Talk:Spanish flu

Less affected areas

Information to be added

The death toll in Russia has been estimated at 450,000, though the epidemiologists who suggested this number called it a "shot in the dark" . If it is correct, Russia lost roughly 0.2% of its population, meaning it suffered the lowest influenza-related mortality in Europe. This seems unlikely, given that the country was in the grip of a civil war, and the infrastructure of daily life had broken down. Data collected in Odessa, the most scientifically advanced Russian city at the time, and epidemiological analyses conducted in the 1950s, suggest that Russia's death toll was closer to 1.2%, or 2.7 million people

Estimates for the death toll in China have ranged from 1 million to 9 million , a range which reflects the lack of centralised collection of health data at the time. Iijima assumed that the flu arrived at the ports, and that poor communications prevented it from penetrating the interior, but contemporary newspaper and post office reports, as well as reports from missionary doctors, suggest that it did penetrate the interior and that it was bad there . The Chinese death toll may never be known, however. Lauraspinney (talk) 15:45, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

References

Reply 22-DEC-2019

  Edit request declined  

• The |page= parameter has not been included with the Linney source.
• The citations are not formatted according to how a majority of sources in the article are, per WP:CITEVAR.
• Reasons have not been provided for why the requested material should be added.

Regards,  Spintendo  07:43, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

References

Hello, I am wondering if the percentages stated about Russia are correct. If the numbers of 0.2% or 450,000 people, and 1% or 2.7 million people were correct, that would put the Russian population at that time at 225-270 million, higher than now (approx 145 million) and much higher than reported at that time (60-80 million). So I'm guessing that either the absolutes or the percentages here are wrong. Lennartbj (talk) 16:56, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Chinese version of the article

The Chinese version of the article has been redacted so as not to mention any link with China. I am not a native Chinese speaker and do not feel my language level is good enough to add the mentions and sources redacted in the Chinese version of the article.

Furthermore, the Chinese version of the article actually blames Spain for the 1918 outbreak. Such rewriting of history and spread of misleading information is not worthy of a Wikipedia article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.16.166.214 (talk) 09:46, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

how about: The Prohibition Pandemic? Robbiekabali (talk) 19:21, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

I believe that it should continue to be called Spanish Flu. It is the name people know the pandemic from, and has been that name for more than 100 years. We should not let political correctness change things that don’t need to be changed. PJM70 (talk) 14:58, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

I found this article yesterday while seeking more information on pandemic diseases, in relation to current Corona Virus news.

I did a search for 1918 epidemic and found this article, which however is headed in large print as Spanish Flu.

As long as Search works for Any valid search string containing a year from 1917 through 1920 and either epidemic or pandemic, and possibly World War One and Great War, I really Don't care what top large print declares.

I heard of Spanish Flu as a child, I am now 72.

I suggest we accomodate Every popular reference:

World War One/1918 Deadly Influenza/Spanish Flu Epidemic/Pandemic

Ain't Pretty, But it Works. FritzYCat (talk) 04:14, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

To facilitate Search, make it

World War One/1918 Deadly Influenza/Spanish Flu Epidemic/Pandemic FritzYCat (talk) 04:53, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Suggesting a name change.

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)

I'd disagree. "Spanish flu" is the name it's generally known by; encyclopaedias are supposed to be descriptive rather than prescriptive, and I'm unconvinced that there would be a net gain by obfuscating a long-recognised name. --Vometia (talk) 17:01, 9 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': https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 February 2020

For clarity, in the "Aspirin Poisoning" section change: "They questioned the universal applicability of the aspirin theory, given the high mortality rate in countries such as India, where there was little or no access to aspirin at the time compared to the rate where aspirin was plentiful."

to: "They questioned the universal applicability of the aspirin theory, given the high mortality rate in countries such as India, where there was little or no access to aspirin at the time compared to the death rate in regions where aspirin was plentiful." Sfletchertaylor (talk) 01:26, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

 Done Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 00:32, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

More on Death Toll

I propose to change the layout of quotes about mortality. The minor reason is that (Knobler, 2005) only quotes (Johnson and Mueller, 2002); what is the purpose to refering to them both at the same place?! (Currently this is [43][5] in Spanish_flu#Around_the_globe.)

The second reason is that (Patterson and Pyle, 1991) is also misquoted in the text of the article, as 40–50 instead of their “24.7–39.3”, with “the prefered number 30”. (I copy these quotes from Johnson and Mueller, 2002, p.108; cannot find the original paper now.)

---

The major reason is that (Johnson and Mueller, 2002) seems very questionable. They write:

   The tables represent the compilation of our knowledge of the pandemic.

So let’s look in their tables, and compare these tables with their conclusions:

Continent/Country	Total	Remark
Africa	∼2,375,000	Sub-Saharan is much more than the sum of the entries; no explanation is given
Americas	∼1,540,000	There is a reasonable match with the entries
China	4M – 9.5M	(in millions)
India	18,500,000
Indonesia	1,500,000
Rest of Asia	1,354,000 –	This is the sum of the remaining entries in the table 320+92+388+94+25+215+220 (minimums)
Rest of Asia	– 2,649,000	This is the sum of the remaining entries in the table 320+92+388+94+25+430+1300 (maximums)
Europe	∼2,300,000	There is a reasonable match with the entries
Oceania	85,000

CONCLUSION: the global total is 31.6–38.5 million deaths. This more or less matches the estimate 24.7–39.3 of (Patterson and Pyle, 1991, p.15, as quoted in Johnson and Mueller; currently [3] in the list of references).

