths, equivalent to the entire population of the United States. 207.219.117.254 21:53, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Black Death caused Ice Age?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4755328.stm

the "Little Ice Age" of the 15th century, not the actual Ice Age. dab (ᛏ) 14:00, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
Although this observation is citable, it seems farfetched. This is a case of something brand new that hasn't had time to be researched.
It's a nonsense, considering that the Little Ice Age began before the Black Death, with the climatic downturn of the thirteenth and early fourteenth century. There are details of this on the Little Ice Age page. 62.25.106.209 13:02, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm sure Ravilious is aware of this and has an answer to it. In any case, it says "contributed" to the LA, not caused it. Any contentions or disagreements need to be cited and sourced. But honestly this is not the article to get into a running point by point debate, that's not what Wikipedia is for. If it is generally accepted this theory is bunk, then we can remove it entirely. -- Stbalbach 17:14, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Seems like the Little Ice Age may have helped cause the Black Death, not the other way around. It helped cause famine and population migrations: famine can decrease a population's immunity to illness, and population migrations could have led to the greater movement of rats/fleas from their reservoir areas. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Egthegreat (talk • contribs) 19:41, 7 May 2007 (UTC).

[edit] How did it end?

How did the black death disappear? I mean how do you phase out a disease without doing anything? User:wally 01:14, 21 Mar 2006 (UTC)

Basically, epidemics end when a substantial portion of the susceptible population has either:
  1. Died, or
  2. Contracted the disease, developed immunities, and survived.
Below a certain population density of susceptible subjects, an epidemic dies out.
Atlant 14:40, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Or simply the disease stops spreading for whatever reason, such as isolating infected individuals. If, in aggregate, the number of people becoming infected is equal to or greater than the number of people already infected, a disease is considered spreading. If the opposite is true, the disease is dieing out. So if you get the disease, but don't infect anyone else, you are contributing to the end of the epidemic, regardless of anything else. This is why the number one most important factor in an epidemic is isolating sick individuals. Also the black death returned every generation for centuries in smaller less lethal flare-ups and mutations, it never really entirely disappeared (article discusses it). -- Stbalbach 15:23, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
At some point the disease causes the complete breakdown of social interaction. People become so afraid of others that they no longer interact. Pandemic spread, even of airborn pathogens, will eventually slow and stop when this happens. The other factors cited above also apply...immunities build, the disease mutates, and the vulnerable population dies off.Wood Artist 05:48, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Delta 32, a gene mutation. Devtrash 02:52, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Diseases are like all other entities, they can only exist as long as theyre is the means for them to do so. As Diseases require a host to survive, a disease will be irradicated if 1)It is no longer able to spread and 2) It is no longer able to remain within its present host. As the learned fellow before me has considered possible reasons for point 1), point 2) may simply be explained by the fact that the disease killed its host very quickly. To simplify, the disease was too efficient a killer, and so wiped itself out.

[edit] Protection?

Should we consider asking for temporary protection? The volume of vandalism over the past two days have been unprecedent. I think there have been over 75 edits and the article has not changed. -- Stbalbach 22:35, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Couldn't hurt. The topic must be on a major High School reading list or something. WBardwin 00:53, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Request for page protection "Black Death" -- Stbalbach 14:45, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
The semi-protection doesn't appear to be in force as we're getting anon vandalism again. MLA 16:14, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] important to put into perspective.

while the plague killed up to one third of 14th century Europe's population, I think it is important to mention that the other two thirds of the population died of other causes... no one survived.

someone erased this comment saying it's a joke, but my comment is not a joke. it gives an important perspective that many people who might come here from e.g. SARS, foot-and-mouth, bird-flu, etc, would appreciate. Can you think of any reason for NOT adding it? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.131.188.6 (talk • contribs) .

I don't get your point. "people who come here from foot-and-mouth.."?? The article is about the Black Death, not death in general. It seems pretty obvious that we all die of something, and that no one from the 14th century is still alive. -- Stbalbach 20:25, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
What? It's NOT all obvious "we all die", most people today aren't dead, and won't be anytime soon (or maybe ever) but everyone from 14th century Europe is! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.131.188.123 (talk • contribs) .
It's NOT all obvious "we all die" - are you sure this is not a joke? Are there people then who don't die? -- Stbalbach 13:43, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
I think this is essentially daft to include, but since on the subject I think I once saw a statistic that most human beings have in fact not died, ever, and so the average human lifespan is effectively open ended and indeterminate. Sandpiper 07:46, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
If I understand this correctly, it is untrue. More humans have died than are currently alive. Rmhermen 14:47, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Are you sure? What are the respective numbers? (And keep mindful that world population has really boomed in the last few decades.) Atlant 14:52, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Most numbers I have seen put it at around 40 billion humans in history versus 6 billion alive today. Here is one person's derivation: [2] Rmhermen 23:16, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

The reason why people today have not died is because they're STILL ALIVE! Everybody dies, but most people die at an old age such as 70-100 years. The reason why a deadly pandemic is significant is that it a lot more people dying than would ordinarily, and those people can be of any age!

[edit] HIV resistance

I seem to recall reading that a small number of people survived the Black Death by virtue of being naturally immune to the disease. That there were some identifiable and traceable examples from isolated communities, and furthermore that this immunity (considerably increased in the population by virtue of killling off those who did not have it) also conferred immunity to HIV. Sandpiper 07:46, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

This is already in the article. Rmhermen 14:47, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Casualties

what are the number of casualties in the black death? how many ppl died? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 222.153.36.13 (talk • contribs) .

[edit] Black Death vs Great mortality

I think it should be good to include in the article somewhere that the people who lived during the plague years never called it that. They had a lot of names and almost everyone include some synonyme for big or great. In England there is "Great pestilence" and and "Great mortality" and even "Unprecedented pestilence". In Germany "Pestilentia magna" or "Grosse sterfde" (Big death),, in france "La gran mortalitat", in Italy "Grande moria" and so on. As far as I know the name "Black death" in any language did not appear until at least about 200 years afterwards and then first in Sweden and Denmark. From there it spread to Germany and onwards through the continent. It doesn't appear in Great Britain until 1823. I dont want to change the name of the article but I do feel that the name by which it was originally known should be mentioned somewhere. What do you think? Kurben 17:47, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry! I see it is mentioned. Must have missed somehow. But Iceland? I thought that the Black Death didn't get there until 1402? Am I wrong again? Kurben 17:58, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sanguine Groups?

What is meant by "some historians have assumed that the presence of sanguine groups in the local population helped them resist the disease" in section Europe and Middle East? Icemuon 14:43, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I think they mean "blood groups". There's a theory out there, and the only reference I've seen to it is in a book by (IIRC) Richard Gordon, that people with Type B blood are less attractive to fleas. If so, and if plague is spread by fleas, and if the Black Death was plague (as I think it almost certainly is), then people with Type B blood would be less likely to develop bubonic plague. However I have no current reliable source for this. --Charlene 22:08, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Consequences -> Medicine

Perhaps a Medicine section could be added under Consequences. Gui de Chauliac, the personal physician of Pope Clement IV, was given the authority to perform autopsies. He also continued to try treating the afflicted. More importantly, he documented everything he could find with regards to anatomy and the disease's pathology. It seems he had a fairly big impact on medicine. The Chirurgia magna article claims it was an important reference for 300 years.

