Talk:Black Death/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Edit requests

1. Hello. Under DNA evidence, at the bottom, the following can be read: "The results of the Haensch study have since been confirmed [...]". This is very confusing. What is the Haensch study? The first time 'Haensch' is mentioned is in that sentence, so what is being referred to exactly? Is it the October 2010 study or the studies following it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.109.232.26 (talk) 20:14, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes it is the 2010 study, as shown in the References section. The Haensch paper is itself a confirmation of a number of other papers dating back to 2003 which were controversial in scientific terms, hence the enormous amount of work that has been done on the topic. Chris55 (talk) 12:02, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

2. Furthermore new evidence in London suggests that the plague was a pneumonic plague rather than a bubonic plague. For more information visit these two sources: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-26770334 http://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/mar/29/black-death-not-spread-rat-fleas-london-plague — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.181.236.193 (talk) 18:41, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

3. The European outbreak section currently states: "then spread to Bjørgvin (modern Bergen) and Iceland.[19]" First of all the citation seems to be broken, but more importantly the disease didn't reach Iceland until 1402 http://books.google.is/...

Semi-protected edit request

In the section "Migration" under the header "Populations in crisis"(in the second paragraph, second line), there is a piece of text that says (as of time of writing) '..., which increases susceptibility to infections due to weakened immunity.' it should say '..., which increased susceptibility to infections due to weakened immunity.' since the rest of the sentence is in the past tense and this word('increases') is in the present tense so the sentence is "under-going"(can't find a better word to describe it) tense-switching, which is a grammatical error. 82.47.40.66 (talk) 16:45, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Pandemic focus of the article

The Black Death (1347-52) is generally regarded as the start of a second pandemic of plague which lasted right up to the 1840s. However the article has extended to the whole topic which I think is unfortunate for several reasons: the 14th century outbreak is important enough for a whole article; the nature of the symptoms and spread of the disease is significantly different in the initial outbreaks and the returns over the centuries; the rest of the pandemic is squashed into a single crammed section; and it marginalizes non-European aspects, particularly middle-eastern but also China.

I'd therefore suggest this article is cut right back to focus almost entirely on the first 14th century outbreak and the rest be moved to a new article Second plague pandemic which could refer back to this article. It could also include some of the detail in the section on Plague (disease) which is currently where the redirect links to. There is also a minor section in Bubonic plague which covers the same ground.

This would be a major editing job, which is why it's worth getting some agreement before starting. Chris55 (talk) 11:16, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Chris55 - It would help if you would point out the sections you mean. It seems to me that the bulk of the article already focuses on the 14th century outbreak. I guess that your objection is to the section Recurrence. That section doesn't detract from the article and some readers may find it useful. Please expand on why you think there is a problem. Apuldram (talk) 12:27, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Much of the Major outbreaks section as well as the Recurrence section. But my proposal also stems from the links in other articles: Second plague pandemic pointed to Black Death till I changed it, and the section in Bubonic plague still refers here as the main article. But you're right that most of the article isn't affected. It's more to do with creating a new article. Chris55 (talk) 13:10, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

I feel that the article would benefit from restructuring. Surely Symptoms and Causes should come before Migration, and Major outbreaks belongs with Recurrence. Apuldram (talk) 12:47, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I agree - and speaking personally, the Major outbreaks section has been one of the disturbing factors that has prevented me trying. Without it, it will be easier. Chris55 (talk) 13:38, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Your re-organisation of the article (4 August 2014) is a tremendous improvement. Congratulations. Apuldram (talk) 13:28, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Ireland

Because of the "lock" on this article I note with caution only one point: "The Black Death" (1348 - 1349)also damaged the population of Ireland and Richard 11 in 1394 arrived and tried to revive things.Osborne 14:56, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough. Because of the obsessive attention to theories of the cause of the Black Death, the actual description of how it affected different countries has been reduced to a minimum and should be expanded. Chris55 (talk) 08:41, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

References

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: here, here, and here. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and according to fair use may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Diannaa (talk) 00:15, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

The significance of Caffa/Kaffa

Whether the question of possible biological warfare in the siege of Caffa should be in the lead/lede depends on its significance in the spread of the plague to Europe. Most commentators, such as Wheelis (2002) and Benedictow (2004) (see pp 50-53) are agreed that it is insignificant. Another example is Fossier in vol 3 of the Cambridge Illustrated History of the Middle Ages: "The Mongols may even have deliberately catapulted corpses of plague over the walls of Caffa, the Genoese depot in the Crimea, which they besieged in 1344. A minor detail." (p52-3)

I don't have access to the papers mentioned by Rjensen, but Wheelis gives a good translation of the account by de Mussis which is the sole source of the story. It has many problems. One of them is the assumption that the Mongols had a modern understanding of the idea of infection, something which was not understood in the west before the nineteenth century. Also dead plague bodies are not particularly infectious and it took a year for the disease to travel to Europe. There is evidence from Russian accounts that the plague was raging in the Golden Horde several years before the siege and this particular incidence may have been one of several routes the disease took. Modern DNA analysis hasn't yet even shown whether the epidemic came via the Steppes or by sea.

But the biggest problem of putting this in the lead is the implication that the horrendous consequences of 1348-51 were caused by a middle-eastern act of bioterrorism. This is almost certainly not the case. The disease was spreading fast in any case and there are multiple cases of sailors bringing it to Europe. Hence it does not deserve this prominence. By all means add these references in the appropriate place, but they don't deserve to be in the lead. Chris55 (talk) 10:08, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Chris55 here - it is probably too much detail for the lede - especially given that we cannot be sure that the catapult story was actually connected with the spread of plague. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:01, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

I also agree with Chris55 here - the BBC article makes it clear that the plague had already arrived in the Crimea with the Golden Horde before the alleged catapulting and that it didn't affect the spread of the disease. Apuldram (talk) 15:33, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

No that is against what Wheelis says. He argues that the plague spread westward through numerous channels and all came from the Mongols--not just through Caffa. He argues that the Mongols did engage in deliberate bioterrorism at Caffa (against the people inside). Furthermore he shows that contact with a dead body is a major means of transmission. That is a fact the Mongols could observe without any modern medicine--and it explains why they hurled the bodies inside. Wheelis writes: "Diseased cadavers hurled into the city could easily have transmitted plague, as defenders handled the cadavers during disposal. Contact with infected material is a known mechanism of transmission (8–11); for instance, among 284 cases of plague in the United States in 1970–1995 for which a mechanism of transmission could be reasonably inferred, 20% were thought to be by direct contact (24). Such transmission would have been especially likely at Caffa, where cadavers would have been badly mangled by being hurled, and many of the defenders probably had cut or abraded hands from coping with the bombardment." Rjensen (talk) 16:39, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Have you read the statement at the end of Wheelis' first paragraph? "After analyzing these claims, I have concluded that it is plausible that the biological attack took place as described and was responsible for infecting the inhabitants of Caffa; however, the event was unimportant in the spread of the plague pandemic." It would seem that the walled town was the only place that there wasn't any plague at the time. Nor does he blame the Mongols for bringing the disease in the first place. Chris55 (talk) 17:23, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Columbian Exchange

