![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
The result of the move request was: not moved. While "1918 influenza pandemic" and similar titles may be more precise or consistent, there is rough consensus that the recognizability of "Spanish flu" makes it a better article title per WP:COMMONNAME. Thank you everyone who participated. — Wug· a·po·des 22:48, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
Spanish flu → 1918 influenza pandemic – Per Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(events)#Health_incidents_and_outbreaks, the guideline says we need to have where and when it happened. This title was listed in the guideline as 1918 influenza pandemic, but I removed it for now to get a consensus on whether there should a move. Interstellarity ( talk) 13:17, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources.and "When there are multiple names for a subject, all of which are fairly common, and the most common has problems, it is perfectly reasonable to choose one of the others."-- SharʿabSalam▼ ( talk) 17:21, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
Although official, scientific, birth, original, or trademarked names are often used for article titles, the term or name most typically used in reliable sources is generally preferred.'When the policy talks about a most common name having 'problems', I do not see this name having problems that would discount it. Although we do not usually rely on googlehits alone in an opposition, for a common name discussion, and with the google hits showing such a strong difference, I agree with Renata's objection. Agent00x ( talk) 19:59, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
WP:NOTFORUM EvergreenFir (talk) 00:32, 20 March 2020 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
The quote you cited mentions the Spanish Flu only to illustrate what is no longer appropriate when naming a new disease. The article otherwise does not promote the renaming of any disease, and even if it did, the WHO's prescriptions are not infallible. Die Pillen in mir ( talk) 22:45, 21 March 2020 (UTC)The best practices apply to new infections, syndromes, and diseases that have never been recognized or reported before in humans, that have potential public health impact, and for which there is no disease name in common usage. They do not apply to disease names that are already established.
We can also rename the great plague that killed 200M Europeans to the Great Chinese Plague. Because lets just get this out in the open, the only reason there is such a great interest in renaming this article is due to the Chinese not wanting the Wuhan Coronavirus name to stick despite it being a historical trend to name them from where they originate. Despite this being a Chinese name for it. German measles. Russian Flu. Hong Kong Coronavirus. -- 173.94.54.251 ( talk) 17:18, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
Stop casting aspersions about political motivations (we can all do that, and some of us have our own ideas about what this is really about). Slatersteven ( talk) 17:14, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
Oppose per common name and the frequency of that common name's use. This pandemic is near-universally known as the Spanish flu. Let's not give it a boilerplate replacement for that name. —General534 ( talk) 09:13, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
Please remember that Wikipedia is not a forum. WP:POLEMICs, missives, kvetches, and screeds about users' motives, alleged revisionism, pro/descriptive language, etc. are not appropriate here. EvergreenFir (talk) 00:30, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
Can we lay of the abf. Slatersteven ( talk) 17:31, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Spanish flu has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change "three candidates have been proposed (in alphabetical order): China, United Kingdom, and United State (see section below)" to "three candidates have been proposed (in most to least possibility): United States, United Kingdom and China". Weihuil ( talk) 02:49, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Spanish flu has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please delete "This has led to speculation that the 1918 flu pandemic originated in China.[25][24][26][27] " as the hypothesis is based on a very weak and unreasonable assumption. Rosiesheen ( talk) 04:21, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
However we do mention China (and in effect repeat the same information) in two separate sections, why? Slatersteven ( talk) 08:15, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
Please note that this article and its talk page are under general sanctions. EvergreenFir (talk) 00:22, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
Haha,so we’re repeating it.Repeating the history of evil maligning,the history of stigmatization.Do not use history as a shield,it is often just an airy figleaf. Deus Non Vult! Joseph Rangork ( talk) 20:41, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
Who changed the mortality rate? With an estimated 50 million deaths, a claim of 2% mortality would increase the world population from 1.8 billion to 2.5 billion.
Another estimate was 100 million deaths which implies 100% infection and a world population of 5 billion. The world population was 1.8 billion to 1.9 billion. Tazhawkeye ( talk) 08:52, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
The lede incorrectly says "The Spanish flu, also known as the 1918 flu pandemic..." This confuses two different concepts. It would be like saying that COVID-19 is also known as the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic or that swine flu is also known as the 2009 flu pandemic (which are correctly two different articles).
The wording should be changed to clarify that the 1918 flu pandemic was a pandemic of the disease called "Spanish flu", which was caused by particular strain(s) of H1N1. For comparison, here is the definition from the dictionary built into macOS, which correctly identifies the relationship between these terms: "Spanish flu: influenza caused by an influenza virus of type A, in particular that of the pandemic which began in 1918." The 1918 pandemic was a pandemic case of Spanish flu. Bueller 007 ( talk) 04:21, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
Spanish influenza n. epidemic or pandemic influenza; spec. the pandemic of 1918–19, which was the most widespread and virulent of all known influenza outbreaks (to date); frequently attributive. [The 1918 pandemic is thought to have originated in the United States, but relatively early in its course was very severe in Spain. The pandemic of 1889–90 was commonly called Russian influenza.]
1890 Daily News (St. Paul, Minnesota) 5 Apr. 4/2 Mme. Emma Nevada has entirely recovered from her long attack of Spanish influenza.
1918 Times 25 June 9/4 Everybody thinks of it as the ‘Spanish’ influenza today.
1953 Trans. Royal Soc. Trop. Med. & Hygiene 47 442 The so-called Spanish influenza had been unduly prevalent in Europe during the spring and early summer of 1918, spreading along lines of communication from western Europe to most parts of the world.
2005 BBC Focus Dec. 5/4 He has published 250 scientific papers, with his main interest being the pathogenicity of influenza, in particular the 1918 Spanish Influenza strain.
Spanish flu n. = Spanish influenza n.1918 W. Owen Let. 24 June (1967) 560 About 30 officers are smitten with the Spanish Flu.
1937 K. Blixen Out of Afr. ii. v. 161 When we had the Spanish Flu on the farm, Farah was..shivering with fever.
1979 D. Williams Genesis & Exodus xi. 213 Those who had survived 1914–18 and the plague of Spanish flu that followed.
2013 Australian (Nexis) 12 Nov. 11 Don Watson's grandfather was twice wounded in Flanders after being infected with Spanish flu.
It's suggested that the total of 450,000 represented 0.2 % of the Russian population. This would imply that the Russia ( I forget what it was called it was pre USSR ) of the time had a population of over 200 million which I find questionable. This is cited in citation 60.
Can anyone certify this ? Frondophila ( talk) 10:33, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
The section Deadly Second Wave currently says (para 1) that "The first wave had resembled typical flu epidemics; those most at risk were the sick and elderly, while younger, healthier people recovered easily" whereas in the second wave (para 4), "the most vulnerable people were those like the soldiers in the trenches – adults who were young and fit".
However, the study referenced in the fourth paragraph of that section (cite note 94) contradicts this. According to figures in Table 2 of that paper, the first wave (which came in early summer) also primarily attacked the young and fit; the second wave was much deadlier but did in fact attack the same demographic.
Could somebody change this, please. Malcolm Ramsay ( talk) 12:23, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
I noticed that the
"Mortality" section of this article does not provide any estimates for Spain. While the lede indicates that, contrary to popular belief at the time, Spain was not "especially hard hit,"
this still seems like a major omission. Furthermore, while I haven't yet been able to look into this with scholarly sources, I have heard that millions died in Spain and am wondering if that is accurate; if it is accurate, then it would seem that Spain was hit much harder than comparable European countries such as neighboring France. Does anyone have any reliable figures on hand?
TheTimesAreAChanging (
talk)
16:28, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion 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.
It is well established today that this flu was neither originated nor particularly spread in Spain. Furthermore, it is also well established that naming pandemias after regions is misleading (from a mechanistic point of view) and also stigmatizing. Why not having then the official name 1918 flu as the primary article name which other names redirect to? Gaianauta ( talk) 18:23, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
m the CDC], History.com, Britannica, CBS, and so on. Schazjmd (talk) 18:44, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
It's obvious that we should not change the name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.227.174.21 ( talk) 14:08, 17 March 2020 (UTC) The colloquial name is the Spanish Flu, no amount of editing will change that. Maybe having the two terms coexist isn't the worst idea but removing one altogether is a bit ridiculous. 134.50.188.71 ( talk) 20:02, 17 March 2020 (UTC) That not a single one of the links provided fails to mention the Spanish flu prior to or few words after "1918 flu" would suggest it is very revisionist to remove the name. Its not the job of Wikipedia to make judgement calls on what is most professional or destigmatizing, the Spanish Flu is and was the colloquial name for the worst pandemic in history. Abovfold ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:54, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
History isnt perfect, but progressives can change that! 24.212.164.217 ( talk) 12:52, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
Thoughts? - Jack Sebastian ( talk) 17:14, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Spanish flu has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change "Infectious diseases already limited life expectancy in the early 20th century, but life expectancy in the United States dropped by about 12 years in the first year of the pandemic.[6][7][8]" to include some reference to the confounding influence to this statistic of the U.S. formally entering WWI in April 1917 and deploying troops in summer 1918. This sentence as written is wildly misleading, as WWI surely had more impact on the U.S. life expectancy drop than the Spanish Flu did. Anon0192837465 ( talk) 19:38, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
WP:NOTFORUM and keep the debate to one area EvergreenFir (talk) 18:42, 28 March 2020 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
As an encyclopaedia, the proper response should be to use historical names, regardless of current political climate. Why should a single source report a different name of something or someone completely out of the context of historical usage. It is Wikipedia's mission to document information and historical events, not edit them or censor them. Lawrecenull ( talk) 02:04, 20 March 2020 (UTC) Well why dont we just call it "china flu"? Sont allow the Communists in china to change history! The traitors to freedom on this planet. The corrupt politicians will all find a "Special place" in hell for them! Chinalies ( talk) 01:40, 21 March 2020 (UTC) |
The following discussion 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.
In 1918 the entire world came to know about this new flu epidemic because of news from Spain, a neutral country that was not associated with either allies or enemies. Since the belligerents censored news of what was happening in their own countries, the world relied on reports from Spain, which apparently were reasonably accurate and unbiased about the characteristics of the flu. In that regard, Spanish flu is a perfectly appropriate and historically accurate name, in my opinion. The NY TIMES gave a major full-page story to "Spanish Influenza" Sept 22, 1918 p 37. TIMES also reported when King Alfonso of Spain was sick with the Spanish flu on Oct 4, 1918 -- he recovered. Rjensen ( talk) 14:00, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
Using The Great War as evidence to support the name change of the Spanish Flu is ignorant of the fact that the Spanish Flu is still the dominant used term, not just in the past but in the present (see citations of Google data in regards to searches for "Spanish Flu" instead of "1918 _____ Pandemic" or similar searches). I just wonder if the same rules apply to the name "Ebola virus" which is named after the Ebola river. The vote to change the name had heavy opposition, it's counterproductive to continue talking about it until it goes in the opposite favor. Respect the fact that the majority were against the name change and move on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.152.93.68 ( talk) 21:40, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion 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.