This French page has some details of his life and of what he wrote in the Chirurgia magna. [3] I wasn't able to find a good article in English, although i didn't look very hard.

Later on, during an outbreak 200 years after the plague, Nostradamus tried to treat the disease. I don't think he's really credited with advancing medicine much.

300 years after the Black Death, John Graunt studied the outbreaks in London. He is considered one of the first experts in epidemiology.

There are probably some other advances in medicine based on the Black Death. I'd say that at least Gui de Chauliac seems notable enough to at least be mentioned.

--Kevin L'Huillier 00:08, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Palastine? Gaza?

In this article on the "Black Death" in the section on the Middle East Out Break, it says the following

"During 1348, the disease travelled eastward to Gaza, and north along the eastern coast to cities in Lebanon, Syria and Palestine, including Asqalan, Acre, Jerusalem, Sidon, Damascus, Homs, and Aleppo."

This statement is quite confusing. At the time, that area was not called "Lebanon, Syria and Palestine," and now it is not called that. When they say Palestine, do they mean the modern state of Israel or the entire region which is really commonly referred to as Judea-Sumeria?

Do they mean the city of Gaza, of just that little strip?

Here is a link to the wikipedia article that includes a history of the name of "The Holy Land" or "Judea-Sumeria" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestine_%28region%29

Thank you!

[edit] Positive spin?

What would have been the benifit of such an occurance? There has to be one theory of why it was benificial (even if the harms out weigh it). -G

The vast reduction of people improved quality of life for the commoners. Their work became more valuable, fewer working-class citizens meant decreased supplies. Fewer at the table leaves more to go around. Black_Death#Socio-economic_effects --Kevin L'Huillier 14:03, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Another benefit was an improved immune system for subsequent European generations due to natural selection --phocks 04:04, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

New evidence suggests a pathological affinity between the Black Plague and the current HIV/AIDS epidemic. The implication is that all people whose European ancestors contracted the plague and survived may have complete immunity from AIDS.

For the sake of interest, it's an estimated 10% of Europe's current population having ancestors who've contracted the plague and led to them currently being immune to HIV (and therin AIDS) Jitunu 03:18, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Incorrect Link to Chinese Wikipedia

The link to different language (right to the article) is incorrect for Chinese language. How to change it? Tomlee2060 11:17, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

It is done. Who should I thank this for? Tomlee2060 07:29, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] plague in mecca

As a Muslim I have strong objection to this statement: “The people of Mecca blamed the disease on non-believers entering the city, but it is more likely to have arrived with Muslim pilgrims from surrounding infected areas.”

Islam does not teach superstition and no desease whatsoever is caused by infidels or non-beleivers. Moreover non-muslims are not allowed to enter mecca(since the time of the prophet) so the question of plague spreading through non-beleivers does not arise. This statement is merely an accusation hurled at Islam. Please do not repeat this.

It's not an accusation directed at Islam. It's an accusation directed at imperfect humans who did not perfectly understand the word of Allah. Unfortunately every religious community has a large percentage of individuals who do not perfectly understand the tenets of their religion and who retain their childish prejudices and superstitions. This is just a fact of human nature, unfortunately. --Charlene 06:35, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Black Death

The Black Death was a name for a series of outbreaks of the Bubonic Plaue around the 14th century in Europe. I've never seen the term "Black Plague" used, except as a bastardization of these two names, so I'm changing the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.125.233.221 (talk • contribs).

Google suggests that the term is in common usage; I've reverted your excision. Atlant 12:34, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Black Plauge is what I remember hearing about in school since i was a kid. Fresheneesz 08:06, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
There are a lot of things in "common usage" that are nevertheless wrong, just as there are a lot of things people have heard since they were little that are just as wrong (see the "ring around the rosie" talk above). While I personally think we should include both names here, you shouldn't use these sorts of arguments to justify your position. 74.98.56.80 03:37, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] European focus

I think its inappropriate for this article to focus on European accounts and the European side of the pandemic. The page on Bubonic Plague does not go into great detail about the Black Death pandemic, and so directing people there for non-european accounts seems not the thing to do. The Black Death may be a European name, but it was a huge deal in asia as well - adding to the decline of the mongol empire. Fresheneesz 08:10, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Germ Theory

The article said in it that the mongols used dead infected bodies as a form of biological war fare. The problema with this is that the germ theory of diesaes was only discovered in 1840 by Vienna doctor Ignaz Semmelweis and even at the time he discovered it there were two problems. 1, it was still considered a theory, no one believed his claims, he died in a mental institution b/c all other doctors were convinced he was a psycho. 2, the germ theory was not even accepted in most european countries more or less anywhere else in the world until 1865. There is simply no way that the mongols could have been purposely infecting people. Part of the reason why the bubonic plauge spread so fast was b/c people were stealing from infected people or people who died of infection and were getting infected by that. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.108.138.142 (talk) 01:54, 14 December 2006 (UTC).

Even 18th C Europeans practiced biological warfare by giving smallpox-infected blankets to American indians. You don't need to understand why it works to know that it works. -- Stbalbach 15:32, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Towns the Plague spread through

Hi i just wanted to ask you what were the towns, in england, the plague spread through (in order please). if you contributed thank you very much

Every single solitary one of them. There are about 50,000 towns and villages in England. --Charlene 13:26, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Extra page

Why is there an extra page on the consequences of the Black Death with nearly the exact same wording?Leon math 16:00, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Odd. There was no consensus or discussion for a split. Redirected. -- Stbalbach 16:48, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Supposedly

From there, supposedly, it was carried east and west by traders and Mongol armies along the Silk Road, and was first exposed to Europe at the trading city of Caffa in the Crimea from which it spread to Sicily and on to the rest of Europe.

So what does supposedly mean in this context? Was it or wasn't it carried? patsw 19:25, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Counter-arguments to alternative Theories

This section seems rather lacking in logic:

  • What people believe isn't a Counter-argument.
  • I don't understand the analogy with European immigrants infecting Native Americans. How does that prove that Europeans were killed by a disease transmitted by rats? Possible increased immunity in the survivors and their descendents would hold true for any infectious disease.

Speaking personally, having read Scott and Duncan's book, I am interested to know historians counter-arguments to back-up why the Bubonic Plague theory is still the official line.--JBellis 20:04, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with this, the section doesn't seem to fit very well. Also, I can't see anything in the article discussing how the Black Death caused symptoms that were not similar to bubonic plague and the internal haemorraging is where the ebola-like theory comes from. MLA 14:10, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
This section has now been improved slightly but the analogy with smallpox and native Americans still lacks a source. 14th century Europe did not experience the sudden arrival of peoples from a different continent with which there had not previously been any movement of people. People had been moving around within Europe, the Mediterranean region and Africa and Asia, for 1,000s of years.--JBellis 16:15, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

First of all, the first comment above fits to both sides of the discussion. Just because some people believe it wasn't the plague doesn't mean that their line of thought constitutes a valid argument. As for the specific questions asked here, the article is probably somewhat confusing for two reasons:

  • First of all, we're having an issue of biology and medicine on which plenty of historians voiced their opinions -in other words, people going way out of their area of expertise. The question to ask is not "How should it be the plague if there were no rats?" but "Are rats and fleas an essential vessel for the plague?". The moment the answer to that question is "no", all other questions regarding rats and fleas become moot. The conclusion "later cases of the plague were transmitted via fleas and rats so this one should have been, too" is not a valid one. Some researchers indeed suspect that the body louse, and with it the clothes of infected people, could spread the disease.
  • Second, the counter-argument section and the arguments section were obviously not written by one single author at one single time, so counter-arguments are presented against which counter-counterarguments are already included in the first paragraph etc.