So: the numbers 50–100 millions in the conclusion of Johnson and Mueller are taken out of thin air. (Similarly for their total for Asia! In their table they give the total for Asia 26M – 36M, while the summation gives 4+18.5+1.5+1.35=25.35; 9.5+18.5+1.5+2.65=32.15. This gives a discrepancy of 650,000–3,850,000 taken out of thin air.)

CONCLUSION: Quoting the (sensationalistic?) global totals from Johnson and Mueller leads to a massive overblow of scientifically obtained data.

---

Proposal: Replace direct references to Johnson and Mueller by the table above, with the global total of 31.6–38.5 million appended. Mention their (sensational) claims of 50M and 100M as a complementary information, next to this table. --Ilya-zz (talk) 10:23, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

@Lauraspinney: Hi Laura. What do you say about the above? I see there's a quote in the article from your book that somewhat contradicts it:

“In terms of single events causing major loss of life, it surpassed the First World War (17 million dead), the Second World War (60 million dead), and possibly both put together.

Eric Kvaalen (talk) 15:48, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

I sent e-mail to Laura and she replied, giving me a new 2018 reference, so I have edited the article to include its estimate, which is only 17 million. Eric Kvaalen (talk) 16:41, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

please could someone just sort this out? Thanks. It’s 25th Feb today and still no correlation between the lede and the Mortality section. Lede has 50 million odd dead out of 500 million infected. 1st para of Mortality section has WHO saying 2-3% of those infected and then contradicts itself with approx 30 million deaths or 1.7% of the then world pop. It’s rather a mess, but altho it’s all historic, due to the coronavirus thing it’s actually of high importance. Boscaswell talk 10:41, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

I agree with the proposal of presenting Johnson and Muellers table. We should also note their 50m, possible 100m number but if this number is not the most reliable number we should not default to using it as the sole number in the lede. The lede itself is misleading since the only numbers quoted are the two highest numbers from one source. ---- Work permit (talk) 20:58, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Case-fatality ratio

This article lists infection and fatality totals as follows:

 "It infected 500 million people around the world... The death toll is estimated to have been 40 million to 50 million, and possibly as high as 100 million"

 "It is estimated that approximately 30 million were killed by the flu, ... Other estimates range from 17 to 55 million fatalities."

By these numbers, the case-fatality ratio would be 3.4-20%, which doesn't comport with the 2-3% case-fatality ratio cited by the WHO in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ykessler (talk • contribs) 18:12, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

The WHO document cited by the article in turn cites another document, which itself is also not the source of the case-fatality ratio being reported. The ultimate source appears to be this 2006 paper by Jeffery K. Taubenbergerand David M. Morens: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3291398/ . The authors give the case-fatality ratio as "greater than 2.5 percent" rather than a specific value or even a range. Their estimate is in turn based on three other sources for number of infections and number of deaths, but they combine the numbers from the sources in ways which produce inconsistent and unreliable results for case-fatality ratios and mortality rates.

This section probably needs a good deal of untangling after exploring the various sources. Here is a twitter thread discussing some of the issues: https://twitter.com/ferrisjabr/status/1232052631826100224 73.122.251.195 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:20, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

I think this is quite a serious oversight. Is there something an occasional editor can do? (bring this to attention?) Jonsku99 (talk) 17:44, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Timeline

I think a section clearing describing the spread of the outbreak from the start to the finish could really benefit the article. There's already quite a bit of the info in the article but it's in many different sections and seems incomplete. I appreciate that it'd be more helpful if I actually started doing this myself but I really don't feel skilled enough to do it. Perhaps there's someone else who is more able? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ivanivanovich (talk • contribs) 09:46, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Same strain or not?

There is some confusion in the section Deadly second wave.

"In the trenches, natural selection was reversed. Soldiers with a mild strain stayed where they were, while the severely ill were sent on crowded trains to crowded field hospitals, spreading the deadlier virus."

"The fact that most of those who recovered from first-wave infections had become immune showed that it must have been the same strain of flu."

Was it the same strain or not? Even if there is disagreement on this, the section should state as such rather than simply stating two contradictory theses one after the other.

It's also conceivable that strains were similar enough that the immune system response worked, but if so, this should be explained. Of course, it's possible to find contradictory expert sources, but internal consistency should be maintained. --100.4.146.206 (talk) 21:00, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

The numbers dont add up

The WHO report they use as a source is not about the Spanish Flu, but simply mentions it in passing. It does indeed say 2-3% of those infected died, but gives no source for this, and also claims this represents 20-50 million people.

The trouble with that is the higher range of this estimate (50 million as 2% of total cases) gives a figure of 2.5 billion total cases. Which is higher than the entire population of the world at the time!(1.8 billion).

So something is clearly amiss.