Article states that the first Black Death case in North America was in 1900. It has been postulated that the Black Death was with other diseases responsible for the depopulation of the native population in the Americas around the time of Columbus. Cladymoor 21:15, 4 November 2014 (UTC)73.38.52.193 (talk)

Please say who postulated that, where and when. Apuldram (talk) 21:59, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Blocked Gut Theory Refuted

The traditional "blocked gut" theory of flea/plague transmission, the one I grew up with, seems to have been overturned in recent years. Early work suggested that the plague bacillus could not be transmitted for several weeks after the host flea was itself was infected. More recent work indicates that "early stage" transmission of the plague bacillus is possible before the gut becomes blocked. This seems significant because a lot of people funny ideas about the spread of plague seem to hinge on the "blocked gut" theory making rapid spread of the disease "impossible". I'm not a biologist, but maybe someone who is wants to take this up and update the Causes section appropriately.

See [paywalled]: Eisen RJ, Eisen L, Gage KL (2009) Studies of vector competency and efficiency of North American fleas for Yersinia pestis: State of the field and future research needs. J Med Entomol 46(4): 737–744. http://www.crossref.org/iPage?doi=10.1603%2F033.046.0403

From the Abstract:

...The majority of these early transmission studies focused on the blocked flea mechanism of transmission, which typically does not occur until >2–3 wk after the flea becomes infected. Recent studies have challenged the paradigm that Y. pestis is usually spread by blocked fleas by demonstrating that numerous flea species, including the oriental rat flea Xenopsylla cheopis, which was the focus of the early classical studies on blocked flea transmission, are capable of “early-phase” transmission during the first few days after becoming infected and before a complete blockage can form...

Atani (talk) 01:10, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

I may be overlooking something, so please correct me if I'm wrong, but the current language doesn't appear indicate that gut blockage is required for transmission, nor does it reject the possibility that early transmission occurs. That being said, if solid evidence supports early transmission, it would be an interesting and useful addition to Bubonic plague and Plague (disease). AlphaEta (talk to me) 03:02, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

AlphaEta - True, the current language of the article is vague enough that it is technically possible to interpret it several ways - but who would? It is my strong opinion that the section as written is still essentially a recapitulation of the traditional "blocked gut" theory. The reason why that I think it important to show that the traditional theory, that disease transmission could not occur from a flea without a blocked gut, has been superseded with an improved theory is that many skeptical theories - including science based ones - are laboring under the assumption that the rat/disease vector could only operate very slowly because of this effect. If it has been shown that the rat/flea vector could operate quickly then many skeptical hypotheses become unnecessary. I think Eisen et. al (2009) is a sufficiently strong reference to cite for a rewrite. I just think it would be best for a biologist, or someone with access to the full paper [currently paywalled at $28.00], to take on.Atani (talk) 17:30, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Poland

It has been briefly discussed here in the talk page on a couple of different occasions, but it seems that no solid evidence has been presented to support the claims that Poland was able to escape the Black Death relatively unscathed. The spread map "File:Blackdeath2.gif" also reflects this assertion. However, other sources like this one by Ole Jørgen Benedictow make the claim that Poland was in fact impacted in a large way by the plague. Does anyone know of good sources that contradict this one? AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 13:20, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree with your reading of Benedictow and it's one of the only Europe-wide modern treatments of the subject. The question is what do we do about the graphic? I removed Iceland earlier and could include Poland now (though my earlier edit caused Iceland to jump by one pixel and had to be corrected by others!) It's still the least problematic of several candidates. Chris55 (talk) 11:01, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

It is also bluffing that the Milan region escaped the pestilence according to the graphic. Is this supported by any historical account?--217.253.36.229 (talk) 19:59, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Recent News of Madagascar Plague

I've come across an article from the World Health Organization that describes the re-occurrence of the Black Death as of today. Would it be possible to mention it anywhere in the topic? I honestly don't know where to add such information.

Thanks...

Tibbydibby (talk) 22:37, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I have added the mention to the article. Well spotted Tibbydibby. Apuldram (talk) 23:45, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Image of medieval plague

This image of tonsured clerics and a bishop, from comes the Omne bonum, compiled by an Exchequer clerk, James le Palmer, in the 14th century.

Looking at the image alone, we see a group of clerics being instructed by a bishop. Their status in unclear, as not only monks were tonsured. His gesture is one of teaching, not blessing. They are clearly not suffering from a rapidly incapaciting disease, such as plague. Moreover, the red blotches are not plague buboes but the usual visual representation of leprosy.

Turning to the text, we find that it is a discussion of what should be done if a clergyman is unable to fulfil his clerical functions because he has a debilitating disease. Leprosy is often mentioned in the text as the key example of such a disease.

The section of this encyclopedic manual is entitled "De clerico debilitato ministrante sequitur videre." On ministration by a disabled cleric.

2601:D:2D00:671:8872:F1E2:115A:7340 (talk) 21:29, 4 December 2014 (UTC) David Harley

I removed the image from the article. The British Library has changed its description of the image and now describes it as you suggest.[1] Rmhermen (talk) 04:41, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

For context, David is referring to the conclusions a new paper in The Medieval Globe, an open-access version of which is available here. Nev1 (talk) 15:26, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

"Ring Around the Rosie"

The famed children's song "Ring A ring a rosies" was invented at the time of the black plague to warn children. "Ring Around the Rosie" - black ring around red area on skin "pocket full of posies" - people would carry posies around in their pockets to smell because the smell of death was so strong "ashes, ashes" - ran out of room to bury bodies so people were sometimes burned "we all fall down" - originally "we all fall dead" but later changed to sound more cheery

Swollen Lymph Glands

When you get sick, naturally, your lymph glands swell a little because they are overworked. Although it is uncommon to get it in the groin area, it IS common to get it in the armpits and on the neck. It DOES NOT mean you have the black plague.