@MLA Well, you can just as well see nothing that justifies Ebola, which kills far too quickly to reach the spread of the Black Death. So if you are willing to assume a variant of one, why not a variant of the other? I've taken a look at the 1998 Marseille study, and it seems to me highly unlikely that there's a mistake with it. Conversely, Cohn's ideas are criticised pretty solidly in review, for example here. --213.209.110.45 (talk) 16:34, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

It is my view that Wikipedia style editing leads to excessive weight/space given to rather extreme alternative viewpoints. These alternatives should be mentioned and discussed, yes, but always placed in perspective. Alternatives to plague are definately minority viewpoints, and are often held and asserted by people outside the fields of epidemiology and history, or individuals that focus on the history/distribution of one disease. So I would like to see the alternative section shortened but well cited with the most reputable sources. Consequently, the counter-arguments could be shortened as well. WBardwin (talk) 23:26, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Religion section

The current includes the following under the religion heading:

The Black Death led to cynicism toward religious officials who could not keep their promises of curing plague victims and banishing the disease. No one, the Church included, was able to cure or accurately explain the reasons for the plague outbreaks. One theory of transmission was that it spread through air, and was referred to as miasma, or 'bad air'. This increased doubt in the clergy's abilities. Extreme alienation with the Church culminated in either support for different religious groups such as the flagellants, which from their late 13th century beginnings grew tremendously during the opening years of the Black Death, or to an increase in interest for more secular alternatives to problems facing European society and an increase of secular politicians. The Black Death hit the monasteries very hard because of their close quarters with the sick, who had come to the monasteries seeking aid, so that there was a severe shortage of clergy after the epidemic cycle. This resulted in a mass influx of new clergy members, most of whom did not share the life-long convictions and experiences of the veterans they replaced. This led to abuses by the clergy in years afterwards and a further deterioration of the position of the Church in the eyes of the people.

Lack of sources aside, this section has some problems.

1. Much of the scholarship in the field seems to point towards a strengthening of popular religion in the wake of the plague, rather than the weakening that is currently described. Herlihy's _Black Death and the Transformation of the West_ describes a strengthening of popular piety and a corresponding change in naming trends towards religions rather than local names. Economic histories like Miskimin's two volumes on the Economic History of Renaissance Europe, record an increase in donations to the church. Even the influx of clergy members and the increase in groups such as the flagellants indicate that religious piety was growing, not weakening. Certainly clasics like Bossy's _Christianity and the West_ support the idea that the catholic church came out of the plague years stronger than ever and riding a wave of intensified public piety.

2. The miasma theory of transmission seems out of place in this section.

Funkbot 19:01, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

You are right that "popular piety" increased, but cynicism towards established religion and a turn away from the Church and its officials was part of that. People turned away from the church and towards popular piety - this is mainstream in any text book. Popular piety and the Church are two different things. As for economic donations that was because the Church was selling indulgences and other things which further alienated people (see Martin Luther). The idea that the Church came out of the crises of the late middle ages stronger is unusual, with the Reformation the church literally broke apart, this was not a strong Church, it remains broken apart to this day. BTW I just created the popular piety article a week ago it needs a lot of work, I was very surprised no one had created it yet. -- Stbalbach 14:18, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

The lack of sources for such a large section making a broad claim bothers me. I've given it a {{fact}} tag. patsw 01:43, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

1. Miasma Theory claimed that “a corruption or pollution of the air by noxious vapors containing poisonous elements that were caused by rotting, putrid matter, which were spread by wind” caused the spread of the Black Death (Benedictow 3).

2. The Miasma Theory had little to do with religion and more to do with the unsavory conditions and poor hygiene exhibited in Europe during the Middle Ages.

3. This section could also note more about the rise in the practice of praying to“(anti-) plague saints like St. Rochus and St. Sebastian” and the “vow to build a new and fine church was considered a powerful way of alleviating the wrath of the Lord and of preventing the threat of an approaching plague epidemic or reducing its ferocity” (Benedictow 6).

Benedictow, Ole J. The Black Death: The Complete History. Woodbridge: The Boydell Press, 2006.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jjkent06 (talk • contribs).

[edit] MOST devastating pandemic??

The article previously read that the Black Death "was the most devastating pandemic in human history." I have altered this line to read "was ONE OF the most devastating pandemics". In fact, estimates for the 1918 Spanish Flu Pandemic are as high as 100 million deaths, and many estimates for the death rates of Small Pox and other Pandemics amongst post-Columbian Native Americans rate as high or higher. The Plague of Justinian may have killed as many as 100 million people as well, and may or may not have been the same disease responsible for the Black Death (Justinian's Plague is supposedly regarded as being Bubonic Plague, which the Black Death may or may not have been... but regardless it was a separate outbreak, and a separate pandemic with an equal or higher number of mortalities). It is completely unnecessary, and unwarranted, to resort to superlatives in the introduction of this article, since it mutes the significant level of controversy surrounding mortality figures and the very high body counts of comparable pandemics throughout history. Let's not rank things without substantial and verifiable justification. Thelastemperor 00:56, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Agree that worldwide ranking is rather dubious given the uncertainty over historical figures. However it was the worst pandemic in Europe in terms of proportion of the population killed by countries by a long way. I think that this article used to say 'in Europe' but somehow the statement became globalised. --JBellis 18:50, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
The article is trying for global coverage, which it didn't at one time, so that's probably what happened. I'm ok with the more general "one of" in the lead, and more specific "worst in European" further down in the article somewhere (not sure if it does). -- Stbalbach 19:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
The European economy nearly broke because of the loss of skills: it destroyed the feudal system, allowing specialists to set up independantly of their Lords, leading to the rise of Guilds and the middle classes. Had it broken, the power vacuum would have been very temporarily filled by the Khanate, plunging the world economy into a new Dark Age when it broke down as identified above.Jel 03:18, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Woah, stop, where did you get that one from? The rise of Guilds and the "Middle Classes", i.e. the cities happened quite a bit before the plague. In fact, the Hanseatic League was already at its peak when the Black Death hit, and it probably was more responsible for its decline through the disruption of trade routes. --84.46.0.204 (talk) 23:30, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Explain your doubts

Fact-tags have been inserted into sections which are quite clearly sourced, but aren't so pedantic as to repeat the same footnote over and over in the same paragraph (or the same sentence for that matter). No justification or specification for these fact-tags has been provided either in the edit summaries or here on the talkpage. Motivate and specify your concerns here by discussing it and insert the fact tags after you've actually found it to be a verifiability issue.

Firstly, have any who inserted the fact tags actually read the assigned sources? Secondly, do you have any reasonable doubt based on anything other than personal opinion? A conflicting source perhaps?