The name Spanish Flu came about because at the time the Allies and the Central Powers, which is another way of saying totalitarian, decided to suppress news of the spreading lethal influenza (sounds familiar?) for their own purposes, including not having to answer questions. However, the Spanish were neutral in World War I and were free to discuss the epidemic in their press. Their news spread and soon people were discussing it and they called it the Spanish Flu. It shows what a free government and free press can accomplish and how the press can be suppressed by a government with lots to hide. If I were Spanish, I'd be proud to have this influenza named after my country because it shows the Spanish did the right thing in letting the world know a deadly virus was headed their way. In addition, the Spanish king contracted the flu, that news spread, too. That is what convinced people the origin was Spain, but the real truth was only Spain dared print the truth. Well done, the Spanish. They've earned the right. Changing it now is just another form of censorship. Unless Wikipedia is now under the thumb of the corrupt Chinese totalitarian communist regime, I see no reason to change this article's name. Ever. Bodding ( talk) 03:08, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
Heavily Oppose Spanish Flu is the historical name and common name. Changing it to 1918 influenza will do nothing.
We can keep covid-19, but everyone everywhere knows its Wuhan Coronavirus. This is the Chinese term for it.
It is forever and indelibly linked to China. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.94.54.251 ( talk) 17:00, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
The section Less-affected_areas mentions "Some researchers have proposed that traditional Chinese medicine may have played a role in the low influenza mortality rate in China."
Given the lack of general scientific evidence that traditional Chinese medicine works, as described at Traditional_Chinese_medicine, the fact that there is only a link to a single study which presents this conclusion, and the authors come from "Institute of Chinese Medicine, The Chinese University of Hong Kong" which presents some possible bias, I find this sentence to be misleading.
I propose that this sentence is deleted. AToftegaard ( talk) 12:29, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
The following Nat Geo article has a lot of information, including comparative graphs of different cities having different timing of social distancing measures:
"How some cities ‘flattened the curve’ during the 1918 flu pandemic"
Active editors on this page may want to consider. — RCraig09 ( talk) 22:16, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
It was first reported in Fort Riley, Kansas. Change it in the info tab — Preceding unsigned comment added by Niskka ( talk • contribs) 10:51, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
In the section on China as a potential origin of the disease we currently say
However, a study by K.F. Cheng and P.C. Leung in 2006 has suggested it was more likely because the traditional Chinese medicine played an important role in prevention and treatment.
[TCm 1]
The source of this statement appears reliable, which is why I find it highly unlikely that a paper in a reputable journal would credit Traditional Chinese medicine (which is basically a pseudo-science) with being an effective treatment to the Spanish flu. Can someone with access to the article check that? If it does indeed make this rather extraordinary claim, it is further worth considering whether this information is wp:due or whether anyone else has challenged the conclusion (because I'm sure the majority of the medical community does not believe that traditional Chinese medicine stopped the Spanish Flu).-- Ermenrich ( talk) 13:42, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: |volume=
has extra text (
help)
I have uploaded 4 variations on the same chart (.png & .jpg, with & without supporting data) depicting the effects & timing of social distancing, each having with Weekly excess flu death rates per 100,000 for 4 US cities final 16 weeks of 1918 in the title. They depict rates for the cities of Boston, Philadelphia, St. Louis, & Seattle. They are in commons:Category:Spanish flu in the United States charts. I am going to leave it to other editors as to where & whether to place them or not.
I think the biggest take away of the chart is to avoid a big parade at the start of a pandemic.
Peaceray ( talk) 16:30, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
Deaths in India numbers don't make a lot of sense when you compare them with recent estimates of total deaths. Doug Weller talk 20:15, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Spanish flu has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Hello, I'm not sure if I'm at the right "spot"... Re.: "Spanish flu": I believe we are talking about VIRUS not "bacterial superinfection" (you can do a "search" (you'll get one "hit" only! See: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_flu 199.119.233.216 ( talk) 22:27, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
Every photo I have seen of hospital care for Spanish flu victims shows a flat bed with maximum 2 pillows, and many patients flat on their backs.
Hypostatic pneumonia is a fatal type of pneumonia caused exactly by this, lying in a flat position with inadequate natural drainage of the lungs, especially in a patient with weakened shallow breathing. This results in build up of fluid which then becomes infected resulting in the illness.
References are easy to find. [1]
I entered nursing in 1972 and by then the dangers of hypostatic pneumonia were recognized and we were taught to nurse bed ridden patients in a seated position, either by mechanically raising the head of the bed or by adding pillows in an armchair shape, combined with intensive physical therapy. The ideal being to get the patient out of bed "nursed in chair" as soon as possible and for as long as possible in any case.
I can find no mention of this factor in contributing to the fatality of the Spanish flu. Neither is there an entry for hypostatic pneumonia on the Wikipedia pneumonia page.
Any suggestions for the best way to bring this to public attention via Wikipedia? Jiver2 ( talk) 12:36, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
If you look this up on Google, the preview says “First Reported in Spain.” Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 13 Nisan 5780 15:25, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
I searched for the flu and got the 1918 Flu pandemic via Siri knowledge. The summary page shows the origin as the USA. Wikipedia says the origin is unknown. How does one go about correcting Siri Knowledge? Sloanish ( talk) 14:01, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
I have added citation needed tag to lede statement "making it one of the deadliest pandemics in human history, behind the Black Death.", as it contradicts with death toll depicted in Plague of Justinian. Is there any reliable source comparing the three critically? Capankajsmilyo( Talk | Infobox assistance) 04:24, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion 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.
I suggest that the title of this article be changed to "1918 Influenza Pandemic" or "1918 Flu Pandemic" as "Spanish Flu" is a very informal name and has the potential to carry false implications with it, something I don't think I've seen on any other Wikipedia article. Even the opening line says "1918 Influenza Pandemic" and specifically denotes "Spanish Flu" as a nickname for the event. I just find it weird that this article would be titled "Spanish Flu" and not say one of the titles I suggested or something. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.101.213.47 ( talk) 08:18, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
You could always redirect people to "1918 Flu Pandemic" but it's much better to head the article with an outright lie, I guess. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.11.124.123 ( talk) 18:26, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
Even the first line says that is a colloquial name. Just take the example of the 'Asian flu': /info/en/?search=Influenza_A_virus_subtype_H2N2#Asian_flu Jesusinacka ( talk) 09:29, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
I hope you keep it the same. Historically, there has been no request to change the page on Wikipedia until recently, which I personally don't feel is coincidental. Personal beliefs aside, many viruses have been given names that are significant to regions of the world, or have been named after animals. ex.) African Trypanosomiasis — see Sleeping Sickness, West Nile Virus Infection (WNV Infection), Crimean-Congo hemorrhagic fever (CCHF) [Nairovirus Infection], RMSF (Rocky Mountain Spotted Fever), Raccoon Roundworm Infection [Baylisascaris Infection], Rift Valley Fever (RVF), Mad Cow Disease (BSE) — see Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy, Japanese Encephalitis (JE) Vaccination, Jamestown Canyon Virus Infection, Influenza, Avian — see Avian Influenza, Influenza in Pigs — see Swine Influenza, Flea-borne (Murine) Typhus — see Typhus Fevers, Ebola Virus Disease (EVD)--Named after the Ebola River, etc., Canine Flu, etc. It's fair to say that perhaps it is only a colloquial name, though it already says that. Renaming it may only cause confusion when the majority of trusted sources use the colloquial name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.152.93.68 ( talk) 20:16, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
The fact that "Spanish Flu" has been ubiquitous as the name of this epidemic means a name change will cause confusion and make the information less accessible. The desire to eliminate "Spanish" to show consistency with the name of the 2020 Covid-19 epidemic (as opposed to the so-called "China virus") is not useful and will contribute nothing in the area of clarity or accessibility. Fmanci ( talk) 03:30, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
This request just up and happened, out of the blue! No. It is clearly alluding to a contemporary POLITICAL scuffle initiated by those receptive to the propaganda being generated by the Communist Party of China in relation the the Chinese Virus. The virus from the nation of China that is killing 1000's of people because of what happened in Wuhan, China. This is soviet style revisionism. EVERYONE that I know, and have known for decades has referred to the Spanish Flu just as that, The Spanish Flu. Don't bother trying to torture a fake reason for the name change of tis article, we all know why it was brought up, now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.89.229.157 ( talk) 00:52, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
Agreed with the previous two posters. This is a politically inspired request for change that would cause historical confusion and inconsistency. Are there requests to change all the names of viral epidemics based on location of origin or greatest disaster (i.e., West Nile, Rocky Mountain Spotted Fever, Lyme Disease, Ebola, Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS), Norovirus, Zika, German Measles, Legionnaire’s Disease)? Jemusser ( talk) 06:08, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
COVID-19 should be renamed to chinese flu, it is important to point out the geographic location of a virus and the people who are responsible for spreading it.