Semi-protected edit request on 15 January 2015

87.82.212.210 (talk) 12:19, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi, please state what change you wish to be made. Without any information we cannot make the changes you want. Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 12:34, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

The Black Death was a plague that was spread by rats. Fleas bit the rats then bit us and thats how the plague was spread. Also, the plague wasn't just one disease it was made of many different ones. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.180.68.39 (talk) 23:53, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

30–60% of Europe's total population were killed?

in the introduction the article states: ...the Black Death is estimated to have killed 30–60% of Europe's total population...

in this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_epidemics ...30% to 70% of population... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Schmidtdominik30 (talk • contribs) 09:53, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

The percentage in this article is sourced. Perhaps the figure in the other article should be changed to agree, and the source given. Apuldram (talk) 10:18, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 April 2015

206.213.165.12 (talk) 19:56, 15 April 2015 (UTC) page tdud

pls no accepterino

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Kharkiv07^Talk 20:05, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 May 2015

Christakos is not the only author of reference [39]. The complete list of authors is George Christakos, Ricardo A. Olea, Marc L. Serre, Hwa-Lung Yu, Lin-Lin Wang 130.11.37.76 (talk) 13:10, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Done —Granger (talk · contribs) 20:20, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Death Toll

Most reputable source I could find (WHO) gives a death toll (50 million) that is lower than the range currently on wikipedia (75-200 million) http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs267/en/ AlexPenson (talk) 03:17, 8 September 2015 (UTC)AlexPenson

I am not sure they are a reliable source for something historical. They could only reply on historian's estimates and do not cite a source.--SabreBD (talk) 16:44, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 September 2015

In the first section of Black Death, there is a conflict in the number of estimated deaths due to the plague. It begins by saying 75-200 million died. At the end of the section, it says that world population went from 450 million to 350-375 million. This is a contradiction in numbers. The correct world population should read "250-375 million".

Toddwp (talk) 16:29, 15 September 2015 (UTC) 9/15/2015

Toddwp (talk) 16:29, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

the 75M figure comes from reference [1], the 200M from [3]. The Encyclopaedia Britannica estimates 25M in Europe. My opinion is that the suspect figure is the 200M, not the 250-375 million. Until this is resolved we should not implement the edit request. Apuldram (talk) 18:18, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Misleading Graphic/Better Caption Needed?

Could there be a legend or more descriptive caption added to the graphic at the beginning of the article?

Reading the article it becomes clear that the graphic is showing spread of the disease as well as some level of intensity or percent of the population affected. As it is, it is very easy to misunderstand the graphic as indicating that the areas around Milan and Poland weren't affected by the plague at all, rather than being less affected than other areas in Europe. Especially since it's the only graphic, and is at the top of the page it would be could to be as clear as possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.217.115.48 (talk) 03:37, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Genealogy of plague pushed back 3,000 years, not spread by fleas back then.

The study, published in Cell (open access article): http://www.cell.com/cell/abstract/S0092-8674%2815%2901322-7

A batch of reliable sources covering these new discoveries (Bing search): http://www.bing.com/search?q=Bronze+Age+plague&filters=tnTID%3a%226F07D3F0-1748-4639-AEB1-FC8E3CDF828F%22+tnVersion%3a%221128051%22+segment%3a%22popularnow.carousel%22+tnCol%3a%2222%22+tnOrder%3a%229da0f099-a830-40a1-b8b5-f4338c5d4ff2%22&FORM=BSPN01&crslsl=3091&efirst=20

IBT quote: "The Plague of Athens that devastated Ancient Greece in 430BC and the Antonine Plague that killed an estimated five million people in the Roman Empire may well have been caused by, well, the plague." http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/plague-athens-caused-by-plague-evidence-shows-infections-bronze-age-humans-1525231

Very interesting. Thank you and all the best, Wordreader (talk) 16:11, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

As you say this is interesting, but it is relevant to the general article on plague, where the Cell paper has already been noted, rather than to this article on the Black Death. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:38, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Plaque, as a general topic, is caused by various organisms causing various diseases and various run-away public health infections. Since the information above refers specifically to Yersinia pestis and the epidemics it caused a lot longer ago that previously thought, are you saying that a common name for the disease would not have been "Black Death" back then, but something else? It seems to me that the info relates significantly to this particular kind of plague. Thank you for your fast reply, Wordreader (talk) 16:50, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

The article I linked to is specifically about the type of plague caused by Yersinia pestis. This article is about the outbreak of the mid-fourteenth century. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:55, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Opium addicts susceptible to getting the plague?

Since a majority of people in Europe were addicted to opium during the middle ages is it not possible that the opium addicts were the people who got the plague? Other places where there was heavy opium us also seem to get the plague, like 19th century China. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.45.21.159 (talk) 01:50, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

The black death was centuries before the British and French sold opium to China. Also, what makes you imagine the "majority of people in Europe were addicted to opium during the middle ages"? Apuldram (talk) 08:13, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

The Spice trade was actually the opium trade, historians cover this up for unknown reasons. There had to be opium in Europe for opium addict Christopher Columbus to want to go to India to get it. Opium was used by Chinese people off and on throughout history. The plague happened when opium use was substantial. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.79.191.84 (talk) 12:37, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

So, you know the secret truth that historians have covered up, that the entire history of international trade and colonialism was rooted in opium, eh? You might want to read Wikipedia:Why Wikipedia cannot claim the earth is not flat.--Saforrest (talk) 11:55, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

As above, the majority of medieval Europeans were drunk off their arses at any given time, but they had no idea what opium was until the early 16th century. — LlywelynII 10:15, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Region of origin

The black death arose on Mongolia which is in North Asia, not Central Asia so this is wrong. Akmal94 (talk) 05:58, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Please indicate the source of your statement that the black death arose in Mongolia. The article indicates that many epidemiologists believe it broke out in Kyrgyzstan, in Central Asia. Apuldram (talk) 09:13, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Mongolia was and is in central Asia,—as defined by its steppelands which is what we're talking about here—so it's a moot point regardless. — LlywelynII 10:18, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 May 2016

rey was the king of all of them

198.97.62.30 (talk) 19:36, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Apuldram (talk) 22:09, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Persecution of Jews linked to ritual cleansing?