Worse still, the WHO is the only source we have found so far that claims a death toll of 20 million. Most sources, such as the CDC (and see here), broadly agree that between 50 million and 100 million people died of the Spanish Flu (although one recent study wildly differs, see below). In order for 50-100 million deaths to be 2-3% of total cases there would have had to be 2.5 billion – 5 billion cases. JustSwanzy (talk) 08:13, 11 March 2020 (UTC)JustSwanzy

References

Mortality Rate

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)

Serious problem with Spanish flu article?

Seems there may be a serious problem with the Wikipedia Spanish flu article according to recent news.

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, and the World Health Organization estimates that 2–3% of those who were infected died (case-fatality ratio).[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). 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 died.

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.

Infected (est) = 620 million ("one-third" of world population).

World population 1920 = 1,860 million.

Case-fatality ratio (CFR) => 2.5%.

This CFR may be much too low according to others.

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

Reference 1 isn't "news"; it's a batshit-insane conspiracy theory website. That being said, the 2-3% figure really is problematic; however, there's considerable variation in sources about the actual death toll and number of cases. There are a couple approaches here: decide on the best sources and 1) give ranges for each sourced to the lot; 2) give a list of pairs of numbers so as not to commingle a low death toll with a high number of cases (or vice-versa). In either case, calculation of the fatality rate is a trivial matter at that point. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 15:18, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

A follow up article by the same writer explains how the wrong figure of 2.5% was obtained. Firstly she makes the obvious point that “a death-rate of 50-100 million and a CFR of 2.5% can’t co-exist” based on the world population at the time. She says “ A recent Twitter thread by Ferres Jabr, a science writer for the NYT magazine, does a lot to expose how the two twisted and irreconcilable stats – 50-100 million dead and a CFR of 2.5% originally came about“. In summary:

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.

Burrobert (talk) 23:02, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Is anyone going to attempt to fix the error? I haven’t been watching the page long enough to know its history including the reason for using that death rate. I suggest removing mention of the death rate until a sensible figure can be found. Any ideas? Burrobert (talk) 10:33, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

 Done @Burrobert: added following edit summary => "rm questionable text/refs per suggestion on talk at => Talk:Spanish flu#Serious problem with Spanish flu article? - at least until better text/refs are determined." - hope that's now ok - please comment if otherwise of course - Thanks. Drbogdan (talk) 13:20, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

excellent thanks Drbogdan.Burrobert (talk) 16:24, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

References

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)

1918 flu, not Spanish flu

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)

I think a rename to 1918 flu pandemic with a redirect from "Spanish flu" makes sense for the reasons Gaianauta states. A search returns lots of hits on it, such as the CDC, History.com, Britannica, CBS, and so on. Schazjmd (talk) 18:44, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

From a professional and historic point of view, I concur with the need to change the name of the article, and have associated redirects from "Spanish Flu" and possibly others, including Disambiguation notes for "H1N1 Flu" separating out the 1918 and 2009 events, on all three pages. DocKrin (talk) 23:47, 16 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)

This is ridiculous you cannot go back in time and change an event to make it more "politically correct" or ""Destimafizing" Naming a disease after a place is a perfectly valid practice. Will you ask for The Spanish painted frog to have it's name changed because it might offend someone that the frog is named after the region it is found.TheDarkMaster2 (talk) 01:32, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Legacy 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic

I added a sentence regarding the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic today, which has been reverted by Deacon Vorbis for being "vague". I don't see why that's a reason to remove it; it certainly can be made less vague by building upon it and expanding it. I think the connection is clearly there, and relevance is easily checked by how many sources are making the connection. Adding my proposed addition to the Legacy section below.Renerpho (talk) 13:13, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Comparisons have also been drawn between the Spanish flu pandemic and the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic, in particular when it comes to the recommendation of social distancing.

A few comments. First, being vague is definitely a reason not to include something. If a comparison was made, what was it? Is it a valid comparison? It's like saying, "A comparison has been made between apples and oranges, particularly in regards to their appropriateness in fruit salad." It's so generic as to be meaningless.

This is potentially a bit too soon as well; it's obvious to want to do this based on current events, but is there anything specific to the current pandemic that makes the comparison particularly worth mentioning versus comparisons to others? If there is something worth saying here (and there very well might be), it might be more appropriate in an article on the current outbreak, making the comparison to a historical event—at least until things have quieted down some and it can be given at least a little historical perspective. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 13:27, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, I see what you mean (the apple analogy was clear). I'll leave it out and see if it's worth thinking about alternatives. Renerpho (talk) 14:42, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

References

Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME - This whitewashing proposal is not productive, we should abide by the historical term as it is most honest to the event. PalmerTheGolfer (talk) 23:57, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME - This whitewashing proposal is not productive, we should abide by the historical term as it is most honest to the event. PalmerTheGolfer (talk) 00:00, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

OPPOSE move. This is clearly a reaction to unrelated contemporary news. If the change is to be made, it should be made after the current climate has subsided. No argument in favor of changing the name holds validity. Since the “Spanish flu” is a well known incident, changing its name makes it more vague, not less. Imagine changing the phrase “The Dustbowl” to “early-1930s mid-western drought and famine.” Technically more accurate, but significantly less useful as an identifier. The Spanish Flu is tied, not just to the pandemic itself, but to the geopolitical consequences as well. ICTaylor (talk) 02:50, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Oppose the change. Spanish flu is clearly the common name for this historical event. The timing of this suggested change in light of current events cannot be ignored, and I oppose any knee-jerk changes to the historical record to support a political narrative. Wikipedia should be above this. Fordm48 (talk) 13:15, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 15 March 2020