Support name change. This flu didn't start in Spain, it started in Kansas. To call it Spanish Flu despite that is to knowingly spread misinformation, to say nothing about the WHO guidelines the previous poster mentioned. Just because it's "known as" Spanish Flu doesn't mean we need to keep peddling that misinformation. (Note, syphilis used to be called "French Pox") Jade Phoenix Pence ( talk) 17:03, 21 March 2020 (UTC)Jade Phoenix Pence
Object to name change. Renaming the article to fit a political correctness agenda, after the term has been in the common vernacular for over a century, is tantamount to historical revisionism. What's next, renaming the french fries article, just because they weren't invented in France? Renaming the Panama hat article? I say no. EJSawyer ( talk) 01:24, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
Object to name change; new naming guidelines by an organisation that didn't exist at the time of this pandemic shouldn't overwrite the historical context of over 100 years ago. Thankfully this has already been decided. MeanMotherJr ( talk) 01:15, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
Support name change. The chauvinism in the United Statesians' responses is, as always, very scary. They have their own political agenda, hidden now behind an alert of a Chinese-agenda banner. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cusano ( talk • contribs) 18:27, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
Support name change. Any Spanish speaker is unaware that it's called this in English and it's long been misleading as to the original source which may be convenient to Kansas, but is completely inaccurate. "AKA Spanish Flu" can always be listed in the intro. And the "This is how it's been known" argument never holds water as there are countless ethnic names that were common and derogatory that have fallen out of use to cite but one example. Should have never been called "Spanish flu" to start with as this was based upon bad historical information. Now is the chance to fix that. Primecoordinator ( talk) 18:35, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Spanish flu has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Spanish flu is inaccurate it came from any Army base in Kansas. Please change the page name to Kansas flu. 73.158.125.203 ( talk) 20:01, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
I would bet he's being factitious, but your citation of WP:COMMONNAME brings up a relevant statement that "[w]hen there are multiple names for a subject, all of which are fairly common, and the most common has problems, it is perfectly reasonable to choose one of the others." Following the WP:COMMONNAME guidance the common but problematic "Spanish flu" for the common and less problematic "1918 flu pandemic". Even if one ignores the inaccuracy of the current page name, that it is titled as though it's a type of flu (e.g. Swine flu) rather than an event (e.g. 2009 Swine flu pandemic) is even more problematic, especially considering both pandemics are the same type of flu (A/H1N1). It's like having a page named Cougar, and another page named Mountain lion that contained the Washington cougar attack. The page should at a bare minimum be titled either "Spanish flu pandemic" or better "1918 Spanish flu pandemic", even if both are still problematic. Nebes ( talk) 05:27, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
Seems there may be a serious problem with the Wikipedia Spanish flu article according to recent news. [1]
An earlier entry, apparently correct, was changed to one that may not have been correct (on February 22, 2020). Earlier and Current edit => It is estimated that one third of the global population was infected, [2] and the World Health Organization estimates that 2–3% of those who were infected died (case-fatality ratio). [3][failed verification]
I tried to restore the apparently incorrect entry to one that was correct - and this time with several updated references - as follows: New edit => The global mortality rate from the 1918–1919 pandemic is not known, but an estimated 10% to 20% of those who were infected died ( case-fatality ratio). [4] [5] About a third of the world population was infected, and something between 1% and 5.6% of the entire global population of over 1800 million [6] died. [2]
However - my edit was reverted and a discussion requested.
If interested - some of my own thinking about this Spanish flu information:
Fatalities (est) = as high as 100 million. [7] [8]
Infected (est) = 620 million ("one-third" of world population). [9]
I agree that it should say one-third of the population, not a quarter of the population. The source articles referenced [Taubenberger and Morens, 2006] state one-third. The CDC states one-third, and even the author of Nancy Bistow (whose presentation is linked in this wikipedia entry) states one-third. Zitap123 ( talk) 06:34, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
World population 1920 = 1,860 million. [10]
Case-fatality ratio (CFR) => 2.5%. [4] [5]
This CFR may be much too low according to others. [4] [5]
My own calculation => Case-Fatalities Ratio = 100 million/620 million = 16% CFR
Comments Welcome from other Editors - Thanks. Drbogdan ( talk) 15:07, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
References
But in 2002 a new study corrected the lacuna in non-Western cases and produced the estimate of worldwide deaths we are familiar with now – 50-100 million. This meant the CFR was no longer 2.5% but now 10-20% of total estimated cases. Then a later study, from 2006, used these updated fatality figures, but omitted to update the CFR, citing it as still 2.5%. Which meant it was offering the impossible and contradictory number recently adopted by Wikipedia.
References
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
The disease has been called this for many years and any attempt to change it would be historical revisionism. Isothermic ( talk) 17:43, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
References
References
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
References
References
![]() | This
edit request to
Spanish flu has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change: "A 2020 study found that US cities that implemented early and extensive non-medical measures (quarantine etc.) suffered no adverse economic effects. [1]
To: "A 2020 study found that US cities that implemented early and extensive non-medical measures (quarantine etc.) suffered no additional adverse economic effects due to implementing those measures, when compared with cities that implemented measures late or not at all.. [1]
The study concludes that all cities suffered economic impacts, but NPI measures did not increase the economic impact. The original statement made is misleading.
References
Awmon84 ( talk) 11:07, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
For the sake of accuracy and helping others learn from the mistakes of the past during this challenging time, I suggest the article should be renamed to "1918 Influenza Pandemic". The name "Spanish Flu" is a misnomer which was given only because countries involved in the war effort under reported their own cases and reported only on those in Spain. In our current time of crisis when it is critical to promote truth and learn from the mistakes of the past, a misnomer should not be the name of the article about the worst pandemic in modern history. The name Spanish Flu should be discussed in the article in the historical context from which it emerged, but most certainly should not be the name of the article. EpidemiologyAccuracy ( talk) 09:18, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
I don't recall the H1N1 from 2009 being known as the "swine flu". That was a moniker used for something several decades earlier. I remember my parents being inoculated for that. We did call it the "avian flu", but it was better known just as "H1N1". -- Zeke, April 16
Currently the initial sentence: "The Spanish flu, also known as the 1918 flu pandemic…"
Change it to: The 1918-1920 flu pandemic, better known as the "Spanish flu"…
And then change the title to 1918-1920 flu pandemic.
The article, '1889–1890 flu pandemic,' starts with this sentence: "The 1889–1890 flu pandemic, better known as the "Asiatic flu" or "Russian flu", was…"— Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Nousidios (
talk •
contribs)
15:20, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
At 16:23, 27 August 2014, after a discussion, Antisemitism was moved to Anti-semitism. The act of moving it drew attention to the debate and a new discussion commenced almost immediately. At 05:05, 16 September 2014, after a discussion, Anti-semitism was moved back to Antisemitism. I missed the first discussion, and I did participate in the second discussion. Here again, I missed the first discussion, but I would like to participate in a second discussion.
I just participated in a Zoom teleconference with some of the world's top experts on epidemiology, COVID-19, and the 1918 flu pandemic, and they all agreed that it should be called the "1918 flu pandemic" or some variation thereof, and not the "Spanish flu". As we work through COVID-19, more and more people, including Wikipedians, are becoming aware of the error in calling the 1918 pandemic "Spanish flu". It is not too soon to reopen this discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anomalocaris ( talk • contribs) 19:54, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
@ Olivertownshend and Boing! said Zebedee: The source cited for the sentence that includes the words "popular name" does not have the word "popular" in it. FACT. Geographyinitiative ( talk) 10:55, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
References
In this Article, it says " Nearly a century after the Spanish flu struck in 1918–1920, health organizations moved away from naming epidemics after geographical places." Then sites a Huffpost for "facts". The link is biased and BASED as hell. Note its not on the infogalactic version ( https://infogalactic.com/info/1918_flu_pandemic ) . Please, make this article better and remove that line. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.212.29.107 ( talk • contribs)
![]() | This
edit request to
Spanish flu has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In two places you state that the Spanish flu infected a quarter of the population (in the into paragraph, and in the first paragraph of the Mortality section)
[intro paragraph] Change from
it infected 500 million people – about a quarter of the world's population at the time. The death toll is estimated to have been anywhere from 17 million to 50 million
Change to
it infected 500 million people – about one-third of the world's population at the time. The death toll is estimated to have been anywhere from 17 million to 50 million
1st paragraph in the Mortality section Change From
″The Spanish flu infected around 500 million people, about a quarter of the world's population.[1] Estimates as to how many infected people died vary greatly, but the flu is regardless considered to be one of the deadliest pandemics in history.″
Change to "The Spanish flu infected around 500 million people, about one-third of the world's population.[1] Estimates as to how many infected people died vary greatly, but the flu is regardless considered to be one of the deadliest pandemics in history."
I would just like to see consistency between information cited in the footnotes at the bottom of the Spanish Flu entry and what is actually written on the Wikipedia page for the Spanish Flu. It is very misleading to have that inconsistency. If the cited references state that it was one-third of the population, how do you get one-fourth (quarter of the population) being infected? There is more evidence for the one-third number whereas one-fourth is not documented in the references
Reasons why the change is requested
This last item ( in the mortality section) has a reference to footnote number 1 --- by Taubenberger and Morens, 2006. If you look at that cited reference document it states:
″An estimated one third of the world's population (or ≈500 million persons) were infected and had clinically apparent illnesses (1,2) during the 1918–1919 influenza pandemic. The disease was exceptionally severe. Case-fatality rates were >2.5%, compared to <0.1% in other influenza pandemics (3,4). Total deaths were estimated at ≈50 million (5–7) and were arguably as high as 100 million (7).″ [14]
The CDC states that one-third, not a quarter, of the world's population was infected by the Spanish flu.
[15]
"It is estimated that about 500 million people or one-third of the world’s population became infected with this virus. The number of deaths was estimated to be at least 50 million worldwide with about 675,000 occurring in the United States. Mortality was high in people younger than 5 years old, 20-40 years old, and 65 years and older. The high mortality in healthy people, including those in the 20-40 year age group, was a unique feature of this pandemic."
Zitap123 (
talk)
22:12, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
References
I do not see in the article a clear chronology of the phases of this flu. Surely there should be a section on "Chronology" that discusses what appear to be the waves of infection. I would like it to clearly state what we know about the severity of the flu in, let's say, 1918 vs. 1919 vs. 1920. As an example of poor chronology, the proposed title "1918 flu epidemic" would misrepresent the actual chronology. Zaslav ( talk) 04:51, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
Cite error: There are <ref>
tags on this page without content in them (see the
help page).Most influenza outbreaks disproportionately kill the very young and the very old, with a higher survival rate for those in between, but the Spanish flu pandemic resulted in a higher than expected mortality rate for young adults.[4] Scientists offer several possible explanations for the high mortality rate of the 1918 influenza pandemic. Some analyses have shown the virus to be particularly deadly because it triggers a cytokine storm, which ravages the stronger immune system of young adults.[5] In contrast, a 2007 analysis of medical journals from the period of the pandemic found that the viral infection was no more aggressive than previous influenza strains.[6][7] Instead, malnourishment, overcrowded medical camps and hospitals, and poor hygiene promoted secondary bacterial infection. These infections killed most of the victims, typically after a somewhat prolonged death bed.[8][9] — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Pbvet007 (
talk •
contribs)
Beginning of the articles states, "Lasting from spring 1918 through spring or early summer 1919" Then in the Etymology section it states: "Nearly a century after the Spanish flu struck in 1918–1920" Obviously both of these statements cannot be true. My independent research has suggest the flu lasted for 4 years into 1921. Either way something needs to change. SChalice ( talk) 20:38, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
References
Using Spring and Spring/Summer is confusing.
