Talk:Second plague pandemic

Merge Black Death and Second plague pandemic: suggestion

I suggest merging the overlapping articles Black Death and Second plague pandemic articles.... (For ease of discussion, I RECOMMEND... that all discussion occur at Talk:Black Death# Merge Black Death and Second plague pandemic: suggestion, NOT here.) Acwilson9 (talk) 21:31, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Merge Black Death migration and Theories of the Black Death with Second plague pandemic

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

No consensus for any action, objections, and discussion stale for more than 10 months. Klbrain (talk) 09:13, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

---

I propose to merge Black Death migration and Theories of the Black Death into Second plague pandemic. The origins and migration of the pandemic should be considered in one article, taking a long term view of the pandemic plague's appearance in the early 14th century (and probably diversifying and leaving its natural reservoir in central Asia between the 1100s and 1330s) and it would be best if that same article continued to examine the various outbreaks from the Black Death until the final major episode of the 2nd Pandemic in the Great Plague of Marseille in the early 18th century. GPinkerton (talk) 05:44, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Notifying editors who recently made substantive edits to these pages or contributed at Talk:Black Death: @Acwilson9, Dilbaggg, Dudley Miles, Poihths, Saforrest, Pestilence Unchained, Deisenbe, CaroleHenson, Serial Number 54129, Richard Nevell, El C, AngryHarpy, Tobby72, and Quidquidlatetadparebit: I thought this might be of interest. GPinkerton (talk) 06:08, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Discussion:

Support: Yes I agree, all these are interlinked and can be counted as sub section of a second plague pandemic article, which is a mess, and should be restructured to feature the wikipedia standard. Also mention documented theories of usage of bubanoic plague as an agent of bio warfare. Dilbaggg (talk) 07:34, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Oppose. Black Death migration: The migration of the worst pandemic in history in the mid-fourteenth century is a notable subject in its own right. I would delete the 'Recurrence' section, which is about later outbreaks of bubonic plague, not migration.

Theories of the Black Death is a vague title. It appears to be about theories which have now been disproved about the cause of the mid-fourteenth century Black Death, and is tangential to the second pandemic of bubonic plague. I would keep it but change its title to Theories of the cause of the Black Death. Also pinging Johnbod. Dudley Miles (talk) 08:56, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Comment I can see why Black Death migration can be merged with Second plague pandemic. However, the article Theories of the Black Death deals mostly with the 14th century European outbreak, and not the other recurrences. The latter article is also about competing scientific and historical hypotheses and is tangential to the topic of the second plague pandemic. Quidquidlatetadparebit (talk) 09:07, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

• Comment (Thanks Dudley) On a preliminary look merging Black Death migration to Black Death makes more sense; there's a lot of extra detail there, covering the same ground. I haven't looked at "theories" yet. Johnbod (talk) 14:26, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

• Comment Apologies for taking so long to join this discussion. Perhaps unhelpfully, I'm not quite sure what the outcome should be here. The title 'Theories of the Black Death' isn't particularly helpful for a reader as it doesn't tell them was aspects of the Black Death the theories relate to. It's content is mostly about which disease caused the Black Death, rather than say theories about how it affected society. There's a certain amount of historiography going on, charting how interpretations of the disease have spread, so perhaps an article on how understandings have changed over time would be useful but meta studies are less common making the content harder to piece together, and it would still need to be broader than a discussion of what the disease is. I wouldn't be averse merging the content, but whether it belongs with the Black Death or Second Pandemic article I'm unsure. Richard Nevell (talk) 17:06, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
  • @Richard Nevell: Part of the reason I think it belongs with Second Pandemic is that the "theories" cover, or ought to cover the period of the pandemic before the Black Death (as we're defining it narrowly as beginning in the 1340s). Patient zero of the second pandemic would have been as late as the 1330s or as early as the 1100s. Secondly, its is known that the plague bacterium that caused the Black Death is the ancestor of all the plague bacteria of the Second Pandemic, so any theories of the Black Death apply equally to the rest of the pandemic. I agree there ought to be a section of historiography to which we can relegate all the out-of-date ideas, but that should really be discussed at the close of the Second Pandemic article. My aim is to reduce the amount of duplication and internal contradiction by getting as much of this topic onto one page as possible and reducing the number of articles, so the idea of a History of the History of the Black Death or History of the History of the Second Plague Pandemic page might be worthwhile if there's some overflow at a later time but at this stage the preferred procedure should be to round out the Second Pandemic article as much as possible and try and produce a coherent treatment there. There are also the articles bubonic plague, pneumonic plague, septicemic plague, and Timeline of plague, which also need attention and which are at the same time too broad in scope for a proper examination of the Second Pandemic qua pandemic. Consequences of the Black Death deals, as it should, with the whole pandemic, not just the period 1347-53, so something should probably change in the title there too. GPinkerton (talk) 17:51, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

1998 plague map

The 1998 plague map is terrible: Germany is still divided, Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia are still unified, and what the hell is going on in the Soviet Union and central Asia? The Commons page links to the data source, but it's dead. I could replace it with a more up to date map, but it's not even relevant to this article, which is about previous centuries, not 1998. I'm going to just remove it. Hairy Dude (talk) 20:19, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Country names

Comment Right now, the article is misleading about a place it calls "Russia": In Russia, where the disease hit somewhere once every five or six years from 1350 to 1490.[34] In 1654, the Russian plague killed about 700,000 inhabitants [35]

But during that time there was no such country. Even if you could use a name "Muscovy" for the year 1654, it's hard to choose just one name for the period of 1350 to 1490, since there was a mix of various state formations on that territory. Roko~ukwiki (talk) 15:17, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

@Roko~ukwiki: A country can exist without there being a single state or kingdom with the same name. People have been calling parts of far-eastern Europe "Russia" for a thousand years and more, ever since the Kievan Rus'. GPinkerton (talk) 21:06, 10 November 2020 (UTC)