Peter Isotalo 14:24, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Footnotes

Every fact that needs to be footnoted needs to be footnoted, even if that means there are multiple footnotes from the same source in the same paragraph. This is a community run organization, readers have no idea that a footnote at the end of the paragraph covers the entire paragraph, nor should it -- there can be multiple sources used in any one paragraph, the reader has no idea which facts are being sourced to which source. It's just common sense and how Wikipedia works. -- Stbalbach 23:48, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Just because you insert a fact tag doesn't mean you've made the final decision as to what needs to be footnoted or not. You have to motivate your demands. There is no policy that requires a certain number of footnotes per article, section, paragraph or sentence. The first thing you do is to actually check out the sources provided. After you've done that, you can ask for more. You haven't checked out that article in L'histoire yet, now have you?
Peter Isotalo 08:06, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
It's unclear why you are removing footnotes from the article. Please be specific, for each footnote you are removing, your rationale and justification for the removal of that specific footnote. Thank you. -- Stbalbach 14:00, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
It's equally unclear why those notes are repeated several times in the same paragraph. Provide your rationale for it. Preferably something that isn't based on the argument "well, this is how we do it", which very obviously isn't true. As far as I'm concerned those dinky notes are just overly tedious and completely random repetitions of the same very obvious source. Unless there's something inserted in that paragraph that isn't referenced otherwise, I think we can assume readers (which doesn't include footnote-counting editors) can read a whole paragraph without needing a footnote every other sentence.
You're the one who's supposed to provide a rationale for the citation tag. None has been presented other than "facts that need to be footnoted need to be footnoted", which is a tad too self-supporting to be taken seriously. Present an argument which isn't simply based on a perceived right (or self-assigned duty) to question random statements. If you haven't read the source and can't present reasonable doubt (like citing a different source or, God forbid, questioning the logic of the statement), then don't question it. When a source has been provided the onus of disproving quite naturally shifts to those seeking to remove it.
Peter Isotalo 14:21, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

According to WP:Footnotes#Where_to_place_ref_tags Place a ref tag at the end of the term, phrase, sentence, or paragraph to which the note refers. Since the paragraph is very long, and contains references to multiple sources (the John Kelly quote), and could very easily in the future contain additional sources, it is necessary to delineate more specifically on a per fact or sentence basis - if you were writing this for publication and the document was static and never changed, I would agree with you, but in 6 months are you going to be here making sure that everything lines up correctly after someone has added more sources in the middle of the paragraph? - or breaks the paragraph up into multiple paragraphs 2 years from now and no one remembers which fact is associated with which source? That is why Wikipedia is so heavily footnoted because of the nature of the media, we can't rely on you to always be here remembering that the note at the end of the paragraph refers to facts 4 or 5 sentences previously. -- Stbalbach 15:26, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

If you're worried that someone sneaks in a false fact, then you should remove that fact. Use the edit history if needed. But I'm still at a loss as to why you're inserting those fact tags and throwing policy at me instead of discussing facts. What are you questioning and why? And have you verified the source provided or not?
Peter Isotalo 17:21, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
I honestly have no idea what your talking about. It is really simple. Should citations be made on a per sentence basis, or at the end of the paragraph. That's it. I never inserted a fact tag, those are citation tags. I'm not worried about "false facts", but verifiability. It's explained above. I'm at a loss where your coming from or what your talking about, so I started a very simple and basic straw poll to get others opinion on what is a simple procedural issue on the technicalities of where to place citations in articles - on a per sentence basis or at the end of paragraphs. -- Stbalbach 16:08, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
What false facts? You haven't specified what you're doubting and why. All you've done is insert a bunch of fact-tags and argued guidelines. So far you haven't said one iota about what you perceive as being false or why you doubt that it's present in the only source given for that paragraph. In short, you're asking for more sources without having checked the one provided. And despite the fact that, you've already called for a vote.
And please drop the shtick about "all FAs require footnotes on a per-fact basis". It's not true. Just check out medieval cuisine, Battle of Shiloh, Restoration literature, etc.
Peter Isotalo 16:30, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm not doubting anything, I just want to put citations in for verification purposes. What is wrong with that? There is a single "fact tag", it was there, I never put it there, if that is your concern, remove that single fact tag, I don't care. But leave the citations in place because it helps people find the sources. There is nothing wrong with "over" citing an article on Wikipedia, the more citations the better. Also, there are two different sources being used in that paragraph -- which source goes with which fact? There is no way to know without sentence-specific citations. -- Stbalbach 16:43, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Uhm, yes there is. You verify the source. That's what it's there for. Hell, that's what you're here for. Or do you actually think that footnotes in of themselves prove statements?
Peter Isotalo 17:11, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
The whole point of inline citations is to know which facts are represented by which citations, otherwise we would just list all citations at the bottom. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 17:13, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Peter, I'm really struggling to understand where your position. You verify the source. How can you verify the source if the source is not specified with a citation? Just because a source is listed at the end of paragraph does not mean the rest of the paragraph uses that source. There is no standard on Wikipedia to the effect. -- Stbalbach 21:28, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Exactly. There is no standard, which makes it rather strange that you would declare a statement unreferenced without actually checking the references in its close proximity first. A footnote doesn't by itself render the previous sentence verifiable, and the mere addition of a fact-tag doesn't render a sentence unreferenced. That there is no standard doesn't mean that you're doing anyone a favor by declaring anything unverifiable that a) doesn't have a footnote in the same sentence or b) you personally don't know to be true.
Peter Isotalo 23:55, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Straw poll - citations

Poll is closed and resolved

This is a straw poll to determine how multi-citations are made in this article.

  • Option 1: Citations are made at the end of paragraphs and cover the entire paragraph.
  • Option 2: Citations are made at the end of each sentence or fact.

Example seen here[4]. The left side is option 2, the right side is option 1.

[edit] !Vote

Please give your opinion of option 1 and/or option 2.

  • Option 2. Standard procedure on Wikipedia to clarify which fact is associated with which citation on a per sentence or per fact basis. Having citations at the end of each paragraph opens the door to confusion for readers trying to verify facts, as they don't know which fact is associated with which citation. -- Stbalbach 15:13, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Option 2 aides in research tremendously and helps find uncited facts. This is already covered at WP:Footnotes#Where_to_place_ref_tags, where it says "Place a ref tag at the end of the term, phrase, sentence, or paragraph to which the note refers". Option 1 would be misleading unless the whole paragraph is supported to only one citation. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 15:52, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Well, that certainly added a lot to the discussion... Tell me, BC, do you even know what facts are being argued? Or is this one of those "battles" that you think you'll actually win, unlike the time-consuming ruckus followed your unenlightened intervention over at Talk:Medieval cuisine? Peter Isotalo 16:42, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
  • The fact being argued are not the issue. This is a discussion of style. The only thing I gained from Talk:Medieval cuisine is the knowledge that you are very certain you are right about this issue. The fact is, there are other opinions. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 16:47, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Either, both, or neither, depending on what is most appropriate in the context. You will need to do better than this false dichotomy. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:40, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Option 2, the ref should be as close to the information it is citing as possible. As mentioned above unless the ref is supporting the entire paragraph they shouldn't be placed at the end of the paragraph. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 18:12, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Option 2 - standard practice on and off Wikipedia.Proabivouac 23:23, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
    • General encyclopedias never use footnotes and most popular scientific literature doesn't either. They tend to limit themselves to a list of references. Academic works certainly use a lot of footnotes, but they don't cite every imaginable fact because Jo Shmoe (that means any of us who isn't actually a professional in the field) tells them to add a bunch. Footnotes are mostly used for quotes or facts that are controversial, extremely obscure, or to support some type of new finding, like a novel theory or a new interpretation of existing theories; i.e. original research. We aren't supposed to present these sort of things in Wikipedia so it makes no sense to try to reach the same kind of footnote density. Peter Isotalo 15:44, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
      • 1) Wikipedia is not comparable to general print encyclopedia in that regard since anyone can edit it, even the most benign fact is questionable - other general encyclopedias have an editor plus a signed author for each article, thus one can create a citation for the article, which is not possible on Wikipedia and 2) most students who use Wikipedia are not allowed to cite from it, but they can cite from the citations. Thus, it is a practical resource that people can actually use, but only when things are cited. -- Stbalbach 16:02, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
        • No, Stbalbach. Even the most benign facts are not questionable. We haven't moved our operation into Paranoia Land quite yet. Either they're correct or they're not. They aren't less true because they're Wikipedia, and it's our onus as editors to make sure that articles are kept free of nonsense, not to sprinkle dinky footnotes at the whim of strangers who can't provide valid counter-arguments. And, frankly, I don't give a rat's ass about the citations demands of the teachers of a piffling minority of high school students. If they want to cite sources, they're supposed to read more than just individual pages. In the worst cases, they'll simply use the footnote without reading the source at all and what you're propagating certainly encourages that kind of behavior. I mean, it's painfully obvious that most of those editors who demand a million footnotes per article will never, ever read a single one of those. Peter Isotalo 18:16, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comments