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)

• Strongly Oppose move. No one cared about this until last week and that should be enough evidence of the political nature of the move request. Concur with following Google search numbers posted below. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.212.204.133 (talk) 13:25, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
• Strongly Oppose move. We do not need people to continue to rewrite history to suit a political agenda in the present day. It is what it is and we would be remiss to change history.
• Oppose move. I'm sure you haven't actually met someone who has a stigmatized view of Spanish people because a virus is colloquially named after it, as many viruses are. (See CDC website and you will find many diseases, including the Ebola disease named after an African river, that are named after regions/animals/places).
• Support move. I guess the main argument to keep would be WP:COMMONNAME. And while it's hardly an exhaustive survey, I feel like the proposed name comes up much more commonly, and certainly feels like a more formal, official title as well. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 14:03, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

  To clarify just a little, I think even COMMONNAME favors the move. At worst, it's a tossup, and in that case, I think we should defer to something more "official". –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 14:30, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose move. It is widely know as the Spanish flu. It is as much a historical event than a medical one. Are you going to apply this guideline to Black Death too ?--Aréat (talk) 14:15, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

  But this is widely known as the 1918 influenza pandemic. I had hardly ever seen it referred to as anything else. The analogy with the Black Death doesn't really work either, since no one ever refers to that by the year or the bacterium which caused it. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 14:28, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

  @Aréat: I feel that the title Black Death is fine because that is what it is most commonly called. I feel in this case, it is common to refer to it either way. Interstellarity (talk) 14:58, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

• Support move. Over time, the colloquial "Spanish flu" name has been overtaken by more precise and more accurate naming by reliable sources, the CDC, History.com, Britannica, CBS, and so on. Schazjmd (talk) 15:47, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose Per WP:COMMONNAME. Yes we know it may not have been from Spain. But that's its indelible name now._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 19:06, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose Per WP:COMMONNAME. a change will hurt our users--and will not help Spain any. Rjensen (talk) 19:13, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose, nominator cited a ignored the clause of "If there is an established, common name for an event ... use that name." at the beginning of the cited guideline. © Tbhotch^™ (en-3). 19:21, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support move. It isn't simply either/or, since there could be a redirect from "Spanish flu". Spanish WP of course already has "Pandemia de gripe de 1918". Errantius (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:20, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support move. Spanish flu is another name for this epidemic, and we can keep a redirect; but the correct name is the 1918 influenza pandemic. This disease did not start in Spain, so it should not be called the Spanish flu. Even today, WHO cautions against using the term "Wuhan coronavirus" for nCoV-19; but at least that would be accurate given that nCoV19 did start in Wuhan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Narayansg (talk • contribs) 00:30, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support Yes definitely. Gah seriously we have it at Spanish flu. 1918 influenza pandemic is what the CDC[1] Britannica[2], and WHO[3] call it. Though would go with 1918-20 influenza pandemic maybe Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:43, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
• support per nominators rationale--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 02:10, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support Move. 1918 influenza pandemic is more "official", used by WHO/CDC and other institutions, it's happened in modern times and we know a lot more about this pandemic compared to other historic pandemics (such as Black Death). "Spanish Flu" is more like something belong in history class.Ckfasdf (talk) 04:01, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

WP:COMMONNAME also said 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. Ckfasdf (talk) 08:43, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose per common name. "Spanish flu" is by far more popular than any other "more official" name. While not perfect, Google search results clearly illustrate that:
  • "Spanish flu" 13M results
  • "1918 influenza" 644k results
  • "1918 flu" 429k results
  • "1918 pandemic" 118k results + "pandemic of 1918" 233k results Renata (talk) 04:07, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per above. PlanetStar 04:51, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. Ridiculous proposal. -- Netoholic @ 05:17, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
  • some recent scholarship: 1) "The Spanish Flu and the Sanitary Dictatorship: Mexico's Response to the 1918 Influenza Pandemic." The Americas 76.3 (2019): 443-465. (2) "Health shocks and human capital accumulation: the case of Spanish flu in Italian regions." Regional Studies 50.9 (2016): 1496-1508. (3) " GRIPE ESPANHOLA: UMA HISTORIOGRAFIA CENTENÁRIA REVISITADA" Ler Historia (France). 2018, Issue 73, p21-43. (4) "LA GRIPPE ESPAGNOLE EN ITALIE, 1918-1920." Nuova Rivista Storica (Italy) 2015, Vol. 99 Issue 1, pp 195-226. (5) "The Recent Wave of ‘Spanish’ Flu Historiography." Social History of Medicine (2014), Vol. 27 Issue 4, p789-808. Rjensen (talk) 06:25, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

    Google scholar recent results show near parity in common name; searching on "since 2016" &" 2019":

    • "spanish influenza pandemic" 9990 hits & 2730 hits
    • "1918 influenza pandemic" 9720 hits & 2670 hits