Is the northern hemisphere Spring or the southern hemisphere Spring being referenced, or does wikipedia change what it is based on the geo location of the user? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.210.252.77 ( talk) 09:53, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
Why is the article still called the Spanish flu? Spanish flu should of course point to this article, but if people want to have a geographic marker, the Kansas flu would be more accurate. 1918 flu pandemic would be more neutral as a name and be more accurate. Jochum ( talk) 10:56, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
Wow, looks like there've been multiple "waves" of attempts to change the name of this article over the past few months. That's not surprising, since the current global coronavirus pandemic has quite obviously inspired a great deal of new interest in, and discussion of, the broadly-comparable event of a century ago. Six months ago, it's extremely unlikely that anyone would've suggested this change, mainly because there really wasn't any particular reason for the subject to be on anybody's radar. But, guess what, things have changed drastically in the past five months. Clearly, there are a great many conscientious individuals who have recently become educated about the history of the so-called "Spanish flu" pandemic, including the origins of that counterfactual moniker. There's nothing at all surprising, much less conspiratorial, about the fact that a great and growing number of such people have come to the conclusion that the moniker can no longer be considered appropriate for use in an official, formal, or scholarly context — such as, indeed, the title of an encyclopedia article.
⋮
Reviewing the "discussions" of this issue in these Talk pages from recent months, I've seen quite a lot of rude, irrational, knee-jerk rejections not only of the title-change suggestion but of the individuals bringing those suggestions forward, even including accusations of vaguely sinister "political agendas" that are as bizarre as they are unsubstantiated. Such behavior is totally contrary to the rules and community standards that Wikipedia editors are expected to follow.
⋮
Given the principles that guide Wikipedians, and the guidance given by the most authoritative of sources, there is no compelling rationale for failing to change the article title at the present time. Nevertheless, it's not absolutely necessary for the change to be effected immediately; the fate of the world is not hanging on the outcome of any proposal to change the title of one Wikipedia article. I would encourage those in favor of the title change here to be patient. Try again in four months' time. If that fails, try again after another four months, and if necessary once more four months after that. I feel confident that by this time next year, consensus to change the title will have coalesced sufficiently to make it happen. —
Jaydiem (
talk)
05:55, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
If we're naming 1918-20 H1N1 flu the Spanish Flu because it was first reported in Spain when it came from Kansas, America, then we should rename Covid-19 flu China-flu/Wuhan Virus because it was first reported in Wuhan, China. Hypocrite. Naming both viruses after a region/nation is super bigotted and racist and a horrible violation of WHO"s medical law. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
68.33.74.20 (
talk)
00:45, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
Articles from public health agencies such as the CDC and the WHO typically refer to it as the 1918 Influenza Pandemic or a similar term. https://www.cdc.gov/flu/pandemic-resources/1918-pandemic-h1n1.html https://www.who.int/news/item/21-05-2021-preventing-the-next-human-influenza-pandemic-celebrating-10-years-of-the-pandemic-influenza-preparedness-framework
to.. Aspirin Poisoning Hypothesis. The entry doesn't describe a factual event it states the researchers conclusion about a time period during the pandemic and notes that the conclusion is debated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.153.174.183 ( talk) 01:43, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
Several people have mentioned on this talk page the article lacks a clear chronology, a timeline of events. I propose we create a new subsection: History > Timeline, that reorganizes the following:
2.1 History > Timeline 2.1.1 First wave spring 1918 (formerly 3.3 First wave spring 1918) 2.1.2 Deadly second wave fall 1918 (formerly 3.4 Deadly second wave) 2.1.3 Third wave 1919 (formerly 3.5 Third wave 1919) 2.1.4 Fourth wave 1920 (formerly 3.6 Fourth wave 1920)
Please vote! On Friday June 5 I'll make this change if we have a majority. For now it's +1 :) DallasFletcher ( talk) 06:33, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Spanish flu has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please replace:
In Brazil, 300,000 died, including president Rodrigues Alves.
with:
In Brazil, 35,000 died, including president Rodrigues Alves.
because:
The current figure is wildly incorrect. Although there is some uncertainty, the actual figure agreed upon most sources is almost ten times lower than what is currently appearing in the Wikipedia entry. The Wikipedia entry in Portuguese has the correct figure:
"Ainda nas Américas, a pandemia resultou em, ao mínimo, 35 mil mortos no Brasil, incluindo o presidente Rodrigues Alves."[86][87] https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gripe_espanhola
Source:
Andrade, Rodrigo de Oliveira Andrade. A time of chaos: 100 years ago, Spanish flu wreaked havoc worldwide, killing 30 million people and 35,000 in Brazil alone.” Pesquisa FAPESP 266 (April 2018). Retrieved 5 June 2020. https://revistapesquisa.fapesp.br/en/a-time-of-chaos/
Arkel Buch ( talk) 11:49, 5 June 2020 (UTC) Arkel Buch ( talk) 11:49, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Spanish flu has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The Etymology section is a mess. Editors have made opinion contributions, rather than editorial which has nothing to do with the situation and perpetuates meta-discourse. 24.56.35.100 ( talk) 05:34, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
I was told, by someone who is knowledgeable about most things, that this strain of flu (the so-called "Spanish flu") was around intermittently into the 1950s before it finally disappeared altogether. Is this true? The article stops its discussion at that 4th wave in 1920. Thank you for your time, Wordreader ( talk) 07:58, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
The Philadelphia Liberty Loans Parade has its own article but it is not mentioned here. This is something that should probably be added, as it was one of the most serious incidents of the pandemic.-- ♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 18:24, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
I changed "also contemporarily referred to as the 1918 Flu Pandemic or H1N1 Pandemic" to "also now referred to as the 1918 Flu Pandemic or H1N1 Pandemic". "Contemporarily" (or rather, contemporaneously, the correct English) means at that time, not now. The term H1N1 did not exist at the time of ths Spanish flu. Zaslav ( talk) 06:03, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Spanish flu has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Mortality - Around the globe: third paragraph,sentence that says; In Sweden, 34,000 did. Change did to died. 2601:581:8402:1EE0:304C:CD3D:3958:6A95 ( talk) 23:17, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
Done---Wikaviani
(talk)
(contribs)
23:35, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
Do we have any rough estimates, no matter how rough, from experts on how high the total death count of the first wave was? Our article here says that the third wave killed "several hundreds of thousands", making the third wave "still a lot deadlier than the first wave". -- 2003:EF:170B:F523:B4E9:E872:BD91:96ED ( talk) 01:37, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
The lead quotes a single source suggesting the number of deaths might have been as low as 17 million. In truth, the more common estimate is 50 to 100 million people. I have deleted the reference to 17 million"
Dozens of reliable sources, including CDC, are saying 50 million. Some say 50 to 100 million.
Peter K Burian ( talk) 16:24, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
Peter K Burian ( talk) 18:03, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
"what sources confirms 17 million??"The 2018 reassessment can be found here; I've just been reading through it and it has a lot of useful information on death rates by country/age group where that data is available. According to the study, estimates of 50 million deaths globally approximate data from India (considered to be the hardest-hit country during the 1918–1919 pandemic), while estimates of 100 million or more assume that
"there would have been many countries that had even much higher mortality rates than India,"which is not supported by any available evidence. Given that Japan, the U.K., and the U.S. all had excess mortality rates of less than 1% (~0.76%-0.97%, ~0.28%-0.4%, and ~0.59-0.6%, respectively) and that
"there is a discussion that China was hit mildly by the 1918–1919 pandemic,"a global death rate of roughly 1% should hardly be considered "low." The data from India, moreover, contains wide variations in the excess mortality rate (ranging from a low of 0.47% to a high of 6.66% depending on the region) and given that India already had an unusually high mortality rate in 1917 and that the largest mortality increase in 1918 occurred within the 0-14 age group (which was relatively unaffected by the Spanish flu in other countries) it is likely that other factors (famine, unrelated diseases, etc.) at least partially account for the high 1918 mortality observed. The researchers perform several consistency checks, concluding:
"We also show that it is important to test the theoretical feasibility of estimates (e.g., 100 million deaths), because results of such tests suggest the true estimate is very unlikely to be higher than 25 million and probably closer to our final estimate of 17.4 million deaths (1918 and 1919 combined)."TheTimesAreAChanging ( talk) 19:35, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
We should go with what the vast majority of sources say, though the 17 million deaths estimate is definitely worth mentioning. For the infobox, I think that the best option for us at this point would be to either include a single range (17–100 million) or two separate ranges (17 million & 50–100 million) for the death toll. If we go with the second option, I would specify that the 17 million figure is a 2018 estimate by the American Journal of Epidemiology while the 50–100 million figure is the most widely-accepted estimate. LightandDark2000 🌀 ( talk) 20:03, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
If we're naming 1918-20 H1N1 flu the Spanish Flu because it was first reported in Spain when it came from Kansas, America, then we should rename Covid-19 flu China-flu/Wuhan Virus because it was first reported in Wuhan, China. Hypocrite. Naming both viruses after a region/nation is super bigotted and racist and a horrible violation of WHO"s medical law. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.244.83.111 ( talk) 20:04, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
Most people refer to it as Spanish flu, it is not "racist" and we don't need to rename everything retrospectively just because of political correctness. Oppashi Talk 12:42, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
If we’re following your logic, Then we should name COVID-19 to China flu like Trump did — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.244.83.111 ( talk) 13:29, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
Agree with the above IP. If Zika Virus, Ebola, Hendra virus, MERS, Swine flu, et al get to keep their names, even though WHO and other's have officially stated they are either racist or inaccurate, then Wuhan Flu or China Flu should stay. Period. Else, it's political correctness and virtue signaling. Sad. 179.53.41.19 ( talk) 05:19, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
Nah. Only Trump called it "China flu" but MOST people (like 80-90% of them) call it "spanish flu" in almost every language, thus it is the common name of it. It is not racist just because it doesn't fit the contemporary PC agenda. Oppashi Talk 21:31, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
It is not racist just because it does not fit the contemporary PC agenda. It is racist because it is based on prejudice. BarryBorgia ( talk) 02:23, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
No. Oppashi Talk 09:20, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
"Such evolution of influenza is a common occurrence: there is a tendency for pathogenic viruses to become less lethal with time, as the hosts of more dangerous strains tend to die out."
This claim is unsourced (it is listed with source, but that source does not appear to speak on this point).
Although this is commonly believed, the best source I can find is a virologist who says "I believe that...", i.e. it is not a researched claim.
It's speculative and should be marked as such or - better yet - deleted.