Polling is evil and making a unilateral appeal for one despite the fact that no fact have been argued is extremely frustrating. Wikipedia is not a democracy and trying to vote on the application of a vague guideline on the talkpage of an article is silly beyond belief. A vote is supposed to be applied as a last-ditch attempt, and instead Stbalbach brings it on merely because he can't come up with any more arguments to support his stance. Peter Isotalo 16:34, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Voting is evil, but using a poll to help determine consensus is helpful, notice that the people participating are giving their reasoning? A vote is simply casting a lot, whereas this poll involves discussion. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 16:47, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Ouch! Did anybody look at Straw polls#Creating a survey before formulating this poll? How about point 2, "Consensus must be reached about the nature of the survey before it starts. Allow about a week for this process" (bolding in the original), combined with point 5, "Once started, the questions and wording in the survey should not change. However, if someone feels that the existing survey is seriously flawed, this is typically an indication Step 2 was not completed properly"? All right, Straw polls is only an essay or guideline (sorry, there's no tag on it, I can't tell which it is) but aren't these principles very sensible? It really isn't good that Stbalbach formulated the alternatives all by himself—this is my impression, please correct me if I've misunderstood the process—and apparently on the spur of the moment.
I do feel the survey is flawed. In my academic field, it's standard to put a covering footnote for the entire paragraph (provided the entire paragraph can be covered by one note) at the end of the paragraph's first sentence. This system has some strong advantages, which I came here to argue, but finding the poll already on the page, with only two alternatives (which I both dislike), and voting started... well, as it says elsewhere in the straw poll essay/guideline, "once responses to a straw poll have begun, even minor changes to the phrasing of the poll are likely to result in an all out battle over whether the poll itself was fair." Adding and arguing for a third alternative would cause World War III, I expect. I didn't come here to cause a ruckus. But I'm unhappy about this poll. It seems hasty and unconsidered. Bishonen | talk 20:19, 10 April 2007 (UTC).

This about trying to post citation in the manner recommended by WP:Footnotes#Where_to_place_ref_tags, we are not trying to make a major policy change or something. Regardless, there are good reasons being presented, it is not just a poll, but a discussion in the form of a poll. You are welcome to bring up any alternative. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 20:39, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Straw polls are just a quick and dirty way to gauge consensus without taking the formal step of starting an RfC - straw polls are not binding or authoritative. However if at the end of the poll one side or the other is not satisfied, I will start an RfC and bring in a wider audience - RfC's have a moderator. Honestly, this is such a minor issue I hope we don't have to go that far and the results of this straw poll show where consensus is headed. -- Stbalbach 20:54, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

It is indeed a minor issue, and one the community has already solved at WP:Footnotes. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 21:43, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
In that case I'm not just unhappy but amazed that you're having a poll about it. Bishonen | talk 21:50, 10 April 2007 (UTC).
First, I did not start the poll, secondly it was in response to somebody objecting to this practice. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 21:57, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
You recommended the poll.
As for guidelines, WP:Footnotes says "Place a ref tag at the end of the term, phrase, sentence, or paragraph to which the note refers." To me that seems like an instruction on how to use a footnote, not a comment on footnote density. The community doesn't seem to have put its foot down about specific style issues, at least not when you see all those "deviant" FAs that don't footnote every other sentence. I doubt the community as a whole would endorse the idea that the verifiability of a fact is directly proportional to its proximity to a footnote, as though attribution could be summarized with a simplistic formula.
And, oddly enough, we still haven't discussed the causes of the Black Death in Europe. But I suppose that'll be for the next poll.
Peter Isotalo 22:43, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
I did not recommend the poll, the poll was posted before I ever knew about it. What I did do was condemn your removal of the poll. While you complain about what we are trying to do, you have yet to defend your own position by pointing out any sort of advantage to it. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 22:48, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Oh, more feathers for the horse! First, the community has not "decided" the footnote issue in any respect. The existence of a page is not testimony to anything. Second, the application of footnotes has to remain individualized. Third, uniformity is the mark of the dead, not the living. Only the dead are entirely consistent, as John Ruskin said, for life is messy, and organic processes are always fluid. Trying to set up a poll here to establish a faux authority with which to beat others, in the name of uniformity especially, is absurd. People should not extrapolate from an atrophied and exsanguinated page, nor should they be trying to apply sieves to articles. Let be. Worry about the body, not the clothing. Geogre 23:12, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
There seems to be more discussion about how the discussion is taking place than about why we should use which style. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 23:21, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Let's stick to the fact discussion instead, considering that it's pointless to count footnotes for the sake of footnotes. I still think it would be appropriate for those who cite guidelines in defence of random repetitions of notes referring to L'Histoire n°310, June 2006, pp. 45-46 to actually find out what that reference says. If it's sprinkled so many times in the same paragraph, and no one is actually questioning any particular fact, then what's the logic in stubbornly defending some unknown user's right to insert fact tags without explanation?
Peter Isotalo 23:42, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
It is clear that we disagree, so instead of going back and forth, lets wait a little while and see what other people think. And please refrain from going to people's talk pages whom you know to share similar views and pointing them here, that is not the way to make consensus. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 23:48, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Geogre argues his stances with something other than guideline citations and appeals to a fictitious community consensus. That's a bit more useful to a discussion than m0aR |\|0tz0Rz ız G00d-votes and refusal to actually discuss any article content.
Peter Isotalo 00:17, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
You guys do realize you're arguing about where to put citations in the article right? I don't see why you're so wrapped up in this, it's not like this is a content dispute. Why not spend your time adding content to the article rather then where to put the little numbers that very few contributers historically put in articles? The fact they are there at all is an accomplishment in and of itself. Just an outside thought, since you guys look silly right now. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 23:51, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
We're actually debating whether it's justifiable for an editor who has little or no knowledge of the topic and who is unwilling to do any research to insert fact tags in random places. That and the notion that a statement is only verifiable if it has a footnote at the end of the sentence.
Peter Isotalo 09:07, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
I cannot loathe any more the people who do that. Without knowledge of the sources, they insist that sources are needed. Without any knowledge of the research, they demand research above and beyond what is present. When Orrmulum got an oppose vote from someone saying that it relied upon J.A.W. Bennett too much, it was insane. Any, and I do mean any, scholar of middle English knows that Bennett is The Man to such a degree that he owned the field. You can't find anyone else, because it's all Bennett or Bennett & X. He was the last of the generalists in the field with enough information and prestige to talk in overarching ways. Even Bruce Mitchell isn't in the same league.
Additionally, footnotes are like weirs inserted in the stream. The reader has to go over them to get to the juicy, lovely information. They do not add, by themselves. In an undergraduate research paper, we demand them because we need them to "show your work," as it were. We need to evaluate their ability to synthesize information. In journal articles, we need them when there is contentious or inaccessible information only. In encyclopedia articles, we don't have them at all. We find them in no print encyclopedias, and the reason is that an encyclopedia uses a "Bibliography" (DNB) or "References" (most others). No encyclopedia is supposed to be a point by point guide to sources, as that's simply not the function of the quick overview that encyclopedias provide. Therefore, having these asinine interruptions in textual flow bugs me, but trying to make a staccato of notes bumping the reader and jarring the senses is really counter to encyclopedic practice and encyclopedic purpose. Geogre 12:48, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks to those who commented on the citation style, it seems we have now resolved the issue. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 15:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