    (And note that many hedge their bets by including both in title, such as "The Impact of the 1918 Spanish Influenza Pandemic in Canada" and that the search results for "spanish influenza pandemic" include "spanish flu" in the body rather than the title) Schazjmd (talk) 14:00, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

• Support. As it HAS been known by both names, the year date is much more specific and immediately associated to the pandemic than the vague, incorrect and misleading geographical naming. Mystichumwipe (talk) 06:55, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
• support - Spanish flu is a misnomer, and goes against WHO guidelines. Yes I know it’s ex post facto, but still a good guideline. --awkwafaba (📥) 13:11, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. WP:COMMONNAME applies here, and "Spanish flu" does, indeed, appear to be the more common name, as others have shown. Phediuk (talk) 14:55, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support rename to 1918 influenza pandemic I came here because of an alert through WikiProject Medicine. I support because major health organizations use the term 1918 Influenza outbreak or similar. I recognize the popularity of calling it Spanish flu and recognize that WP:COMMONNAME arguments would apply here in the absence of other context. The other context I see is that the term "Spanish flu" is a product of a historical and more prejudiced era trying to apply blame to a culture. The Spanish–American War was just before this and there was still American intent to blame Spanish for anything bad. In Wikidata at d:Q178275#sitelinks-wikipedia we can see that many other languages do not use Spanish flu as the name for this. It is less useful to teach generations going forward about Spain in international relations, and more useful to use the name for this concept which presents it as a global pandemic. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:00, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. This epidemic is widely known by this name, and most searches are under this, not another, name. Michael E Nolan (talk) 17:31, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
• support ...as per Bluerasberry. More recent sites and books increasingly use this term. Whispyhistory (talk) 20:11, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support. Commonname does not apply to incorrect, misleading, or inappropriate terms. This is why Grand Central Station redirects to the less-common Grand Central Terminal. This misnomer has already been corrected by the relevant major agencies that cover pandemics; we should here too. ɱ (talk) 20:33, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

• support Commonnames can change over time. I see variations of "1918 influenza" most commonly in contemporary literature. Peaceray (talk) 00:06, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME.--Ortizesp (talk) 00:07, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - I don't believe technical/specialist medical terminology is relevant, it should be the most common name, as per WP:COMMONNAME. "The Black Death" is probably not WHO terminology either. Slac speak up! 05:20, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose Most commonly called Spanish flu. Fernsong (talk) 07:51, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support Spsnish is a misnomer deisenbe (talk) 09:17, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME - this is how it is referred to in most sources of which I am aware. Kelly ^hi! 10:07, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support 1918-19 flu pandemic is a well-used and well-recognised term, very possibly the most-used and the most-recognised term. I suspect Spanish flu could actually be the less well-known name in the UK; maybe I'm an exception but I don't think I heard the term "Spanish flu" for a long time after I knew about the event. About 15 years ago I watched a documentary on William Walker and it simply explained "he died in the flu pandemic of 1918" or words to that effect. And while we prefer a common name, if we have two names that are even roughly equally common it seems reasonable to go for the accurate name not the inaccurate one to be in tune with the needs of readers new to the topic. To introduce them to the title of "Spanish flu" then have to spend half the intro explaining that the name is inaccurate is not ideal. Blythwood (talk) 11:24, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support Not that it matters, but I actually knew this in passing as the 1918 pandemic; I only became aware that it was also called the Spanish flu recently (during the current COVID-19 pandemic). A quick look at sources makes it clear that "1918 influenza pandemic" is used at least as often as "Spanish flu", and from what I saw, more recent sources definitely use either "1918 influenza pandemic" or "1918 flu pandemic" WAY more often that "Spanish Flu". The CDC themselves uses "1918 influenza pandemic" and I don't know of a more authoritative source to go to in the English-speaking world that the CDC. Perhaps the WHO? Dennis Osmosis (talk) 12:08, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose – While it did not originate in Spain, Spanish flu best fits the "common name" criteria, both then and now. The reasons listed to reject the common name do not seem compelling, and listing off what the CDC calls it is pretty useless in this case. Master of Time (talk) 12:25, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
  • In addition, citing academic articles is a pretty bad way of gauging the "common name" since they are supposed to be more "objective." Master of Time (talk) 12:29, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose – Spanish flu fits the "common name" criteria. In French, we say "Grippe espagnole" for a reason. HLFH (talk) 13:32, 17 March 2020 (UTC) — HLFH (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Oppose – Spanish flu is what it has been called and how people refer to it by a factor of 3 according to Google Books ngram search of English Books. ref. It is in line with Wikipedia Commonname guidance. The timing of this change request shows it is 100% politically motivated. Wikipedia should not cave in to such revisionist history--PatentlyObtuse (talk) 14:36, 17 March 2020 (UTC). — PatentlyObtuse (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  Misleading. And if you also include "1918 flu" in the search and use the total, then it's much more comparable. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 18:52, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose – Common name criteria, per reasons given above. Standardorder (talk) 17:08, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support per COMMONNAME. It says, 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)

