Talk:1629–1631 Italian plague

Date

Perhaps I'm in error, but isn't there any kind of confussion here with the Venetian Plague of 1576?

• [1], [2], etc

MaeseLeon 10:18, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

No, both the 1576 and the 1631 epidemics were terrible. Since the "if you save us from the plague we will build you a church" worked with Jesus in 1576, the Venetians decided that it would have worked with Mary as well when the plague returned in 1631. So there are two different churches built for two different plagues. GhePeU 10:41, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Name

Just for clarification: is the actual name "Italian Plague of 1629-1631", or just "Italian Plague"? What I'm saying is: is it called the Italian Plague, and it happened in 1629-1631? Becuse if so, the article should just be at Italian Plague, just as the Black Death (of 1348-1351) is there. Or if it is called the "Italian Plague of 1629-1631" then this is fine. --Dmcdevit 21:00, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

There were other Italian Plagues in various areas and at various times. Two other "Italian Plagues" are historically relevant -- 1477-79 and 1656-57. As a historian, dates seem the easiest way to distinguish them -- but the public dislikes dates! Other suggestions? (btw - I did a redirect for Great Plague of Milan.) WBardwin 21:08, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Well the issue is if the dates included, like the article's name, are the dates in the commonly accepted name. Otherwise, it's still perfectly acceptable to have the dates in the article title even if they're just disambigutory in nature because of the multiple occurences, but it should just go like this: Italian Plague (1629-1631), as opposed to, say, Italian Plague (1477-1479). --Dmcdevit 21:23, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

The problem is not here, but with the page Plague as it exists. Plague should be a trunk, listing all the separate occasions of plague and types of plague that have their own individual entries, with brief descriptive paragraphs headed by a Main article... italic header. Then there should also be a Plague (disambiguation) page created for Pokemon figures and electronic games and the like. Brilliant, eh? Bardwin, *tag* you're it! When you've got some stub text for a general introduction at Plague, alert me at my Talk page, and we'll whip out the tablecloth without disturbing the teacups. Here's the disambiguation page now! --Wetman 21:33, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Parens for the date would be fine with me, particularly if we have an interest in doing the other two Italian plagues in the future. I don't think Wetman's aware of just how many plague (disease) related articles might end up on his disamb page, but I'll try and get busy on my "assignment" for the stub heading. I'm going to copy our discussion on "Great Plague"s to the GP of London talk page. I still think a disamb page for that would be useful. WBardwin 22:07, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Black Death and Italian Plague of 1629-1631

(Moved from User_talk:Kudz75) Regarding your change of category, this Italian episode of plague is considered by historians as one of the last outbreaks in the European/world wide pandemic referred to as the Black Death. Please see the first paragraphs of that article. As such, it is not an isolated episode but a last gasp of this long episode. It also has relevance in this history of the Thirty Years War. So, both categories may be appropriate in this instance. Comments welcome. WBardwin 01:16, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Ok, after looking more closely at the Black Death pages and related articles I didn't realise that Wikipedia has opted to define the Black Death pandemic as lasting 300 years to 1670. If this is the case then this belongs in the pandemic category, or perhaps the outbreaks could be grouped into a subcategory "Black Death Pandemic". I originally removed the pandemic cat as it appeared it was an isolated outbreak of the plague. --kudz75 08:06, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

It can be looked at both ways. However I think the overwhelming denotation of Black Death is just in the fourteenth century context. The point here though, is that whether we call it the Black Death or not, this was still part of a wider phenomenon. A similar plague struck London (relatively) concurrently. So it can be considered part of a pandemic. I'd recommend changing it back. (Though I actually wouldn't mind both, contradictorilly enough.) --Dmcdevit·t 08:15, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

These late outbreaks are considered part of the Black Death simply because there was a continuum of active disease in Europe and the MidEast from the fourteenth century through the mid 17th century. Then the disease disappears for periods of time. The later outbreaks are often referred to individually because they are historically more distinct (primarily, I think, because we have more written material to reference) and have relevance to historic events in the area. I think two categories would be fine, but we would have to defend our choices repeatedly as new people drop in. WBardwin 08:30, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Death toll

Manzoni quotes two sources (Tadino and Giuseppe Ripamonti) that place the death toll in Milan at 140,000 to 190,000. This article has a lower number but doesn't have a source. Can we find any death toll here with a direct citation? | Mr. Darcy talk 21:46, 3 March 2007 (UTC)