I think you're supposed to remove the RFC then. I came here to help, but it seems its been resolved. ImprobabilityDrive 07:57, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


Somebody please go here and remove the RFC if the issue has been resolved. ImprobabilityDrive 07:59, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sources and facts

Here are the statements in question:

  • modern estimates range from one-half to two-thirds of the population. This obviously needs to be sourced, and in fact needs multiple sources, since it gives a range and says "estimates" (plural). There are indeed many different estimates on this. I've added an additional source and more would be helpful.
  • As many as 25% of all villages were depopulated - "25%" needs to be sourced. To make things easier I just removed the hard number and changed to "many" which is common knowledge found in any basic survey.
  • rural areas (where 90% of the population lived) - "90%" needs to be sourced. Again, to make things easier I just changed this from 90% to "most" since this is common knowledge and doesn't get too specific with hard numbers.
  • "..from the countryside." (p. 68) - what source is this from? It is not from the "Barry" source, since that refers to "pages 45-46", outside the range of 68. It needs a fact tag since it is a direct quote.
  • for unknown reasons (some historians.. - "some historians" is a weasel phrase - I assume in good faith that the original source is the "Barry" source since that is what was originally cited.

-- Stbalbach 14:56, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Keep up the good work. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 15:21, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
  • The modern estimates are rough estimates, and intentionally vague. Moreover, they're very common knowledge for anyone who's read even just one or two general articles on the subject. It's a summary of the field of research which is anything but specific.
  • Demadning a footnote for a sentence that begins with "According to journalist John Kelly..." and ends with a page specification when only one book by Kelly is listed in the sources is patently ridiculous. What kind of reader knows how to properly interpret footnotes but can't even be bothered to check the bibliography? Newbie college students? The children of academics? People who have never actually seen a footnote before joining Wikipedia...? It smacks of being a product of believing that footnotes are magical truth talismans and is more indicative of the wiki-infighting over reference standards more than anything else.
  • "Some" is not always weasel wording. In this case it seems like a very obvious summary of what parts of the historical research community believes. It's not like we need to list names every time we want to describe what a lot of historians think.
Peter Isotalo 16:04, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps you should bring this up at a MOS talk page instead of this article. I don't think you really get common knowledge, common knowledge is something that is common to other people. The assumption that people reading the article already know the subject is not likely to be correct, so we cannot define common knowledge as to people who have already read even one or two books on the subject. An encyclopedia is often the very first step in research. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 16:09, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Hogwash! The MoS says not one word about footnote density. If you disagree let's see you quote a passage. And if we're to take your suggestion that anyone can question anything, despite the presence of sources (again, footnotes are bonuses, not a reference of themselves), we might as well give up on the whole concept of of Wikipedia entirely, because that kind sticklery would eventually bring the system down.
And I don't define common knowledge as reading one or two books, but I do demand of those who criticize content to come up with some arguments or sources of their own. If you've been assigned sources you're supposed at least check one of them out before asking for more. Besides, what the Hell do you care? You don't read the footnotes that you demand unless they're available online.
Peter Isotalo 18:07, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Hey, relax, we are talking about footnotes, not politics or religion. It is not my level of knowledge that makes me want more citations that better describe what is being cited, it is for the readers who use this encyclopedia as a starting point for research. It is not about challenging the credibility of a fact, but to give more accessible information. I thought we has settled this all days ago. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 01:57, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
"A starting point for research" is a list of books or links, not a forest of footnotes. Read Geogre's post here if you want to learn a thing or two about what footnotes are actually used for. His remark is right on the money. If anything, the standards dictated by our resident footnote hysterics here on Wikipedia have no equivalent anywhere else, either online or offline. And considering you don't seem to engage in any serious research (and I don't mean scholarly work) yourself, it's very odd that you would try claim to know what the average reader needs (and that the rest of us don't). I mean, you must be aware that the footnote craze is propagated primarily by regular Wikipedians, not random IP users or the unspecified general public.
And please stop avoiding the question as to why you keep citing a guideline that doesn't support your convictions. I don't know how many times you've ducked this question and then bounced back with the same claim a few posts later.
Peter Isotalo 04:13, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
I cited a guideline that doesn't support my convictions? I don't participate in any serious research? How about we limit our conversation to the subject at hand and not talk about each other as people. How about we simply accept the consensus that has already formed on this page. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 04:46, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Okay, WP:MOS#Footnotes says "Main article: Wikipedia:Footnotes". Wikipedia:Footnotes#Where_to_place_ref_tags says "Place a ref tag at the end of the term, phrase, sentence, or paragraph to which the note refers.", and even gives a nice example. While I understand that is a help file linked from a guideline, we also have the consensus that has formed on this page to do just what it is recommending.
Perhaps you will want to go to WT:MOS or WT:FOOT and change that, though I would most likely not support such a change. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 13:17, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
How could I possibly argue against someone who interprets an instruction on how to do something as an excuse to do it anywhere they like? It can't be done. You're just going to keep insisting that the guideline supports you. After I point out that it doesn't you'll say you have consensus. When I point out that consensus isn't all that clear-cut and uniform (see previous examples of "deviant" FAs) you're going to say it's your opinion and I have to respect it. And, finally, when I point out that you shouldn't try to force you're opinions on others without backing it up with some good argumentation it's back to citing the guideline, and the whole thing starts all over again. Great work, BC, keep improving Wikipedia one uninformed demand at a time.
Peter Isotalo 19:18, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

our resident footnote hysterics here on Wikipedia have no equivalent anywhere else - Peter, it's pretty obvious you are in the minority on Wikipedia on this issue. Just look at any Featured Article. There is wide consensus the more footnotes the better, it is not "hysteria". There is good reason for it, Wikipedia is not a book, journal or other signed web site - it is a unique medium with its own strengths and weaknesses. One of those weaknesses, its created by anonymous people. Anyone can edit it. So there is no way to trust that what is here is accurate. Thus, teachers rightly tell their students not to cite Wikipedia in papers. Good, that's how it should be. But that doesn't mean student's can't use Wikipedia, because they can reference footnotes and use those sources. But without inline citations, it is difficult to do. We are writing for other people, please consider the needs to of the reader first, and the editors second. -- Stbalbach 14:13, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