At school we were taught that Jews practised ritual cleansing and therefore were less susceptible to the plague. Their lower mortality rate would then have made them appear suspicious in the eyes of their Christian neighbours. Thus leading to accusations of guilt and to persecution. I do not have any expertise or literature to check whether this theory is correct - can anyone help? It would then be worth a mention in the Wikipedia article, which does not really explain why the persecutions happened. 86.170.123.32 (talk) 19:25, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Bubonic plague

This article is totally lacking the words Bubonic plague, which makes it very impossible to search for in Google. Most references at the bottom of the page refer to the event as the Bubonic plague, as it is colloquially known in the United States. I can only surmise there's some scholarly argument against usage of the phrase "Bubonic plague", however, that scholarly argument probably shouldn't apply to an article about what we know today as the Bubonic plague. Maybe a footnote correcting the reader is a more appropriate path to history revisionism. 67.0.34.219 (talk) 19:12, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

I do not see the problem. When I did a search on "bubonic plague" in the article on the Black Death I got 28 hits. If you search on bubonic plague in google you get the Wiki article on bubonic plague, which mentions the Black Death in the lead. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:50, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Black Plague

Already links here and is supported by the title of one of the sources. Needs mention in the lead. — LlywelynII 10:13, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

No scholar calls it the Black Plague and that is not a reliable source.--SabreBD (talk) 10:17, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

You're lying or misinformed. You shouldn't be so rude regardless, but it's especially offputting when you're completely wrong. "Black Plague" is less common but it's certainly common enough that it bears mention here, doubly so in light of the redirect being used by scores of pages. — LlywelynII 10:23, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Sourcing in the lead falls under WP:BLUE in my mind but you're welcome to pick any of the 6700 sources at Google Scholar that you feel meet your criteria for inclusion. I'm not interested in batting back and forth, just providing helpful and necessary information and improving our coverage of a common term. If there are caveats on its use, open up a name section and discuss them. — LlywelynII 10:26, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Ah. There is a name section already; it's just mislabeled. Fine to mention it there as well, but the alt names need bolding. — LlywelynII 10:31, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

I am going to assume you are going for an odd form sort of irony with your personal comments and ignore them. Whether this needs to be in the opening sentence is clearly under dispute and I am reverting under WP:BRD. We now need to sort it out here. As for your list of sources. It is clear that the vast majority of your 6,700 sources are not about this historic event, but apparently about subjects such as circuits and golf. I reiterate, this is the not the scholarly name for this phenomenon. I suggest we see what other editors say and then see if we can gain a consensus.--SabreBD (talk) 16:33, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

I just got through mentioning "Black Plague" in a different discussion and am surprised that the article is not called Black Plague and that, since it's not called that, the term is not at least mentioned in the lead. "Black Plague" is a significant alternative term for this topic, and is used by a number of scholars, as sources in the article show and as pointed to by Sabrebd LlywelynII above. So, per the WP:Alternative name policy, it should be noted in the lead. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:01, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

'Black Plague' is not a name commonly used for the pestilence. Searching the internet for it comes up with two board games, a pop group and other irrelevant activities. The statement by Flyer22Reborn "is used by a number of scholars, as sources in the article show" is clearly untrue. Only one source of the many in the article uses that name. It is not a significant alternative name for the topic. Apuldram (talk) 11:38, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Searching the Internet for "Black plague" brings up more than just "two board games, a pop group and other irrelevant activities" if one looks beyond the junk. If one actually looks, including on YouTube, or has read any of the literature, there are clearly a number of scholars who use the terms black plague, plague, bubonic plague and black death interchangeably. For example, although Norman F. Cantor uses Black Death for his 2001 book In the Wake of the Plague: The Black Death and the World it Made, from Simon and Schuster, he also calls it "black plague," stating, "Much of what we know about the greatest medical disaster ever, the Black Plague of the fourteenth century, is wrong." If we look at the 2001 Encyclopedia of Women in the Middle Ages source, by author Jennifer Lawler, published by McFarland, Lawler states on page 124, "The worst disaster of the Middle Ages was not a war nor a storm. It was a sickness called the black plague. This disease was also known as the bubonic plague since it left sores called buboes, or the black death, because of the color of the sores it caused." Since Lawler is a freelance writer, though, some might state that calling her a scholar on this topic is questionable. Either way, the alternative names black plague and bubonic plague are nowhere in the lead or the Names section. In fact, many sources state "Black Death, also known as Bubonic Plague," and yet this article does not even note "bubonic plague" as an alternative name. "Bubonic plague" is mentioned in the "Causes" section, though. That we have a Bubonic plague article doesn't mean we shouldn't mention the term Bubonic plague as an alternative name. And we certainly shouldn't be confusing readers by having black plague redirect here and not even mentioning it in the lead or lower in the article. Maybe this is a regional and/or generational thing; by that, I mean here in the United States, the Plague was mostly called "the Black plague" when I was in school; the text looked a lot like this Reading source (from Remedia Publications) when I was in elementary school or middle school. So I agree with LlywelynII that "Black Plague is less common but it's certainly common enough that it bears mention here, doubly so in light of the redirect being used by scores of pages." It should at least be in the Names section. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:24, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

You're not wrong and thank you for being so very thorough in your discussion. I'm restoring the term to the lead sentence but otherwise leaving this mess alone. If the well-meaning but (in this case) underinformed editors above remove the term without further discussion and thorough scholarly explanation for how it is misleading to mention this alternative name, kindly restore it. If they keep it up beyond that, I guess we can start RfDs and the rest of that nonsense. I don't know why it's so hard for them to look this up for themselves and accept that this is a common term both popularly and in the scholarship and we therefore need to mention it. — LlywelynII 04:28, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 September 2016

More Pictures specifically this one https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/40/1c/32/401c32669057dfa32c9d124f1ae6defa.jpg

✗ Not done That image doesn't seem to add anything useful to the article. Also, most users won't be able to read it. What language is it in? Apuldram (talk) 15:09, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Black Death. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081010145720/http://faculty.ed.umuc.edu/%7Ejmatthew/naples/goldenage.htm to http://faculty.ed.umuc.edu/~jmatthew/naples/goldenage.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090721033845/http://www.ucalgary.ca/applied_history/tutor/islam/mongols/blackDeath.html to http://www.ucalgary.ca/applied_history/tutor/islam/mongols/blackDeath.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool. Apuldram (talk) 19:12, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:43, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Where can I link to my free EPUBs about public domain books about the plague?

It's been a while since I edited Wikipedia so I wasn't sure where to put a link to these free EPUBs. The files are on Dropbox, is that site blacklisted on Wikipedia? EPUB files are much easier to read on a smaller screen device than say, a PDF from archive.org. The books I have in EPUB format are:

1. "Epidemics of the Middle Ages" by JFC Hecker.
2. "The Black Death" and "The Dancing Mania" in one EPUB by JFC Hecker.
3. "Plague and Pestilence in the North of England" (1852) by G. Bouchier Richardson, F.S.A.