• Oppose per PatentlyObtuse. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 19:14, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose The Spanish Flu is how it is known within standard nomenclature, to change it at this point is simply historic revisionism and only adds to confusion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.6.59.73 (talk)
• Oppose It appears the common name is, in aggregate, still the spanish flu. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 19:20, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose I have heard this term a couple of times in my life, all of which were in the last week. Every other time this phenomenon has been referred to it is under the title "Spanish Flu." The concept that this terminology that dates to a century ago is somehow inadequate is a farce being pushed by people who are interested mostly in politics, not in medicine, history, or medical history. It would be like revising "ebola" to reflect the fact that the Ebola River is an African feature and figuring that this made the title of the disease in all contemporary parlance "bigoted" or "wrong." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.171.77.170 (talk) 20:02, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose The COMMONNAME argument alone is sufficient to justify keeping the current name, IMO. Moreover, many people will inevitably be unaware of the exact year of the 1918 pandemic and may therefore be confused and consider this to be a different event. With the topic of pandemics being especially salient in the modern era of COVID-19, the pandemic is being discussed much more as a comparison and as a result, the original name "Spanish Flu" is likely being further promoted and ingrained in public consciousness. Bomb319 (talk)
• Oppose Per WP:COMMONNAME. Its not whats its called, lol. --Havsjö (talk) 20:45, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose Per common name, and, more importantly, per common sense. Zacwill (talk) 21:26, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. WP:COMMONNAME applies here, and "Spanish flu" does, indeed, appear to be the more common name, as others have shown. WhiteAndNerdly (talk) 21:34, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support per those who have pointed out it's now frequently called something else by reliable sources. Year + pandemic in the title seems like common sense. —Мандичка^YO 😜 21:37, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose as Wikieditors are trying to literally change the history in this encyclopedia to prevent (or they hope to prevent) contemporaries from calling the current crisis the "Wuhan" or "China coronavirus" epidemic. An encyclopedia is no place for this retconning nonsense. Shame on you, and on what you've done in the coronavirus article. --21:46, 17 March 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.33.163.174 (talk)
• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME, WP:SOAP, and WP:CENSOR. TXAggie (talk) 21:53, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. Obviously. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 22:44, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. FunkyDuffy (talk) 22:56, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME.  — Amakuru (talk) 23:08, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. WP:COMMONNAME is very clear on this point, and the claim that "1918 influenza pandemic" is more common is dubious. I would also draw attention to how it would damage Wikipedia's credibility if it starts changing the names of century-old events to suit a current political agenda. The Invisible Hand (talk) 23:52, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME, WP:SOAP, and WP:CENSOR. 98.118.62.140 (talk) 22:21, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
• Against. Changing the name is a bad idea. The name 'Spanish Flu' is commonly understood to refer to that pandemic. Changing the name to the '1918 pandemic' stigmatizes people and things that originated in 1918. talk: NyetGoatk (talk) 18:26, 12 March 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.212.102.240 (talk)
• Oppose, this would be a totally pointless move, the pandemic is widely known as the Spanish flu, the only reason this is being proposed is because of modern political controversies, which are totally irrelevant to Wikipedia. -- 177.207.105.179 (talk) 22:33, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. A terrible, political motivated, propagandistic attempt to rewrite history. This reflects shamefully on the entire wiki. How much more does this need to be argued? Edwardjones76 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:45, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose We wouldn't be here if Wuhan coronavirus wasn't in the title of the original name of the article everyone's reading these days. Changing this article title at this time is dangerous to the entire Wikipedia project: how far will the newspeak project go? If the arguments for changing this article's title can be sustained in the aftermath of today's coronavirus situation, then maybe we might consider changing this one. I advise extreme caution. This place is intended as a neutral, unbiased platform for fact sharing. Geographyinitiative (talk) 00:06, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose Why the sudden interest in moving this now? The only reason I can see for the timing is that it is support the Chinese Communist Party propaganda. The World Health Organisation went along with renaming the Wuhan Coronavirus COVID-19 because the People's Republic of China is one of their major donors. Is wikipedia also bought and paid for? Agmartin (talk) 00:47, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose move. This is quite the controversial proposal, but I personally believe "Spanish flu" is the common name, even if it most likely didn't originate in Spain. O.N.R. ^(talk) 00:47, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per common name, as highlighted many times already here. Dmoore5556 (talk) 00:50, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose The sudden interest in renaming appears to be driven by those parroting the propaganda of a certain autocratic regime that objects to the current name of the Wuhan virus. Wikipedia should not serve the interests of propagandists. 47.205.54.245 (talk) 01:07, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose, there is no need to change the name from a scientific point of view. Will we rename every animal, plant, virus, and fungi with the word in Spanish in it's name? It was called Spanish Flu at the time, and it is a valid definition. Also it does not reflect well that we make this change for an authoritarian regime like China. the connection with the Corona (Also called Wuhan) Virus cannot be denied. But that is just a secondary argument for me.TheDarkMaster2 (talk) 01:36, 18 March 2020 (UTC) — TheDarkMaster2 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Oppose, Ngram viewer shows that "Spanish Flu" is a far more WP:COMMONNAME for it and WP:NOTCENSORED.2600:8801:B04:2000:18B6:BA73:D068:B984 (talk) 03:32, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose, per WP:COMMONNAME. Absurd. Are we going to rename the Black Death the 1347-1351 bubonic plague epidemic too? Periander6 (talk) 05:16, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support per nomination, Deacon Vorbis, Schazjmd, Errantius, Narayansg, Doc James, Ozzie10aaaa, Ckfasdf, Mystichumwipe, awkwafaba, Bluerasberry, Whispyhistory, ɱ, Peaceray, deisenbe, Blythwood, Dennis Osmosis, SharʿabSalam and Мандичка. Since top-tier reliable sources, such as the CDC, Britannica and WHO refer to it as the "1918 influenza pandemic", so should the main title header of its Wikipedia entry. As for common name, 1918 influenza pandemic may be to Spanish flu as the main header of Wikipedia's article "Myocardial infarction" is to "Heart attack" which redirects to it. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 06:12, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. If the title must change then the Black Death article and similar articles would need to be given watered-down, harder-to-find names as well. Which is why this name change is unnecessary. RopeTricks (talk) 06:36, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
• Note: I am tagging this discussion with {{not a ballot}}, as it has been linked on the Reddit communities /r/kotakuinaction2 and /r/WikiInAction, and it seems there may be some brigading going on. –IagoQnsi (talk) 06:49, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
  • I don't see how this is relevant in this discussion and seems to be a way to make the Opposition to change seem less truethful than the support side. People will post wiki discussions if they deem it relevant.TheDarkMaster2 (talk) 15:50, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
    • @TheDarkMaster2: The policy page WP:MEAT sums up why this can be a problem (also see WP:BRIGADE). –IagoQnsi (talk) 03:37, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support per WP:COMMONNAME. COMMONNAME states the following: "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." It seems that "Spanish flu" and "1918 influenza pandemic" are both commonly used. "Spanish flu" may be more popular, but given how misleading it is (since the flu didn't actually originate in Spain), "1918 influenza pandemic" seems to be preferable based on this policy. –IagoQnsi (talk) 06:53, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. I've had several informal discussions, and everyone has addressed it as 'the Spanish flu'. I have not heard anyone addressing it as 'the 1918 influenza pandemic'. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:10, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose: Everybody above has already made all the Wikipedia policy arguments I'd make, so I'm just going to say, can we please stop making all these kneejerk revisionist suggestions? Yes, I am aware that it's the 21st century and we need to be as inclusive and huggy and lovey as possible, but the world isn't a huggy and lovey place, and neither is an encyclopedia. --benlisquare_T•C•E 07:24, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. "1918 influenza pandemic" appears the "proper" academic term, but "Spanish flu" is still everyday use from what I can see. In practice it will matter little, as one title will redirect to the other, and neither is wrong.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Averell23 (talk • contribs) 07:48, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