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
The result of the move request was: not moved. While "1918 influenza pandemic" and similar titles may be more precise or consistent, there is rough consensus that the recognizability of "Spanish flu" makes it a better article title per WP:COMMONNAME. Thank you everyone who participated. — Wug· a·po·des 22:48, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
Spanish flu → 1918 influenza pandemic – Per Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(events)#Health_incidents_and_outbreaks, the guideline says we need to have where and when it happened. This title was listed in the guideline as 1918 influenza pandemic, but I removed it for now to get a consensus on whether there should a move. Interstellarity ( talk) 13:17, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources.and "When there are multiple names for a subject, all of which are fairly common, and the most common has problems, it is perfectly reasonable to choose one of the others."-- SharʿabSalam▼ ( talk) 17:21, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
Although official, scientific, birth, original, or trademarked names are often used for article titles, the term or name most typically used in reliable sources is generally preferred.'When the policy talks about a most common name having 'problems', I do not see this name having problems that would discount it. Although we do not usually rely on googlehits alone in an opposition, for a common name discussion, and with the google hits showing such a strong difference, I agree with Renata's objection. Agent00x ( talk) 19:59, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
WP:NOTFORUM EvergreenFir (talk) 00:32, 20 March 2020 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
The quote you cited mentions the Spanish Flu only to illustrate what is no longer appropriate when naming a new disease. The article otherwise does not promote the renaming of any disease, and even if it did, the WHO's prescriptions are not infallible. Die Pillen in mir ( talk) 22:45, 21 March 2020 (UTC)The best practices apply to new infections, syndromes, and diseases that have never been recognized or reported before in humans, that have potential public health impact, and for which there is no disease name in common usage. They do not apply to disease names that are already established.
We can also rename the great plague that killed 200M Europeans to the Great Chinese Plague. Because lets just get this out in the open, the only reason there is such a great interest in renaming this article is due to the Chinese not wanting the Wuhan Coronavirus name to stick despite it being a historical trend to name them from where they originate. Despite this being a Chinese name for it. German measles. Russian Flu. Hong Kong Coronavirus. -- 173.94.54.251 ( talk) 17:18, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
Stop casting aspersions about political motivations (we can all do that, and some of us have our own ideas about what this is really about). Slatersteven ( talk) 17:14, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
Oppose per common name and the frequency of that common name's use. This pandemic is near-universally known as the Spanish flu. Let's not give it a boilerplate replacement for that name. —General534 ( talk) 09:13, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
Please remember that Wikipedia is not a forum. WP:POLEMICs, missives, kvetches, and screeds about users' motives, alleged revisionism, pro/descriptive language, etc. are not appropriate here. EvergreenFir (talk) 00:30, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
Can we lay of the abf. Slatersteven ( talk) 17:31, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Spanish flu has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change "three candidates have been proposed (in alphabetical order): China, United Kingdom, and United State (see section below)" to "three candidates have been proposed (in most to least possibility): United States, United Kingdom and China". Weihuil ( talk) 02:49, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Spanish flu has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please delete "This has led to speculation that the 1918 flu pandemic originated in China.[25][24][26][27] " as the hypothesis is based on a very weak and unreasonable assumption. Rosiesheen ( talk) 04:21, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
However we do mention China (and in effect repeat the same information) in two separate sections, why? Slatersteven ( talk) 08:15, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
Please note that this article and its talk page are under general sanctions. EvergreenFir (talk) 00:22, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
Haha,so we’re repeating it.Repeating the history of evil maligning,the history of stigmatization.Do not use history as a shield,it is often just an airy figleaf. Deus Non Vult! Joseph Rangork ( talk) 20:41, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
Who changed the mortality rate? With an estimated 50 million deaths, a claim of 2% mortality would increase the world population from 1.8 billion to 2.5 billion.
Another estimate was 100 million deaths which implies 100% infection and a world population of 5 billion. The world population was 1.8 billion to 1.9 billion. Tazhawkeye ( talk) 08:52, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
The lede incorrectly says "The Spanish flu, also known as the 1918 flu pandemic..." This confuses two different concepts. It would be like saying that COVID-19 is also known as the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic or that swine flu is also known as the 2009 flu pandemic (which are correctly two different articles).
The wording should be changed to clarify that the 1918 flu pandemic was a pandemic of the disease called "Spanish flu", which was caused by particular strain(s) of H1N1. For comparison, here is the definition from the dictionary built into macOS, which correctly identifies the relationship between these terms: "Spanish flu: influenza caused by an influenza virus of type A, in particular that of the pandemic which began in 1918." The 1918 pandemic was a pandemic case of Spanish flu. Bueller 007 ( talk) 04:21, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
Spanish influenza n. epidemic or pandemic influenza; spec. the pandemic of 1918–19, which was the most widespread and virulent of all known influenza outbreaks (to date); frequently attributive. [The 1918 pandemic is thought to have originated in the United States, but relatively early in its course was very severe in Spain. The pandemic of 1889–90 was commonly called Russian influenza.]
1890 Daily News (St. Paul, Minnesota) 5 Apr. 4/2 Mme. Emma Nevada has entirely recovered from her long attack of Spanish influenza.
1918 Times 25 June 9/4 Everybody thinks of it as the ‘Spanish’ influenza today.
1953 Trans. Royal Soc. Trop. Med. & Hygiene 47 442 The so-called Spanish influenza had been unduly prevalent in Europe during the spring and early summer of 1918, spreading along lines of communication from western Europe to most parts of the world.
2005 BBC Focus Dec. 5/4 He has published 250 scientific papers, with his main interest being the pathogenicity of influenza, in particular the 1918 Spanish Influenza strain.
Spanish flu n. = Spanish influenza n.1918 W. Owen Let. 24 June (1967) 560 About 30 officers are smitten with the Spanish Flu.
1937 K. Blixen Out of Afr. ii. v. 161 When we had the Spanish Flu on the farm, Farah was..shivering with fever.
1979 D. Williams Genesis & Exodus xi. 213 Those who had survived 1914–18 and the plague of Spanish flu that followed.
2013 Australian (Nexis) 12 Nov. 11 Don Watson's grandfather was twice wounded in Flanders after being infected with Spanish flu.
It's suggested that the total of 450,000 represented 0.2 % of the Russian population. This would imply that the Russia ( I forget what it was called it was pre USSR ) of the time had a population of over 200 million which I find questionable. This is cited in citation 60.
Can anyone certify this ? Frondophila ( talk) 10:33, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
The section Deadly Second Wave currently says (para 1) that "The first wave had resembled typical flu epidemics; those most at risk were the sick and elderly, while younger, healthier people recovered easily" whereas in the second wave (para 4), "the most vulnerable people were those like the soldiers in the trenches – adults who were young and fit".
However, the study referenced in the fourth paragraph of that section (cite note 94) contradicts this. According to figures in Table 2 of that paper, the first wave (which came in early summer) also primarily attacked the young and fit; the second wave was much deadlier but did in fact attack the same demographic.
Could somebody change this, please. Malcolm Ramsay ( talk) 12:23, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
I noticed that the
"Mortality" section of this article does not provide any estimates for Spain. While the lede indicates that, contrary to popular belief at the time, Spain was not "especially hard hit,"
this still seems like a major omission. Furthermore, while I haven't yet been able to look into this with scholarly sources, I have heard that millions died in Spain and am wondering if that is accurate; if it is accurate, then it would seem that Spain was hit much harder than comparable European countries such as neighboring France. Does anyone have any reliable figures on hand?
TheTimesAreAChanging (
talk)
16:28, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion 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.
It is well established today that this flu was neither originated nor particularly spread in Spain. Furthermore, it is also well established that naming pandemias after regions is misleading (from a mechanistic point of view) and also stigmatizing. Why not having then the official name 1918 flu as the primary article name which other names redirect to? Gaianauta ( talk) 18:23, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
m the CDC], History.com, Britannica, CBS, and so on. Schazjmd (talk) 18:44, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
It's obvious that we should not change the name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.227.174.21 ( talk) 14:08, 17 March 2020 (UTC) The colloquial name is the Spanish Flu, no amount of editing will change that. Maybe having the two terms coexist isn't the worst idea but removing one altogether is a bit ridiculous. 134.50.188.71 ( talk) 20:02, 17 March 2020 (UTC) That not a single one of the links provided fails to mention the Spanish flu prior to or few words after "1918 flu" would suggest it is very revisionist to remove the name. Its not the job of Wikipedia to make judgement calls on what is most professional or destigmatizing, the Spanish Flu is and was the colloquial name for the worst pandemic in history. Abovfold ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:54, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
History isnt perfect, but progressives can change that! 24.212.164.217 ( talk) 12:52, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
Thoughts? - Jack Sebastian ( talk) 17:14, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Spanish flu has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change "Infectious diseases already limited life expectancy in the early 20th century, but life expectancy in the United States dropped by about 12 years in the first year of the pandemic.[6][7][8]" to include some reference to the confounding influence to this statistic of the U.S. formally entering WWI in April 1917 and deploying troops in summer 1918. This sentence as written is wildly misleading, as WWI surely had more impact on the U.S. life expectancy drop than the Spanish Flu did. Anon0192837465 ( talk) 19:38, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
WP:NOTFORUM and keep the debate to one area EvergreenFir (talk) 18:42, 28 March 2020 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
As an encyclopaedia, the proper response should be to use historical names, regardless of current political climate. Why should a single source report a different name of something or someone completely out of the context of historical usage. It is Wikipedia's mission to document information and historical events, not edit them or censor them. Lawrecenull ( talk) 02:04, 20 March 2020 (UTC) Well why dont we just call it "china flu"? Sont allow the Communists in china to change history! The traitors to freedom on this planet. The corrupt politicians will all find a "Special place" in hell for them! Chinalies ( talk) 01:40, 21 March 2020 (UTC) |
The following discussion 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.
In 1918 the entire world came to know about this new flu epidemic because of news from Spain, a neutral country that was not associated with either allies or enemies. Since the belligerents censored news of what was happening in their own countries, the world relied on reports from Spain, which apparently were reasonably accurate and unbiased about the characteristics of the flu. In that regard, Spanish flu is a perfectly appropriate and historically accurate name, in my opinion. The NY TIMES gave a major full-page story to "Spanish Influenza" Sept 22, 1918 p 37. TIMES also reported when King Alfonso of Spain was sick with the Spanish flu on Oct 4, 1918 -- he recovered. Rjensen ( talk) 14:00, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
Using The Great War as evidence to support the name change of the Spanish Flu is ignorant of the fact that the Spanish Flu is still the dominant used term, not just in the past but in the present (see citations of Google data in regards to searches for "Spanish Flu" instead of "1918 _____ Pandemic" or similar searches). I just wonder if the same rules apply to the name "Ebola virus" which is named after the Ebola river. The vote to change the name had heavy opposition, it's counterproductive to continue talking about it until it goes in the opposite favor. Respect the fact that the majority were against the name change and move on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.152.93.68 ( talk) 21:40, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion 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.