Can someone reply and let me know the best way to do this? Thanks. Chuckr30 (talk) 13:12, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Recent revert

I reverted the 'citation needed' added by user:Smasongarrison and intended to added a comment that the citation has been supplied below, but the revert went through without giving me the chance to add the comment. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:10, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

You could also add the comment to user:Smasongarrison's talk page. Dimadick (talk) 07:49, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 January 2017

The Black Death is now a video game on Steam. It seeks to emulate the daily life of people living in the time of the black death, and maintains a historical touch. Players can be Hunters, Clergymen, Bandits, Beggars, etc. All are susceptible to getting the plague as well. The game also pays homage to history by including many boarded up houses containing plague victims, which was a common practice. Perhaps this can go with the popular culture, "See Also" section? Kikero91 (talk) 04:09, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Not done: It’s not clear what changes you would like made. Please request the change in a format: "add X" or "delete X" or "change X to Y".
Also, video games are not encyclopaedic. Apuldram (talk) 09:03, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Apuldram, did you forget we have many articles on videogames? Dimadick (talk) 09:17, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes. I did overlook that. Mea Culpa.
So, when there is a Wikipedia article on this video game, it could be added to the See also section.
Apuldram (talk) 11:05, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Number of victims

it'n not clear to me how's "resulting in the deaths of an estimated 75 to 200 million people and peaking in Europe in the years 1346–1353": the entire european population in 1346 was estimated about 75-100 millions... the plague reduced it from 30% to 60% in less then 5 years (see this as online source)

it has little sense speaking of 200 million people (in Europe?) using online generic sources (wired, bbc...) which obviosly cite other sources, maybe circularly Wikipedia itself... morever below is written "In total, the plague may have reduced the world population from an estimated 450 million down to 350–375 million in the 14th century"-Shivanarayana (talk) 12:44, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

The 75 to 200 million people doesn't apply to Europe alone. See the section Death toll. I'll add the words in Eurasia to the lead. Apuldram (talk) 13:12, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Historians are making a guess and the contemporary chroniclers were also making guesses. No one actually knows if many people died or if only a small number of people died and know one actually knows what they died from. It may have been catholic priests and other manipulative people who lied about people dying from the plague to make people scared so that the manipulative people had more control over them. Exploiting people who have a fear of death is common amongst religious leaders. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.161.200.5 (talk) 04:09, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

What is your point? The article already states that the number of deaths is estimated. Apuldram (talk) 07:49, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Edit request May 2017

In the "Causes" section. "A transmissible disease will spread easily in such conditions" (reason: Grammar, remove the will, it's in the past, not in the future). 69.165.196.103 (talk) 02:52, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

The sentence is correct as it is. Rmhermen (talk) 03:52, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Note: Resulting sentence "A transmissible disease spread easily in such conditions" is grammatically incorrect. regards, DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 04:09, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Not done: Your change makes the sentence grammatically incorrect. —MRD2014 📞 contribs 13:41, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

"spread" is the correct past tense of the verb, so I don't see what makes it incorrect. Keeping "will" is certainly incorrect, however, as the sentence is supposed to be in that past tense, not the future. Maybe "Transmissible diseases spread easily in such conditions"? 69.165.196.103 (talk) 21:04, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — IVORK _Discuss 21:50, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

• Neither construction is grammatically incorrect. However, the current wording is satisfactory because it's referring to something that happens if certain conditions are met. In such cases, the "will spread" construction merely signifies probability or inevitability, rather than being indicative of the future tense per se. This is standard, idiomatic English. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 21:56, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Black Death. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130607104352/http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Plague to http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Plague
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://faculty.ed.umuc.edu/~jmatthew/naples/goldenage.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080411112934/http://www.tabblo.com/studio/stories/view/409531/ to http://www.tabblo.com/studio/stories/view/409531/

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

N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:58, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

The second mod (corrected formatting) doesn't work. Apuldram (talk) 17:57, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

East Smithfield

The results of the Haensch study have since been confirmed and amended. Based on genetic evidence derived from Black Death victims in the East Smithfield burial site in England, Schuenemann et al. concluded in 2011 "that the Black Death in medieval Europe was caused by a variant of Y. pestis that may no longer exist."[41] A study published in Nature in October 2011 sequenced the genome of Y. pestis from plague victims and indicated that the strain that caused the Black Death is ancestral to most modern strains of the disease.[5]

DNA taken from 25 skeletons ...

The first and third sentence (and possibly the second) refer to the East Smithfield burial site. The first and third sentences appear to contradict each other (although the first is qualified with the word "may"). I think that the article would be improved if a authoritative paper summarising the finds about the site was used that assess and clarifies what the most recent thoughts are now that the 2011 research is six years old. If this was done the 2011 papers could be removed. -- PBS (talk) 09:17, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Poland affected

Hi, the article says: "The plague was somewhat less common in parts of Europe that had smaller trade relations with their neighbours, including the Kingdom of Poland". This is incorrect. E.g. Kraków/Cracow - the capital at the time - had the biggest commercial market square in the medieval Europe and was a major commercial hub of Eeas-West and North-South trade routes to the Baltics, Asia, Africa etc. Despite being far inland (though by a amjor river) it was even part of the Hansa League. The main reason for plague having a lesser effect on Poland was that King Casimir the Great (not a random name) established quarantines at the borders and of the cities. Cited source: e.g. already mentioned:

"During Kazimierz's reign, the Black Death, a pandemic infection, swept across Europe, killing millions. But Poland established quarantines at its borders, and the plague skirted Poland almost entirely."

Please change:

FROM:

"The plague was somewhat less common in parts of Europe that had smaller trade relations with their neighbours, including the Kingdom of Poland, the majority of the Basque Country, isolated parts of Belgium and the Netherlands, and isolated alpine villages throughout the continent."

TO:

"The plague was somewhat less common in parts of Europe that had smaller trade relations with their neighbours, including the majority of the Basque Country, isolated parts of Belgium and the Netherlands, and isolated alpine villages throughout the continent. The Kingdom of Poland experienced a much lesser effect due to King Casimir the Great establishing quarantines at the borders and isolation of the cities."

Pawel777 (talk) 22:39, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Partly done: I just removed the Kingdom of Poland from the sentence. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 16:56, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

For the sentence you request: " The Kingdom of Poland experienced a much lesser effect due to King Casimir the Great establishing quarantines at the borders and isolation of the cities" please provide a verifiable reliable source, preferably in English, but with a translation if not. Apuldram (talk) 17:07, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

What about flat areas North of Mountains and anabatic and katabatic winds?