• SUPPORT: Modern secondary sources are moving over to this title. Lizzie Harrison 21:53, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

• As per Wikipedia's own articles, it was actually an Injustice to Center the focus on Spain itself, and ironic that's Spain's free press at the time was partially the cause of this because other countries where's suppressing their coverage during wartime. Bobsearch (talk) 22:16, 15 March 2020 (UTC) — Bobsearch (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Oppose. The influenza pandemic of 1918, was not caused by people of Spanish decent, but it will be forever known as Spanish flu. Changing the title will not only serve to confuse, it will cause the event to be lost in history. Wikipedia shares knowledge for the smart and the dumb. Let us amateur reader's of history have the knowledge. It's not a community to change history. It's there for us to learn from. Frederick Nathan Glass (talk) 00:36, 18 March 2020 (UTC) — Frederick Nathan Glass (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Support Name Change:in respect of Scientific Truth. Must however make sure that Any Search including Spanish Flu, World War One Epidemic, 1918 Influenza epidemic, etc. Leads to this Article. Wikipedia ought not coerce readers to use other than their habitual language. Wikipedia is not an IQ Test, but rather seeks to Impart Knowledge. Time will eventually reckon what a best reference shall be, not we. I was delighted to find this article for comparison with Corona virus by Search for 1918 epidemic. FritzYCat (talk) 05:21, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

• Support: In support of Simple Scientific Truth. But Also Make Sure that Any reasonable search string works: Wikipedia should Inform Ignorance, not coerce and punish it. Why do my Talk contributions not display ? I am worried that by presuming my several comments are somehow lost that I am being ridiculously repetitious. Perhaps there is a way for me to Remove any repetitive Talk comments ? FritzYCat (talk) 05:37, 18 March 2020 (UTC) Duplicate "Support" struck