My protest and argumentation against hysterical density of footnotes is suddenly reduced to "you're against footnotes, aren't you?" and then I get a lecture about how Wikipedia works, as if I've learned nothing during the two years I've spent here. And now I'm just inconsiderate to the needs of readers. Yay for false dichotomies!
Peter Isotalo 19:11, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Is there source to "Typically, comparatively fewer Jews died from the Black Death, in part due to rabbinical laws that promoted habits that were generally cleaner than that of a typical medieval villager."? This is not consistent with Pope Clement VI statement that "He pointed out that Jews were suffering as severely as Christians." http://www.the-orb.net/textbooks/westciv/blackdeath.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cincyconway (talk • contribs) 15:21, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Semi-protection

I notice this article is vandalized by different IPs several times a day. What do people think of 1 week of semi-protection? HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 14:33, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I am going to sprotect it for a week, if there is any objection to this I will undo it pending a result of discussion. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 16:35, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. -- Stbalbach 12:58, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
And I have re-protected it for 2 weeks this time, 8 ips in 2 days seems to justify this protection. Comments welcome. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 18:27, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why "black?"

Talking about pandemics with my flatmate I was stunned by her question why the "black death" should be black. Obviously black rats are still popularly associated with the transmission, but are they the origin of the name? Is it that the death needed a supportive color? I searched the article and found other mentions of black, including on the discussion page black cats, and a pulled text on "blackened skin syndrome." Is there a reason for the "black" other than being a color considered dark and frightening? Thank you. --Ben T/C 12:54, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I always understood it to be because the skin turned black around the buboes, but I can't find the exact citation. Egthegreat 19:53, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

From what I've gleaned, I believe that the purplish color around the buboes was oftentimes very dark, and therefore the plague was called 'black'


when did the black death end

[edit] The article is hacked

All wrong.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.65.182.254 (talk) 17:25, May 31, 2007

How so? Can you point to some examples of incorrect information (and maybe a reliable source or two to back up your point)?  — AnnaKucsma   (Talk to me!) 01:31, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Time to archive

This page is sooo long, and is becoming awkward on my browser. I have created Talk:Black Death/Archive 1 which is currently blank. A quick review of the talk material shows about half has not been touched since about mid-2006. Should we archive everything prior to June 2006? I'm not looking for a straw poll -- but a couple of 'yeas' from regular editors would be helpful. Will follow up over the weekend. WBardwin 05:37, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, I've archived sections that had not had a contribution after July 1, 2006. In the archive page, I've sorted the sections by the year the discussions were initiated, and this scheme should be easy to continue. There are several sections above that could be archived, as the more current additions are jokes or minor issues. Also -- I may take the liberty of removing sections dealing with things like requests for page protection. Opinions? WBardwin 08:42, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Origin and history of the appellation "Black Death"

OK, I see that the subject of whether or not the name "Black Death" is proper has been brought up time and again on this page. I'm not terribly interested in that, and I would agree that we should keep that title. However, I would like to know exactly where and when this term originated. Well, of course that's likely impossible, but what I really mean is that I would like to know what the earliest sources to use that name are. Can anyone provide citations or other information on this subject? (And so far as I can tell this information is nowhere in the article, but if I've missed it, please let me know and I will sheepishly go read it). --Iustinus 10:36, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Medieval cures of the Black Death

Contribution by anon 194.72.50.153 moved here for comment. Source please. WBardwin 22:31, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

- vinegar & water treatment if a person gets the disease they must be put to bed.They should be washed with vinega & rose water.Lancing the buboes the swellings associated with the black death should be cut open to allow the disease to leave the body.a mxture of tree resin roots of white lillies & dried human excrement should be applied to places that have been cut open

[edit] Susan Scott

The hyper link for Susan Scott appears to be wrong. It seems to refer to a writer of romantic fiction rather than an epidemiologist! --ManInStone 12:49, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Masque of the Red Death

I'm questioning the inclusion of Poe's "The Masque of the Red Death" as bearing a "strong resemblance" to the Black Death. Okay, so the names are similar, but this seems to be WP:OR. Besides the notion that it is clearly just an allegorical disease, the article on the story says the red death is likely tuberculosis or cholera - no mention of the Black Death. Could this suggestion be referenced? If not, it's worth removing. If a reference is found, I'd like to put it into the "Red Death" article as well. --Midnightdreary 16:24, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Prince Philip's controversial remarks

The end of the subsection on Counterarguments reads: "See Prince Philip's controversial remarks." What is this in reference to? So far, I haven't found anything in Wikipedia or Wikiquotes connecting him with the Black Death. Katherine Tredwell 08:13, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The literature section bothers me

I notice that quite a lot of the stuff in the literature section actually refers to the Great Plague of London rather than the Black Death. I'm also a little dubious about some of the fiction on the grounds that "plague" seems to be a catch-all illness in fantasy literature, as is "the (Colour) Death". What are the opinions of others? HonestTom 20:45, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

It is a bit of a mess at the moment, although I think at least some of it should remain, especially in the context of how it changed the culture. I was thinking the bulk of the modern references could be cleaned up and moved to a new article such as "Plague in Literature", that way it wouldn't matter if they referred to a different epidemic, and we could use it for some of the "in fiction" section from Plague (disease), any thoughts? cyclosarin (talk) 07:18, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] nameing

why is it called the black death?

Please see paragraph four for a general explanation. "Black Death" is the most common modern reference, although scholars sometimes select other terms. WBardwin 03:38, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

I found this line spelling errors is it vandalims?:

When the Black Death happen the carrier gets Pimples somtimes the size of an apple under the armpit. And the victim usually dies within 3 days

Many websites oppose this: link title

I quote: " The symptoms were enlarged and inflamed lymph nodes (around arm pits, neck and groin). The term 'bubonic' refers to the characteristic bubo or enlarged lymphatic gland. Victims were subject to headaches, nausea, aching joints, fever of 101-105 degrees, vomiting, and a general feeling of illness. Symptoms took from 1-7 days to appear. " I think its vandalismTriple J rulz 10:46, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Strange, incorrect Daileader quote

The article quotes this historian saying:

As for how many people died, the most widely cited figure is one third of the European population died. This figure has been cited so often, and for so long, that no one knows where it comes from anymore. It should be regarded as an absolute minimum.

I'm no medieval historian, but I know that the one-third number comes from Froissart. And even if I hadn't read Barbara Tuchman's A Distant Mirror, I'd know it because this very article has a citation to the line in Froissart's own book! How can you claim credit as a medieval historian and not know Froissart?--Idols of Mud 15:16, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Errors

Hi,

please could someone correct this aticle? There are several bad errors. One example: "...The same disease is thought to have returned to Europe every generation with varying degrees of intensified fatality until the 2100s..." That's nonsense....