Maybe we need to look at this from a behavioral perspective. Maybe the flees and other vermin(what proof is there that it was just flees?) preferred the shadow of the mountains. Maybe they didn't like certain kinds of anabatic and katabatic solar winds. Source: Look at a map. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.76.124.97 (talk) 15:43, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not publish wp:original research - see: wp:verifiability. Richerman (talk) 23:27, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

New paragraph on consequences of Black Death

A new fourth paragraph has been added to the lead.

This disease represents a divide in European history. Due to the the extreme population decline, those who survived benefited from the shortage of labor.[9] Wages rose for both agricultural and urban workers.[10] This eventually lead to the end of end of Middle Ages and the beginning of the Renaissance.[11]

This is ungrammatical and the sources are uncertain RS. The first two sentences are correct, so far as I know, for western Europe, but not Eastern Europe and Italy. The last sentence is wrong. The early Renaissace was already under way in the mid-fourteenth century and the Black Death is just one of the contributory factors in its rise. However, the new paragraph does fill a serious gap. The long term consequences of the Black Death were profound, and not covered at all in the article. (although there is a separate article Consequences of the Black Death). In Western Europe repeated outbreaks of plague led to persistent labour shortages and the decline of feudalism, arguably leading to the rise of early modern Europe, although I see that the Black Death is not mentioned in this article. I am inclined to delete the paragraph, but it does need replacing by someone who knows more about the period than me. Hchc2009 I think this is your period? Do you have a view on these points? Dudley Miles (talk) 12:00, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

I'd agree with you Dudley. The editor's clearly trying to be helpful, but it isn't accurate at the pan-European level. Hchc2009 (talk) 13:43, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Spread by people, not rats?

Todays news is stating that a new study has found the Black Death was spread by humans, not rats. See here for several news articles on it. Some of the articles talk of multiple recent studies all making the same finding. It seems worthwhile of inclusion, although I will leave that to someone who has far greater experience on the subject than I. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.74.217.62 (talk) 13:47, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Alternative Explanations?

In terms of the Origin and alternative explanations, it seems confusing to have such a heavy paragraph at the end of the article compared to the opening paragraph talking about the actual origins of the plague. As a reader, leading with facts about how the Black Death occurred establishes a certain feeling in my head. By the time I get to the bottom, it's almost confusing and too controversial to have a larger paragraph talking about alternatives.(weewass (talk) 20:05, 27 January 2018 (UTC))

Article Evaluation

  This article was very well written which was apparent when I went to view the sources of the article and it stated that only established users could make edits. This is a very important topics due to the effects it had so I understand why this article is protected from just anyone being able to post. Everything in this article is relevant to the topic, even providing additional information that was not found in the textbook such as the name of the bacterium that caused the plague including DNA evidence to support that claim. i couldn't point out any information that wasn't relevant to this topic. In addition to being very informational, the article was not biased whatsoever and simply presented facts about the plague, its origin, and its path. Although, some people believe the plague was not spread by rodents and was spread by humans so this may cause a bit of controversy depending on what you believe. However, because there was evidence to support the claim, I found it to be completely unbiased. They even went as far to present alternative theories to the origin on the plague, making it more a factual text than a heavily swayed opinion.

The article is featured in several WikiProjects, ranging from medicine, to deaths, to European History. It was rated a B-class which means there is definitely room for improvement although it is of high caliber. I would consider it to be a very significant article to Wikipedia and a great one to analyze.

Each section contained an equal amount of material and enough to make it credible and significant to the rest of the article. What I enjoyed most about the article was that many ideas were further elaborated in the upcoming sections that I was to read. The references links led me to several scientific journals explaining experiments performed to verify the origin of the plague. Every link I opened took me straight to a journal or article page of a reliable source. I would definitely put my trust into these articles and feel confident believing their information. There was no clear bias in any of them so I am definitely willing to believe these articles.

The only source of discrepancy that I observed from the talk page is what I expected, the source of the plague. Some people provided links to articles claiming that the plague was spread by humans and not rats. Although, when I clicked the links I wasn't quite sure to believe these articles over the ones I had read previously in the references section. Perhaps this topic can be updated slightly due to new technologies and new findings on whether or not rats were the true origin.

Wikipedia definitely goes more in depth about the subject than what we covered in class. This was expected due to its lasting effects. I found the sections on reoccurrences interesting since it's not something we necessarily covered in class. I was surprised to know that there were a few more outbreaks after the initial one. The question that I would like to ask is "What were some of the cures doctors attempted to use?". That was a topic that I didn't see covered anywhere in the article and I would like to know what they did to try to combat the plague. Jajuare2 (talk) 03:58, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 April 2018

Change "to a Chinese trading post in Crimea, called Kaffa, used by the Republic of Genoa." to "to a trading post in Crimea, called Kaffa, controlled by the Republic of Genoa." in the section Middle Eastern Outbreak. The idea that Kaffa was somehow Chinese is utterly nonsensical. 106.70.28.0 (talk) 10:09, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

 Done L293D (☎ • ✎) 13:01, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 June 2018

121.45.66.237 (talk) 00:19, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

the black death started by a disease called Bacterium Yersinia pestis

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — IVORK _Discuss 01:23, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Small syntax error

Under the heading "Consequences" the sentence: "In London approximately 62,000 people died between the years between 1346 and 1353."

Changed simply to "died between 1346 and 1353." I considered "died in the years between" but I think this reads better. ~ Maltrópa ^loquace 15:52, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Globalize

This page presents a pretty Eurocentric view of the Black Death. While it's effects on the Middle East are touched on, it mostly discusses the diseases effects on Europe. India, China, and Asia are barely mentioned at all, and not nearly to the level of detail that Europe gets. I feel like this article could use a more world-wide perspective. Adding details to make it more apparent how the disease affected areas and cities outside of Europe. Even the map provided only shows the plague's spread through Europe and the Near East. East Asia is completely excluded. I Feel Tired (talk) 03:10, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

I Feel Tired, regarding the tag you added, I take it you haven't read Template:Globalize? Given what the literature overwhelmingly covers on this topic, I'm not seeing how your Template:Globalize tag is justified. If you reply to me on this, I ask that you do not ping me since this article/talk page is on my watchlist. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:58, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps there's a better Template that more accurately describes the issue I see? I think it's pretty clear though that the article is pretty Eurocentric. The effects of the disease in different European regions are discussed at great length. The Middle East Also gets discussed, but not to the same degree, and mostly pertaining to the Near East and other areas in proximity to Europe. The effects on China and India barely get mentioned at all. They don't even have their own subsections under the Chronology section. Hell, the map that serves as a page image only shows Europe and the Near East, no other regions get a visual representation of how the disease spread through them. So what would you recommend? I Feel Tired (talk) 00:56, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