The name Spanish Flu came about because at the time the Allies and the Central Powers, which is another way of saying totalitarian, decided to suppress news of the spreading lethal influenza (sounds familiar?) for their own purposes, including not having to answer questions. However, the Spanish were neutral in World War I and were free to discuss the epidemic in their press. Their news spread and soon people were discussing it and they called it the Spanish Flu. It shows what a free government and free press can accomplish and how the press can be suppressed by a government with lots to hide. If I were Spanish, I'd be proud to have this influenza named after my country because it shows the Spanish did the right thing in letting the world know a deadly virus was headed their way. In addition, the Spanish king contracted the flu, that news spread, too. That is what convinced people the origin was Spain, but the real truth was only Spain dared print the truth. Well done, the Spanish. They've earned the right. Changing it now is just another form of censorship. Unless Wikipedia is now under the thumb of the corrupt Chinese totalitarian communist regime, I see no reason to change this article's name. Ever. Bodding ( talk) 03:08, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
Heavily Oppose Spanish Flu is the historical name and common name. Changing it to 1918 influenza will do nothing.
We can keep covid-19, but everyone everywhere knows its Wuhan Coronavirus. This is the Chinese term for it.
It is forever and indelibly linked to China. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.94.54.251 ( talk) 17:00, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
The section Less-affected_areas mentions "Some researchers have proposed that traditional Chinese medicine may have played a role in the low influenza mortality rate in China."
Given the lack of general scientific evidence that traditional Chinese medicine works, as described at Traditional_Chinese_medicine, the fact that there is only a link to a single study which presents this conclusion, and the authors come from "Institute of Chinese Medicine, The Chinese University of Hong Kong" which presents some possible bias, I find this sentence to be misleading.
I propose that this sentence is deleted. AToftegaard ( talk) 12:29, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
The following Nat Geo article has a lot of information, including comparative graphs of different cities having different timing of social distancing measures:
"How some cities ‘flattened the curve’ during the 1918 flu pandemic"
Active editors on this page may want to consider. — RCraig09 ( talk) 22:16, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
It was first reported in Fort Riley, Kansas. Change it in the info tab — Preceding unsigned comment added by Niskka ( talk • contribs) 10:51, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
In the section on China as a potential origin of the disease we currently say
However, a study by K.F. Cheng and P.C. Leung in 2006 has suggested it was more likely because the traditional Chinese medicine played an important role in prevention and treatment.
[TCm 1]
The source of this statement appears reliable, which is why I find it highly unlikely that a paper in a reputable journal would credit Traditional Chinese medicine (which is basically a pseudo-science) with being an effective treatment to the Spanish flu. Can someone with access to the article check that? If it does indeed make this rather extraordinary claim, it is further worth considering whether this information is wp:due or whether anyone else has challenged the conclusion (because I'm sure the majority of the medical community does not believe that traditional Chinese medicine stopped the Spanish Flu).-- Ermenrich ( talk) 13:42, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: |volume=
has extra text (
help)
I have uploaded 4 variations on the same chart (.png & .jpg, with & without supporting data) depicting the effects & timing of social distancing, each having with Weekly excess flu death rates per 100,000 for 4 US cities final 16 weeks of 1918 in the title. They depict rates for the cities of Boston, Philadelphia, St. Louis, & Seattle. They are in commons:Category:Spanish flu in the United States charts. I am going to leave it to other editors as to where & whether to place them or not.
I think the biggest take away of the chart is to avoid a big parade at the start of a pandemic.
Peaceray ( talk) 16:30, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
Deaths in India numbers don't make a lot of sense when you compare them with recent estimates of total deaths. Doug Weller talk 20:15, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Spanish flu has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Hello, I'm not sure if I'm at the right "spot"... Re.: "Spanish flu": I believe we are talking about VIRUS not "bacterial superinfection" (you can do a "search" (you'll get one "hit" only! See: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_flu 199.119.233.216 ( talk) 22:27, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
Every photo I have seen of hospital care for Spanish flu victims shows a flat bed with maximum 2 pillows, and many patients flat on their backs.
Hypostatic pneumonia is a fatal type of pneumonia caused exactly by this, lying in a flat position with inadequate natural drainage of the lungs, especially in a patient with weakened shallow breathing. This results in build up of fluid which then becomes infected resulting in the illness.
References are easy to find. [1]
I entered nursing in 1972 and by then the dangers of hypostatic pneumonia were recognized and we were taught to nurse bed ridden patients in a seated position, either by mechanically raising the head of the bed or by adding pillows in an armchair shape, combined with intensive physical therapy. The ideal being to get the patient out of bed "nursed in chair" as soon as possible and for as long as possible in any case.
I can find no mention of this factor in contributing to the fatality of the Spanish flu. Neither is there an entry for hypostatic pneumonia on the Wikipedia pneumonia page.
Any suggestions for the best way to bring this to public attention via Wikipedia? Jiver2 ( talk) 12:36, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
If you look this up on Google, the preview says “First Reported in Spain.” Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 13 Nisan 5780 15:25, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
I searched for the flu and got the 1918 Flu pandemic via Siri knowledge. The summary page shows the origin as the USA. Wikipedia says the origin is unknown. How does one go about correcting Siri Knowledge? Sloanish ( talk) 14:01, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
I have added citation needed tag to lede statement "making it one of the deadliest pandemics in human history, behind the Black Death.", as it contradicts with death toll depicted in Plague of Justinian. Is there any reliable source comparing the three critically? Capankajsmilyo( Talk | Infobox assistance) 04:24, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion 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.
I suggest that the title of this article be changed to "1918 Influenza Pandemic" or "1918 Flu Pandemic" as "Spanish Flu" is a very informal name and has the potential to carry false implications with it, something I don't think I've seen on any other Wikipedia article. Even the opening line says "1918 Influenza Pandemic" and specifically denotes "Spanish Flu" as a nickname for the event. I just find it weird that this article would be titled "Spanish Flu" and not say one of the titles I suggested or something. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.101.213.47 ( talk) 08:18, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
You could always redirect people to "1918 Flu Pandemic" but it's much better to head the article with an outright lie, I guess. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.11.124.123 ( talk) 18:26, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
Even the first line says that is a colloquial name. Just take the example of the 'Asian flu': /info/en/?search=Influenza_A_virus_subtype_H2N2#Asian_flu Jesusinacka ( talk) 09:29, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
I hope you keep it the same. Historically, there has been no request to change the page on Wikipedia until recently, which I personally don't feel is coincidental. Personal beliefs aside, many viruses have been given names that are significant to regions of the world, or have been named after animals. ex.) African Trypanosomiasis — see Sleeping Sickness, West Nile Virus Infection (WNV Infection), Crimean-Congo hemorrhagic fever (CCHF) [Nairovirus Infection], RMSF (Rocky Mountain Spotted Fever), Raccoon Roundworm Infection [Baylisascaris Infection], Rift Valley Fever (RVF), Mad Cow Disease (BSE) — see Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy, Japanese Encephalitis (JE) Vaccination, Jamestown Canyon Virus Infection, Influenza, Avian — see Avian Influenza, Influenza in Pigs — see Swine Influenza, Flea-borne (Murine) Typhus — see Typhus Fevers, Ebola Virus Disease (EVD)--Named after the Ebola River, etc., Canine Flu, etc. It's fair to say that perhaps it is only a colloquial name, though it already says that. Renaming it may only cause confusion when the majority of trusted sources use the colloquial name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.152.93.68 ( talk) 20:16, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
The fact that "Spanish Flu" has been ubiquitous as the name of this epidemic means a name change will cause confusion and make the information less accessible. The desire to eliminate "Spanish" to show consistency with the name of the 2020 Covid-19 epidemic (as opposed to the so-called "China virus") is not useful and will contribute nothing in the area of clarity or accessibility. Fmanci ( talk) 03:30, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
This request just up and happened, out of the blue! No. It is clearly alluding to a contemporary POLITICAL scuffle initiated by those receptive to the propaganda being generated by the Communist Party of China in relation the the Chinese Virus. The virus from the nation of China that is killing 1000's of people because of what happened in Wuhan, China. This is soviet style revisionism. EVERYONE that I know, and have known for decades has referred to the Spanish Flu just as that, The Spanish Flu. Don't bother trying to torture a fake reason for the name change of tis article, we all know why it was brought up, now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.89.229.157 ( talk) 00:52, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
Agreed with the previous two posters. This is a politically inspired request for change that would cause historical confusion and inconsistency. Are there requests to change all the names of viral epidemics based on location of origin or greatest disaster (i.e., West Nile, Rocky Mountain Spotted Fever, Lyme Disease, Ebola, Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS), Norovirus, Zika, German Measles, Legionnaire’s Disease)? Jemusser ( talk) 06:08, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
COVID-19 should be renamed to chinese flu, it is important to point out the geographic location of a virus and the people who are responsible for spreading it.