THX

213.39.209.127 21:22, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 'Eastern Europe's lag': at best controversial and in need of citation

Surely there's something wrong with this remark: 'Extrapolating from this, the Black Death may be seen as partly responsible for Eastern Europe's considerable lag in scientific and philosophical advances'. First, this is certainly not something sufficiently obvious to be presupposed in this way. (In fact, it's probably false that there was such a lag... The Copernican revolution, for example, represents a clear case from around the relevant time of scientific advances moving westward.) Second, irrespective of its truth or falsity, it's sufficiently controversial to require some form of citation or attribution. Third, even with a citation to an argument in favor of what this presupposes, the claim is worded in an objectionable---inflammatory and almost offensive---way.

[edit] Page might have been subtly vandalized

Special:Contributions/208.125.42.91 did several edits that appear to be blatant vandalism on Blood libel and Chester A. Arthur. The user also did a few edits on this article. I'm not 100% sure if the particular edits to this article are big/subtle enough to be vandalisms. They are (changes highlighted):

  • On the heels of the Asian and European epidemic, more widespread disaster occurred in China during 1353–1354.
  • According to accounts, so many died in Caffa that the survivors had little time to bury them and bodies were stacked like cords of firewood and steel against the city walls.
  • Mecca became infected in 1349. During the same year ,and month, records show the city of Mawsil (Mosul) suffered a massive epidemic, and the city of Baghdad experienced a second round of the disease

Since I'm not an expert on this subject, I don't feel qualified to remove these particular changes, since they might be legit. Almkglor (talk) 06:20, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] This doesn't make sense

Under "The Great Plague" :

Medieval people called the fourteenth (14th) century catastrophe either the "Great Pestilence"' the "Black Death"' or the "Great Plague".[14] Contemporary writers then referred to the event as the "Great Mortality"; the term "Black Death" was introduced for the first time in 1833. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.246.99.186 (talk) 21:50, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The plague of Ashwood?

The section entitled "The plague of Ashwood" makes absolutely no sense. It is unsourced, and at odds with the rest of the article. Furthermore, I am reasonably sure there is no place called "Ashwood" in what is now Israel. --Tsourkpk (talk) 00:49, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Removed Section

I removed the following paragraph from the Recurrence section. It was just sort of stuck in there and didn't make sense. Not sure where it goes in the article.

"the skin and underlying tissue, until they were covered in dark blotches. Most victims died within four to seven days after infection. When the plague reached Europe, it first struck port cities and then followed the trade routes, both by sea and land."

Paul1967 (talk) 10:16, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. It was the remainder of an overlooked deletion. I scrolled through the history and retrieved the lost material. -- SEWilco (talk) 17:06, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] article lacks a 'how did it end' section

article lacks a 'how did it end' section, there should be a section saying how did it end. Farmanesh (talk) 04:31, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] the black plauge

the black plague is harmful.


   I would like to say that this comment is absolutely random. Of course we know the black death is    harmful!!!

[edit] Micrograph

The micrograph of the bacterium should have a scale bar and not say '2000x magnification' - the actual magnification depends on the physical size of the image on your screen. View this at low resolution on a large screen and you'll have a greater magnification that if you view it on a PDA... 137.222.244.62 (talk) 23:13, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Fleas and locations of buboes

Maybe I am completely missing the logic here, or maybe, not having read Cohn's original statements, I am just misinformed about his argument. However, all climatological info aside, the statements (cut and pasted below) relating to the location of buboes as an argument against the Black Death being caused by Bubonic Plague seem to suffer from a glaring error of logic.

Cohn also points out that in the latter part of the nineteenth century buboes appeared mostly on an infected person's groin, while medieval primary sources indicate that the Black Death caused buboes to appear on necks, armpits, and groins. This difference, he argues, ties in with the fact that fleas caused the modern plague and not the Black Death. Since flea bites do not usually reach beyond a person's ankles, in the modern period the groin was the nearest lymph node that could be infected. As the neck and the armpit were often infected during the medieval plague, it appears less likely that these infections were caused by fleas on rats. [63]

So-- he is saying that because the buboes in the Medieval outbreak were located in all three areas (neck, armpit, groin), this is evidence AGAINST bubonic plague --because in the more modern outbreaks,buboes were only noted in the groin (because flea bites only occur on the feet)?

It seems to me that as hygiene has improved, fleas are less common (or at least in reduced locations) where people live. However, the hygiene of the medieval era was notoriously horrid--and people generally lived with their pests (fleas could easily make their way into bedding, clothing, etc). Therefore you would see flea bites on the arms and face--which would cause infection in the next nearest lymph node locations, the neck and armpits, in addition to the groin.

Based on this simple logic, it escapes me how the Cohn's argument above can be persuasively used as evidence to the contrary. Just this amateur scientist's humble opinion. KerBearRN (talk) 05:37, 3 March 2008 (UTC)KerBearRN

The whole argument doesn't fly, because alternative carriers have been already posited, such as lice in human clothing. Plus, of course, you're perfectly right about fleas in bedding etc. --213.209.110.45 (talk) 08:06, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Section on "Plague migration"

There are some weaknesses in this section. First, it says that the Medieval Warm Period ended towards the end of the fourteenth century and then goes on to mention famines in 1315 or so, ie. nearer to the beginning' of the fourteenth century. A second weakness relates to the paragraph on "Northern Europe". There is no definition of what this area is. Is England included? France? In any case the idea that all of "Northern Europe" has "clay-like soils" is off-the-wall. Some parts actually have clay soils. Europe is very diverse when it comes to soil types. The source does not seem adequate for this section. Itsmejudith (talk) 23:06, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

black death —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.137.223.113 (talk) 15:16, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] x..polly..x

amazing, just perfect —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.157.50.122 (talk) 19:09, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Congratulations!

I would like to congratulate the writer of this particular article on the Black Death as he got me through an important test in my school. Euge246 (talk) 05:59, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

A day of stock market catastrophe. Originally, Sep 24,1869 was deemed Black Friday. The crash was sparked by gold speculators, including Jay could and James First, who attempted to corner the gold market. The attempt failed and the gold market collapsed, causing the stock market to plummet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.174.79.193 (talk) 21:47, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] blackfriday

A day of stock market catastrophe. Originally, Sept 24,1869 was deemed Black Friday. The crash was sparked by gold speculators, including Jay Gould and James Fist, who attempted to corner the gold market. The attempt faild and the gold market collapsed, causing the stock market to plummet(William Kargbo) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.174.79.193 (talk) 21:56, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Misspelling

In the literature section, near the end of the first paragraph, it says "heigh" instead of "height." I can't fix it because the article is locked

Fixed after above anon report. -- SEWilco (talk) 01:28, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Nomination for Featured Article

Not sure how to go about doing this, but this is a very well organized article with such a wealth of different kinds of information that I think it should be featured.

Kitra101 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 19:29, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

FACs are usually nominated by the editors who contribute most to them. This is because they are very familiar with the sources, have worked up the article in preparation (with peer reviews, copy-edits and so on) and can generally shepherd the article through the often laborious and complex process. --ROGER DAVIES talk 21:29, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Withdrawn as a premature malformed FAC. --ROGER DAVIES talk 23:51, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked fleas?

Under section 3.1 "Bubonic Plague Theory" it says "Modelling of epizootic plague observed in prairie dogs suggests that occasional reservoirs of infection such as an infectious carcass, rather than "blocked fleas" are a better explanation for the observed epizootic behaviour of the disease in nature."

What on earth are blocked fleas? I tried following up the reference but it doesn't work. Richerman (talk) 13:07, 4 June 2008 (UTC)