I Feel Tired, it seems to me like this is a WP:Due issue. When researching the topic, it tends to be eurocentric. This is why I stated "given what the literature overwhelmingly covers on this topic" above. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 12:56, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm not stating that the article shouldn't be expanded with material on other countries, though. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 13:00, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Not an expert, but when I read about this topic on the web, it seems that there is a substantial lack of evidence concerning the plague in China and India. There may have been no pandemic in India at all. While China was beset by a number of epidemics during the fourteenth century, in the final decades of the Mongol Yuan Dynasty, there seems to be no certainty that the plague was one of them. The paucity of evidence could make it rather difficult to talk about here. Also of note is that southern Africa is never mentioned, but I'm not aware of any evidence that the plague struck there, either. Spiderboy12 (talk) 23:22, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 September 2019

Change "There appears to have been several introductions into Europe." To "There appear to have been several introductions into Europe." 2601:C6:4101:8052:281A:3F83:3D73:B8DD (talk) 18:02, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

 Done – Thjarkur (talk) 19:57, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Middle East countries Edit request

Israel was at some point deleted from the list of (modern-day) countries in the Middle East experiencing outbreak, should be re-included Revsaw (talk) 11:25, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

I have made the change but the source needs replacing as it is dead. A good source should be The Black Death in the Middle East by Michael Walters Dol. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:21, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Israel was not even on the world map history need immediate changes to this false information Badboyam (talk) 20:10, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

More info

According to the article (or at least what I understand from it), The Plague seems to have diminished (significantly) in Western Europe from 1671. Why is that so?

Also, there’s nothing (that I could see) about the spread with European exploration (colonisation/ invasion). Especially for the Dutch (et al) in South Africa, India, East Indies. Was The Plague a major problem on exploration ships? Slave ships?

MBG02 (talk) 19:54, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Acquired immunity. Those that are immune or somewhat immune survived and passed on the immunity. The mass death of the American Indians was partly due to the Black Death. It infects rats in the Southwests so it made it over to the Americas. The rest of the world probably got hit at the same time as Europe and also developed immunity. The American Indians not sat all. Imagine getting hit with all the killer diseases all at once and having immunity to none of them. The survival rate was so low that the Caribbean was repopulated by African slaves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.174.131.163 (talk) 23:51, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Responding to some misinformation here. Plague only arrived in North America as part of the third plague pandemic in 1900, so it was not responsible for the mass death of indigenous Americans. As for the rest, it is speculation. We really don't know if a random modern European dropped into the middle of the Black Death in 1347 is any more resistant to plague than all those who died. It's plausible, but no one has yet identified any gene which confers resistance to plague and which has frequency in populations whose ancestors suffered through plague epidemics (and no, CCR5-Δ32 is not such an example). --Saforrest (talk) 10:11, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 February 2020

The Bubonic plague appeared in the Chinese province of Hubei and rapidly spread in the neighboring provinces: Jiangxi, Shanxi, Hunan, Guangdong, Guangxi, Henan et Suiyuan, the latter being disputed between the Mongol and Chinese empires . Ggggregggg (talk) 12:54, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

​What source are you citing for this? – Thjarkur (talk) 13:02, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Aasim 23:13, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 February 2020

Change first sentence in second paragraph:- "The Black Death is thought to have originated in the dry plains of Central Asia or East Asia, where it travelled along the Silk Road, reaching Crimea by 1343.[6]" to:- "The Black Death is thought to have originated in the dry plains of Central Asia, where it travelled along the Silk Road, reaching Crimea by 1343.[6]"

This corrects it to match the reference source (6) "Black Death". BBC – History. 17 February 2011. 2A00:23C5:CD98:F200:8888:55F1:1C7F:55D3 (talk) 20:21, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

A 2011 BBC article is not the best source. According to this 2016 article the disease probably did originate in East Asia. I have changed and cited accordingly. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:48, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

When I look at the same 2016 article [6], it seems to show the plague originating in Europe and moving in the opposite direction, with foci in East Asia, but not originating there: “Our phylogeny is compatible with popular demographic scenarios wherein the Black Death cycled through the Mediterranean (Barcelona), spread to Northern Europe (London), subsequently traveled east into Russia (Bolgar), and eventually made its way into China, its presumed origin and ultimate source of the modern plague pandemic.”

As I am reading it, “presumed” = previously assumed. Metonyme (talk) 06:25, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

I agree that the article is not as clear as I thought at first, but I take it to be suggesting that Europe was the source of post Black Death outbreaks, not the Black Death itself. Do you disagree? Dudley Miles (talk) 20:16, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

"One study" material

Pandemics, regarding this? Going by what one study stated is a WP:Undue issue, especially if it contrasts the mainstream view. Please don't WP:Ping me if you reply. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 01:51, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

I see that Dudley Miles addressed it. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 23:56, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 March 2020

Since this article is mostly about the 14th century pandemic, it might be good to include the following piece of information under the Plague Doctor image (Consequences section; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Death#/media/File:Paul_F%C3%BCrst,_Der_Doctor_Schnabel_von_Rom_(coloured_version).png):

After "A plague doctor and his typical apparel", add something like "Note that the type of costume shown here wasn't used by doctors in the 14th century pandemic as it wasn't invented until 17th century."

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plague_doctor_costume#History Pseudohendrix (talk) 09:10, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Or, more simply, using that image in this article is wrong? --Mezze stagioni (talk) 09:45, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

I have removed the image for now, because where it was positioned implied that it was related to the 14th century. The outfit is probably one of the first things people think of with the plague, so it would probably be worth using it later in the article but providing context that it developed later in response to other plague outbreaks. Richard Nevell (talk) 12:53, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Instead of outright removing I have re-added it back on the second outbreak section (that covers the 1600s outbreaks) and noted its a 17 Century response due to its significance and it may be removed on wikimedia if no articles use it. Dilbaggg (talk) 19:00, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Poorly organized

@CaroleHenson: Here's an article with 3,300,000 views in the past 30 days, and it is again poorly organized, with different parts written by different people. It also seems that some of it was written by people for whom English was not the first language, or they're poor translations. I've done some touchup and will do more. Can you help? deisenbe (talk) 22:50, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Deisenbe, In terms of the sections and subsections structure, it makes sense to me. It seems to flow logically. What do you think is wrong?

I haven't read any of the content. I can take a look at that. Maybe tomorrow.–CaroleHenson (talk) 01:32, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

I should have been more specific. I nean the discussion of what disease(s) it was, when, where they came from, is in several different places and it should all be together. deisenbe (talk) 01:56, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Deisenbe, Ok, I am taking a look.–CaroleHenson (talk) 02:58, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Deisenbe, I see your point! The biggest issue seemed to be duplicating info in "Origins" and "Causes" and mixing what happened in the 14th century, with what happened at other times. I ended up moving a lot more around than I first expected.