Support name change. This flu didn't start in Spain, it started in Kansas. To call it Spanish Flu despite that is to knowingly spread misinformation, to say nothing about the WHO guidelines the previous poster mentioned. Just because it's "known as" Spanish Flu doesn't mean we need to keep peddling that misinformation. (Note, syphilis used to be called "French Pox") Jade Phoenix Pence ( talk) 17:03, 21 March 2020 (UTC)Jade Phoenix Pence
Object to name change. Renaming the article to fit a political correctness agenda, after the term has been in the common vernacular for over a century, is tantamount to historical revisionism. What's next, renaming the french fries article, just because they weren't invented in France? Renaming the Panama hat article? I say no. EJSawyer ( talk) 01:24, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
Object to name change; new naming guidelines by an organisation that didn't exist at the time of this pandemic shouldn't overwrite the historical context of over 100 years ago. Thankfully this has already been decided. MeanMotherJr ( talk) 01:15, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
Support name change. The chauvinism in the United Statesians' responses is, as always, very scary. They have their own political agenda, hidden now behind an alert of a Chinese-agenda banner. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cusano ( talk • contribs) 18:27, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
Support name change. Any Spanish speaker is unaware that it's called this in English and it's long been misleading as to the original source which may be convenient to Kansas, but is completely inaccurate. "AKA Spanish Flu" can always be listed in the intro. And the "This is how it's been known" argument never holds water as there are countless ethnic names that were common and derogatory that have fallen out of use to cite but one example. Should have never been called "Spanish flu" to start with as this was based upon bad historical information. Now is the chance to fix that. Primecoordinator ( talk) 18:35, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Spanish flu has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Spanish flu is inaccurate it came from any Army base in Kansas. Please change the page name to Kansas flu. 73.158.125.203 ( talk) 20:01, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
I would bet he's being factitious, but your citation of WP:COMMONNAME brings up a relevant statement that "[w]hen there are multiple names for a subject, all of which are fairly common, and the most common has problems, it is perfectly reasonable to choose one of the others." Following the WP:COMMONNAME guidance the common but problematic "Spanish flu" for the common and less problematic "1918 flu pandemic". Even if one ignores the inaccuracy of the current page name, that it is titled as though it's a type of flu (e.g. Swine flu) rather than an event (e.g. 2009 Swine flu pandemic) is even more problematic, especially considering both pandemics are the same type of flu (A/H1N1). It's like having a page named Cougar, and another page named Mountain lion that contained the Washington cougar attack. The page should at a bare minimum be titled either "Spanish flu pandemic" or better "1918 Spanish flu pandemic", even if both are still problematic. Nebes ( talk) 05:27, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
Seems there may be a serious problem with the Wikipedia Spanish flu article according to recent news. [1]
An earlier entry, apparently correct, was changed to one that may not have been correct (on February 22, 2020). Earlier and Current edit => It is estimated that one third of the global population was infected, [2] and the World Health Organization estimates that 2–3% of those who were infected died (case-fatality ratio). [3][failed verification]
I tried to restore the apparently incorrect entry to one that was correct - and this time with several updated references - as follows: New edit => The global mortality rate from the 1918–1919 pandemic is not known, but an estimated 10% to 20% of those who were infected died ( case-fatality ratio). [4] [5] About a third of the world population was infected, and something between 1% and 5.6% of the entire global population of over 1800 million [6] died. [2]
However - my edit was reverted and a discussion requested.
If interested - some of my own thinking about this Spanish flu information:
Fatalities (est) = as high as 100 million. [7] [8]
Infected (est) = 620 million ("one-third" of world population). [9]
I agree that it should say one-third of the population, not a quarter of the population. The source articles referenced [Taubenberger and Morens, 2006] state one-third. The CDC states one-third, and even the author of Nancy Bistow (whose presentation is linked in this wikipedia entry) states one-third. Zitap123 ( talk) 06:34, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
World population 1920 = 1,860 million. [10]
Case-fatality ratio (CFR) => 2.5%. [4] [5]
This CFR may be much too low according to others. [4] [5]
My own calculation => Case-Fatalities Ratio = 100 million/620 million = 16% CFR
Comments Welcome from other Editors - Thanks. Drbogdan ( talk) 15:07, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
References
But in 2002 a new study corrected the lacuna in non-Western cases and produced the estimate of worldwide deaths we are familiar with now – 50-100 million. This meant the CFR was no longer 2.5% but now 10-20% of total estimated cases. Then a later study, from 2006, used these updated fatality figures, but omitted to update the CFR, citing it as still 2.5%. Which meant it was offering the impossible and contradictory number recently adopted by Wikipedia.
References
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
The disease has been called this for many years and any attempt to change it would be historical revisionism. Isothermic ( talk) 17:43, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
References
References
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
References
References
![]() | This
edit request to
Spanish flu has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change: "A 2020 study found that US cities that implemented early and extensive non-medical measures (quarantine etc.) suffered no adverse economic effects. [1]
To: "A 2020 study found that US cities that implemented early and extensive non-medical measures (quarantine etc.) suffered no additional adverse economic effects due to implementing those measures, when compared with cities that implemented measures late or not at all.. [1]
The study concludes that all cities suffered economic impacts, but NPI measures did not increase the economic impact. The original statement made is misleading.
References
Awmon84 ( talk) 11:07, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
For the sake of accuracy and helping others learn from the mistakes of the past during this challenging time, I suggest the article should be renamed to "1918 Influenza Pandemic". The name "Spanish Flu" is a misnomer which was given only because countries involved in the war effort under reported their own cases and reported only on those in Spain. In our current time of crisis when it is critical to promote truth and learn from the mistakes of the past, a misnomer should not be the name of the article about the worst pandemic in modern history. The name Spanish Flu should be discussed in the article in the historical context from which it emerged, but most certainly should not be the name of the article. EpidemiologyAccuracy ( talk) 09:18, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
I don't recall the H1N1 from 2009 being known as the "swine flu". That was a moniker used for something several decades earlier. I remember my parents being inoculated for that. We did call it the "avian flu", but it was better known just as "H1N1". -- Zeke, April 16
Currently the initial sentence: "The Spanish flu, also known as the 1918 flu pandemic…"
Change it to: The 1918-1920 flu pandemic, better known as the "Spanish flu"…
And then change the title to 1918-1920 flu pandemic.
The article, '1889–1890 flu pandemic,' starts with this sentence: "The 1889–1890 flu pandemic, better known as the "Asiatic flu" or "Russian flu", was…"— Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Nousidios (
talk •
contribs)
15:20, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
At 16:23, 27 August 2014, after a discussion, Antisemitism was moved to Anti-semitism. The act of moving it drew attention to the debate and a new discussion commenced almost immediately. At 05:05, 16 September 2014, after a discussion, Anti-semitism was moved back to Antisemitism. I missed the first discussion, and I did participate in the second discussion. Here again, I missed the first discussion, but I would like to participate in a second discussion.
I just participated in a Zoom teleconference with some of the world's top experts on epidemiology, COVID-19, and the 1918 flu pandemic, and they all agreed that it should be called the "1918 flu pandemic" or some variation thereof, and not the "Spanish flu". As we work through COVID-19, more and more people, including Wikipedians, are becoming aware of the error in calling the 1918 pandemic "Spanish flu". It is not too soon to reopen this discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anomalocaris ( talk • contribs) 19:54, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
@ Olivertownshend and Boing! said Zebedee: The source cited for the sentence that includes the words "popular name" does not have the word "popular" in it. FACT. Geographyinitiative ( talk) 10:55, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
References
In this Article, it says " Nearly a century after the Spanish flu struck in 1918–1920, health organizations moved away from naming epidemics after geographical places." Then sites a Huffpost for "facts". The link is biased and BASED as hell. Note its not on the infogalactic version ( https://infogalactic.com/info/1918_flu_pandemic ) . Please, make this article better and remove that line. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.212.29.107 ( talk • contribs)
![]() | This
edit request to
Spanish flu has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In two places you state that the Spanish flu infected a quarter of the population (in the into paragraph, and in the first paragraph of the Mortality section)
[intro paragraph] Change from
it infected 500 million people – about a quarter of the world's population at the time. The death toll is estimated to have been anywhere from 17 million to 50 million
Change to
it infected 500 million people – about one-third of the world's population at the time. The death toll is estimated to have been anywhere from 17 million to 50 million
1st paragraph in the Mortality section Change From
″The Spanish flu infected around 500 million people, about a quarter of the world's population.[1] Estimates as to how many infected people died vary greatly, but the flu is regardless considered to be one of the deadliest pandemics in history.″
Change to "The Spanish flu infected around 500 million people, about one-third of the world's population.[1] Estimates as to how many infected people died vary greatly, but the flu is regardless considered to be one of the deadliest pandemics in history."
I would just like to see consistency between information cited in the footnotes at the bottom of the Spanish Flu entry and what is actually written on the Wikipedia page for the Spanish Flu. It is very misleading to have that inconsistency. If the cited references state that it was one-third of the population, how do you get one-fourth (quarter of the population) being infected? There is more evidence for the one-third number whereas one-fourth is not documented in the references
Reasons why the change is requested
This last item ( in the mortality section) has a reference to footnote number 1 --- by Taubenberger and Morens, 2006. If you look at that cited reference document it states:
″An estimated one third of the world's population (or ≈500 million persons) were infected and had clinically apparent illnesses (1,2) during the 1918–1919 influenza pandemic. The disease was exceptionally severe. Case-fatality rates were >2.5%, compared to <0.1% in other influenza pandemics (3,4). Total deaths were estimated at ≈50 million (5–7) and were arguably as high as 100 million (7).″ [14]
The CDC states that one-third, not a quarter, of the world's population was infected by the Spanish flu.
[15]
"It is estimated that about 500 million people or one-third of the world’s population became infected with this virus. The number of deaths was estimated to be at least 50 million worldwide with about 675,000 occurring in the United States. Mortality was high in people younger than 5 years old, 20-40 years old, and 65 years and older. The high mortality in healthy people, including those in the 20-40 year age group, was a unique feature of this pandemic."
Zitap123 (
talk)
22:12, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
References
I do not see in the article a clear chronology of the phases of this flu. Surely there should be a section on "Chronology" that discusses what appear to be the waves of infection. I would like it to clearly state what we know about the severity of the flu in, let's say, 1918 vs. 1919 vs. 1920. As an example of poor chronology, the proposed title "1918 flu epidemic" would misrepresent the actual chronology. Zaslav ( talk) 04:51, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
Cite error: There are <ref>
tags on this page without content in them (see the
help page).Most influenza outbreaks disproportionately kill the very young and the very old, with a higher survival rate for those in between, but the Spanish flu pandemic resulted in a higher than expected mortality rate for young adults.[4] Scientists offer several possible explanations for the high mortality rate of the 1918 influenza pandemic. Some analyses have shown the virus to be particularly deadly because it triggers a cytokine storm, which ravages the stronger immune system of young adults.[5] In contrast, a 2007 analysis of medical journals from the period of the pandemic found that the viral infection was no more aggressive than previous influenza strains.[6][7] Instead, malnourishment, overcrowded medical camps and hospitals, and poor hygiene promoted secondary bacterial infection. These infections killed most of the victims, typically after a somewhat prolonged death bed.[8][9] — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Pbvet007 (
talk •
contribs)
Beginning of the articles states, "Lasting from spring 1918 through spring or early summer 1919" Then in the Etymology section it states: "Nearly a century after the Spanish flu struck in 1918–1920" Obviously both of these statements cannot be true. My independent research has suggest the flu lasted for 4 years into 1921. Either way something needs to change. SChalice ( talk) 20:38, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
References
Using Spring and Spring/Summer is confusing.
