Talk:Black Death

Pandemic focus of the article

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ireland

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

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

References

Copyright problem removed

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

Poland

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

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

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

The significance of Caffa/Kaffa

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Columbian Exchange

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

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

Blocked Gut Theory Refuted

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

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

From the Abstract:

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

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

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

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

Recent News of Madagascar Plague

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

Thanks...

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

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

Image of medieval plague

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

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

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

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

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