I created a number of extra subsections to help sort out what info goes where, and hopefully help the reader better track the content.

I didn't see much editing that was needed, but perhaps you are a better editor and can tackle those issues.–CaroleHenson (talk) 21:51, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Oh, and I moved the DNA and Alternative theories to the bottom of the 14th century sections because: 1) I think it's more detail than most readers may want to read, 2) it breaks the flow of content about the predominant theory, and 3) the alternate theories don't seem to be highly valued.–CaroleHenson (talk) 21:54, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

I think the 'Alternative explanations' section will need to be heavily edited or even removed as it was added in 2010 before Bos et al. 2011 which has been very influential. Perhaps best left to the theories of the Black Death article, if it can be re-framed as historiography. Richard Nevell (talk) 22:48, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

I wondered about that - The discussion of alternatives in the theories of the Black Death article isn't much longer than this section. Would you like to make any necessary changes?–CaroleHenson (talk) 22:57, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Will do! I'll start by trimming the detail here (probably not outright removing the section just yet) and then move onto shifting the focus of the theories article. Richard Nevell (talk) 08:05, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Excellent! Thanks!–CaroleHenson (talk) 17:33, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

This should be a ~15,000 word Featured Article. ——SN54129 09:26, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree, though I'd hope for something a bit shorter with the myriad of sub-articles taking some of the detail. Richard Nevell (talk) 09:29, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

You're probably right. I would've thought we could manage that between us. ——SN54129 10:17, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Florence

Presently, the article's lead says that Florence took centuries to recover from Black Death. But this is contradicted by the Oxford Dictionary of the Middle Ages (2010 edition). It says "tax records for Florence suggest that as many as 80 per cent of the citizens died in four months alone in 1348" and then says further down that "immediately after the Black Death, places such as Florence vigorously recouped losses through quick rises in fertility and emigration from their hinterland. Curiously, this demographic pattern changed in the 15th century. Fertility fell perhaps because the disease, although now less lethal, killed greater proportions of those who would replenish population—the young—and cities attracted fewer immigrants because the scarcity of rural labour eventually meant improved conditions on the land." Who is right and how should the article deal with this? GPinkerton (talk) 19:04, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

It certainly doesn't need three citations (and being in the lead, it shouldn't need any). However, what it says and what you have said does not necessarily have to be mutually exclusive. After all, the reference to the 18th century is obviously a long-term view, whereas your Oxford Hist is taking a very short-term one (the bit you've highlighted). But the fact that it goes on to say that problems reoccured into the next century makes it more likely, perhaps, that problems could have persisted into the 18th century. See what I mean? ——SN54129 19:23, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

@Serial Number 54129: Of the three citations, only one supports the idea that the Black Death affected Florence's population until the 19th century. In one, which covers only 19th and 20th century Florence, the Black Death is never mentioned in the whole book, still less on the page cited, while on the page cited on the the other reference, neither the Black Death nor the 19th century are mentioned - the page tracks wool production against population during the Renaissance. Of the one that could support the idea, the reference to Florence is a passing one in a generality that encompasses many Italian Renaissance cities. Probably, all mention of Florence should be removed from the lead and replaced with something more concrete. I'll remove the two errant citations now. GPinkerton (talk) 21:17, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Please do so. ——SN54129 21:52, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 March 2020

The wikipedia article Black Death writes that the ”The Black Death probably originated in Central Asia or East Asia,...”. The latest referenced article [6] actually refutes the origin being East Asia.

Suggestion, change current Wikipedia entry:

“The Black Death probably originated in Central Asia or East Asia,[6][7][8][9][10] from where it travelled along the Silk Road, reaching Crimea by 1343.[11] From there, it was most likely carried by fleas living on the black rats that traveled on Genoese merchant ships, spreading throughout the Mediterranean Basin, reaching the rest of Europe via the Italian peninsula.”

to the following:

In 2010 scientist have argued that The Black Death probably originated in Central Asia or East Asia,[7][8][9][10] from where it travelled along the Silk Road, reaching Crimea by 1343.[11] From there, it was most likely carried by fleas living on the black rats that traveled on Genoese merchant ships, spreading throughout the Mediterranean Basin, reaching the rest of Europe via the Italian peninsula. Latest research in 2019 however have since found DNA evidence that the plague could have existed in Europe some 5000 years ago. The new found DNA evidence suggest that the second pandemic outbreak, the Black Death, probably originated in central Asia, and moved east into China. [6]

The first referenced source [6], the article by Julia Hollingsworth, CNN Updated 0246 GMT November 24, 2019 (website: https://edition.cnn.com/2019/11/23/asia/plague-china-history-intl-hnk-scli/index.html) actually debunks the current wikipedia paragraph mentioned above. She writes that previous theories have located the plague’s origin in East Asia. Maybe she is referring to the sources [8][9][10], which has been released back in 2010. Source [8] published Oct. 31, 2010 by Nicholas Wade, source [9] released Jul 20, 1998 and source [10] published November 1, 2010 by Nicholas Wade.

Then she continues and quotes the interviewed expert Winston Black and says that those claims made a decade ago have been refuted by new scientific evidence.

Quote: “But scientists have since found DNA evidence that the plague could have existed much further back than previously thought -- there's evidence it existed in Europe some 5,000 years ago.

And the idea that the second pandemic, the Black Death, could have started in China is unlikely, Black said. DNA evidence extracted from the skeletons of medieval plague victims, and genetic analysis of the bacteria, suggest that the outbreak probably originated in central Asia, and moved east into China, and west into Europe via trade routes, said Black.”

Add another source as reference, a podcast with Winston Black retrieved on March 27, 2020. https://www.medievalists.net/2020/03/black-death-covid-19/ Chung Le85 (talk) 17:16, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

You are mixing two things here. We are not claiming that the Black Death is the first incidence of plague in Europe. 5000 years ago is irrelevant. The fact that it came from Central Asia or East Asia is what the text already says, so why should we say it twice? Rmhermen (talk) 22:53, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Closing due to no response in almost three weeks. This can be reopened if the OP comes back. — MRD2014 (talk) 16:08, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 April 2020

Find: and this probably destabilised feudalism Change to: and this probably destabilized feudalism 79.149.151.37 (talk) 21:24, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. The tag (from 2016) says: Use British English. El_C 21:26, 18 April 2020 (UTC)