Is the northern hemisphere Spring or the southern hemisphere Spring being referenced, or does wikipedia change what it is based on the geo location of the user? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.210.252.77 ( talk) 09:53, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
Why is the article still called the Spanish flu? Spanish flu should of course point to this article, but if people want to have a geographic marker, the Kansas flu would be more accurate. 1918 flu pandemic would be more neutral as a name and be more accurate. Jochum ( talk) 10:56, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
Wow, looks like there've been multiple "waves" of attempts to change the name of this article over the past few months. That's not surprising, since the current global coronavirus pandemic has quite obviously inspired a great deal of new interest in, and discussion of, the broadly-comparable event of a century ago. Six months ago, it's extremely unlikely that anyone would've suggested this change, mainly because there really wasn't any particular reason for the subject to be on anybody's radar. But, guess what, things have changed drastically in the past five months. Clearly, there are a great many conscientious individuals who have recently become educated about the history of the so-called "Spanish flu" pandemic, including the origins of that counterfactual moniker. There's nothing at all surprising, much less conspiratorial, about the fact that a great and growing number of such people have come to the conclusion that the moniker can no longer be considered appropriate for use in an official, formal, or scholarly context — such as, indeed, the title of an encyclopedia article.
⋮
Reviewing the "discussions" of this issue in these Talk pages from recent months, I've seen quite a lot of rude, irrational, knee-jerk rejections not only of the title-change suggestion but of the individuals bringing those suggestions forward, even including accusations of vaguely sinister "political agendas" that are as bizarre as they are unsubstantiated. Such behavior is totally contrary to the rules and community standards that Wikipedia editors are expected to follow.
⋮
Given the principles that guide Wikipedians, and the guidance given by the most authoritative of sources, there is no compelling rationale for failing to change the article title at the present time. Nevertheless, it's not absolutely necessary for the change to be effected immediately; the fate of the world is not hanging on the outcome of any proposal to change the title of one Wikipedia article. I would encourage those in favor of the title change here to be patient. Try again in four months' time. If that fails, try again after another four months, and if necessary once more four months after that. I feel confident that by this time next year, consensus to change the title will have coalesced sufficiently to make it happen. —
Jaydiem (
talk)
05:55, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
If we're naming 1918-20 H1N1 flu the Spanish Flu because it was first reported in Spain when it came from Kansas, America, then we should rename Covid-19 flu China-flu/Wuhan Virus because it was first reported in Wuhan, China. Hypocrite. Naming both viruses after a region/nation is super bigotted and racist and a horrible violation of WHO"s medical law. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
68.33.74.20 (
talk)
00:45, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
Articles from public health agencies such as the CDC and the WHO typically refer to it as the 1918 Influenza Pandemic or a similar term. https://www.cdc.gov/flu/pandemic-resources/1918-pandemic-h1n1.html https://www.who.int/news/item/21-05-2021-preventing-the-next-human-influenza-pandemic-celebrating-10-years-of-the-pandemic-influenza-preparedness-framework
to.. Aspirin Poisoning Hypothesis. The entry doesn't describe a factual event it states the researchers conclusion about a time period during the pandemic and notes that the conclusion is debated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.153.174.183 ( talk) 01:43, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
Several people have mentioned on this talk page the article lacks a clear chronology, a timeline of events. I propose we create a new subsection: History > Timeline, that reorganizes the following:
2.1 History > Timeline 2.1.1 First wave spring 1918 (formerly 3.3 First wave spring 1918) 2.1.2 Deadly second wave fall 1918 (formerly 3.4 Deadly second wave) 2.1.3 Third wave 1919 (formerly 3.5 Third wave 1919) 2.1.4 Fourth wave 1920 (formerly 3.6 Fourth wave 1920)
Please vote! On Friday June 5 I'll make this change if we have a majority. For now it's +1 :) DallasFletcher ( talk) 06:33, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Spanish flu has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please replace:
In Brazil, 300,000 died, including president Rodrigues Alves.
with:
In Brazil, 35,000 died, including president Rodrigues Alves.
because:
The current figure is wildly incorrect. Although there is some uncertainty, the actual figure agreed upon most sources is almost ten times lower than what is currently appearing in the Wikipedia entry. The Wikipedia entry in Portuguese has the correct figure:
"Ainda nas Américas, a pandemia resultou em, ao mínimo, 35 mil mortos no Brasil, incluindo o presidente Rodrigues Alves."[86][87] https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gripe_espanhola
Source:
Andrade, Rodrigo de Oliveira Andrade. A time of chaos: 100 years ago, Spanish flu wreaked havoc worldwide, killing 30 million people and 35,000 in Brazil alone.” Pesquisa FAPESP 266 (April 2018). Retrieved 5 June 2020. https://revistapesquisa.fapesp.br/en/a-time-of-chaos/
Arkel Buch ( talk) 11:49, 5 June 2020 (UTC) Arkel Buch ( talk) 11:49, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Spanish flu has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The Etymology section is a mess. Editors have made opinion contributions, rather than editorial which has nothing to do with the situation and perpetuates meta-discourse. 24.56.35.100 ( talk) 05:34, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
I was told, by someone who is knowledgeable about most things, that this strain of flu (the so-called "Spanish flu") was around intermittently into the 1950s before it finally disappeared altogether. Is this true? The article stops its discussion at that 4th wave in 1920. Thank you for your time, Wordreader ( talk) 07:58, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
The Philadelphia Liberty Loans Parade has its own article but it is not mentioned here. This is something that should probably be added, as it was one of the most serious incidents of the pandemic.-- ♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 18:24, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
I changed "also contemporarily referred to as the 1918 Flu Pandemic or H1N1 Pandemic" to "also now referred to as the 1918 Flu Pandemic or H1N1 Pandemic". "Contemporarily" (or rather, contemporaneously, the correct English) means at that time, not now. The term H1N1 did not exist at the time of ths Spanish flu. Zaslav ( talk) 06:03, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Spanish flu has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Mortality - Around the globe: third paragraph,sentence that says; In Sweden, 34,000 did. Change did to died. 2601:581:8402:1EE0:304C:CD3D:3958:6A95 ( talk) 23:17, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
Done---Wikaviani
(talk)
(contribs)
23:35, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
Do we have any rough estimates, no matter how rough, from experts on how high the total death count of the first wave was? Our article here says that the third wave killed "several hundreds of thousands", making the third wave "still a lot deadlier than the first wave". -- 2003:EF:170B:F523:B4E9:E872:BD91:96ED ( talk) 01:37, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
The lead quotes a single source suggesting the number of deaths might have been as low as 17 million. In truth, the more common estimate is 50 to 100 million people. I have deleted the reference to 17 million"
Dozens of reliable sources, including CDC, are saying 50 million. Some say 50 to 100 million.
Peter K Burian ( talk) 16:24, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
Peter K Burian ( talk) 18:03, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
"what sources confirms 17 million??"The 2018 reassessment can be found here; I've just been reading through it and it has a lot of useful information on death rates by country/age group where that data is available. According to the study, estimates of 50 million deaths globally approximate data from India (considered to be the hardest-hit country during the 1918–1919 pandemic), while estimates of 100 million or more assume that
"there would have been many countries that had even much higher mortality rates than India,"which is not supported by any available evidence. Given that Japan, the U.K., and the U.S. all had excess mortality rates of less than 1% (~0.76%-0.97%, ~0.28%-0.4%, and ~0.59-0.6%, respectively) and that
"there is a discussion that China was hit mildly by the 1918–1919 pandemic,"a global death rate of roughly 1% should hardly be considered "low." The data from India, moreover, contains wide variations in the excess mortality rate (ranging from a low of 0.47% to a high of 6.66% depending on the region) and given that India already had an unusually high mortality rate in 1917 and that the largest mortality increase in 1918 occurred within the 0-14 age group (which was relatively unaffected by the Spanish flu in other countries) it is likely that other factors (famine, unrelated diseases, etc.) at least partially account for the high 1918 mortality observed. The researchers perform several consistency checks, concluding:
"We also show that it is important to test the theoretical feasibility of estimates (e.g., 100 million deaths), because results of such tests suggest the true estimate is very unlikely to be higher than 25 million and probably closer to our final estimate of 17.4 million deaths (1918 and 1919 combined)."TheTimesAreAChanging ( talk) 19:35, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
We should go with what the vast majority of sources say, though the 17 million deaths estimate is definitely worth mentioning. For the infobox, I think that the best option for us at this point would be to either include a single range (17–100 million) or two separate ranges (17 million & 50–100 million) for the death toll. If we go with the second option, I would specify that the 17 million figure is a 2018 estimate by the American Journal of Epidemiology while the 50–100 million figure is the most widely-accepted estimate. LightandDark2000 🌀 ( talk) 20:03, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
If we're naming 1918-20 H1N1 flu the Spanish Flu because it was first reported in Spain when it came from Kansas, America, then we should rename Covid-19 flu China-flu/Wuhan Virus because it was first reported in Wuhan, China. Hypocrite. Naming both viruses after a region/nation is super bigotted and racist and a horrible violation of WHO"s medical law. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.244.83.111 ( talk) 20:04, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
Most people refer to it as Spanish flu, it is not "racist" and we don't need to rename everything retrospectively just because of political correctness. Oppashi Talk 12:42, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
If we’re following your logic, Then we should name COVID-19 to China flu like Trump did — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.244.83.111 ( talk) 13:29, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
Agree with the above IP. If Zika Virus, Ebola, Hendra virus, MERS, Swine flu, et al get to keep their names, even though WHO and other's have officially stated they are either racist or inaccurate, then Wuhan Flu or China Flu should stay. Period. Else, it's political correctness and virtue signaling. Sad. 179.53.41.19 ( talk) 05:19, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
Nah. Only Trump called it "China flu" but MOST people (like 80-90% of them) call it "spanish flu" in almost every language, thus it is the common name of it. It is not racist just because it doesn't fit the contemporary PC agenda. Oppashi Talk 21:31, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
It is not racist just because it does not fit the contemporary PC agenda. It is racist because it is based on prejudice. BarryBorgia ( talk) 02:23, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
No. Oppashi Talk 09:20, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
"Such evolution of influenza is a common occurrence: there is a tendency for pathogenic viruses to become less lethal with time, as the hosts of more dangerous strains tend to die out."
This claim is unsourced (it is listed with source, but that source does not appear to speak on this point).
Although this is commonly believed, the best source I can find is a virologist who says "I believe that...", i.e. it is not a researched claim.
It's speculative and should be marked as such or - better yet - deleted.