• Oppose as per user Renata. cagliost (talk) 08:04, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose move. It is widely know as the Spanish flu. Robert Brockway (talk) 08:45, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. This is the common name. We still talk of Chinese checkers, turkeys, and guinea pigs, even though this is erroneous.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:05, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
• Mixed - Somewhat conflicting article title policies - Honestly, the title of the article has problems both ways, though it may favor (a change to moving the article away from the current title) leaning to staying with the current title.
  • Per WP:COMMONNAME, a check of sources using both terms lead to a mixture of articles, but more articles found when searching "1918 influenza pandemic" use "Spanish flu" in the name of the article than the other way around. WP:COMMONNAME does say a few things that support a move. The first is with regards to WP:CRITERIA, which WP:COMMONNAME cites twice. The first cite somewhat leans toward a move from the current title by saying "[Wikipedia] generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources) as such names will usually best fit the five criteria listed above." Based on my search results from earlier, I am confident that the majority of sources use "Spanish flu", but I am not confident that it qualifies as a significant majority. There is the matter of what the five criteria say, but I will discuss that in the next part. The second time that WP:CRITERIA is cited is less favorable than the first. A summary of the third paragraph of WP:COMMONNAME states that WP:CRITERIA should be considered for article titles with names that vague or inaccurate to usually be avoided even if they are a common name. Additionally, neutrality should be considered for the article name while making sure that they are not meticulous nor vulgar if possible. Finally, if multiple common names exist and the most common is problematic, then a second name can be used instead. Again setting WP:CRITERIA aside, this section has potential problems for both "Spanish flu" and for "1918 influenza pandemic". For "Spanish flu", is the name too vulgar and non neutral to use? Is using the name "Spanish flu" too inaccurate over another? For "1918 influenza pandemic", is it too detailed over the much simpler "Spanish flu"? Personally, I believe that the single issue I can see with using "1918 influenza pandemic" as lesser than the issues with using "Spanish flu". --Super Goku V (talk) 11:08, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Per WP:CRITERIA, "A good Wikipedia article title has the five following characteristics", listing Recognizability, Naturalness, Precision, Conciseness, and Consistency as the characteristics. I believe that both names fit the first four characteristics with "1918 influenza pandemic" being a better fit for Precision and "Spanish flu" being a better fit for Conciseness. Both have some issues with Consistency though. A look at Category:Influenza pandemics shows nine articles that fit how "1918 influenza pandemic" is formatted and three other articles that fit "Spanish flu", though there are disambiguation pages like "Russian flu", an article called "Fujian flu" that to my understanding deals with a human flu epidemic and a bird flu outbreak, and 2017 Central Luzon H5N6 outbreak which is a bird flu listed as both an outbreak and an epidemic with other articles likely. Thus, I would say that both names have consistency issues. Interestingly enough, the article 2015 Indian swine flu outbreak was created in February 2015 with the only move being to change the year from 2014 to 2015. That article uses the name "Indian swine flu". The 2015 United States H5N2 outbreak article was created in June 2015, but the outbreak started in March 2015. Between the creation of these two articles was new guidelines by the WHO for the names of diseases which might have influenced the name of the article in a way. Outside of the current pandemic, 2016 influenza A virus subtype H5N8 outbreak is the only remaining article listed since 2015 and uses the "1918 influenza pandemic" format, though it is a redirect. Of the remaining articles, most have had minor moves over time. The major moves have been to the following articles: 1968 flu pandemic which started at "Hong Kong flu" and was turned from a stub into a redirect at least one before becoming an article again and then moved after this discussion due to this article's being called "1918 flu pandemic" at the time. Even more major than that was the 2009 flu pandemic name which started as a stub article called "Mexican flu" before being moved three times in its first 24 hours with the final of the moves being from an informal discussion. ("Mexican flu → Mexican swine flu outbreak → 2009 Mexico and U.S. outbreak → 2009 H1N1 flu outbreak) That decision was somewhat discussed for a few times. (Etc, etc.) The most notable discussion was this one which is its own archive and references the "1918 flu pandemic" article. The article was finally moved to its current name after one last discussion that mostly resolved things. I have linked quite a bit here as there have been numerous past debates that have listed this article's original name as a reason to change. The move discussion that renamed this article was somewhat simple; the prior requests and following discussions were not with this discussion being the lengthiest so far on the name. --Super Goku V (talk) 11:08, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
  • To begin to wrap this up, I would like to also mention WP:NPOVNAME, in particular the second numbered bullet point. The preceding text notes that there are times where a common name is not used for lacking neutrality with the second numbered point saying "Colloquialisms where far more encyclopedic alternatives are obvious". A few of the replies above note that "Spanish flu" is the colloquial term, though is "1918 flu pandemic" an appropriate encyclopedic alternative name? WP:COMMONNAME states that other encyclopedias can be useful to help find the proper common name for the article. Encyclopædia Britannica links to the same location for both terms, with the location being Influenza pandemic of 1918–19. Outside of Britannica, I did not find another online encyclopedias to use as a source to the problem, thus it isn't likely to be enough to support a move either way. -- Those are my thoughts on this controversial matter. --Super Goku V (talk) 11:08, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose Since 2008, Wiktionary has had an entry for Spanish influenza and two for Spanish flu Spanish Flu There is a red link for 1918 influenza on that page, but no one ever made that page. I recommend that the people that support this move make that Wiktionary page first-- that is, make sure that what you want this Wikipedia article's name to be is even an accepted part of the English language according to our friends in Wiktionary, and then I will start to think about whether or not this change is not rash, dangerous, disorderly and damaging to Wikipedia. Respect me that much, and I will start to try to think about whether or not you are trying to make a legitimate change to this page because all I can see is an agenda being forced on the English language. Geographyinitiative (talk) 11:44, 18 March 2020 (UTC) duplicate Oppose struck
• Oppose I believe that this would set a precedent that it would not be feasible to uphold. Just a cursory list of what we may need to change:

• • Black Death
  • Plague of Justinian
  • Antonine Plague
  • Year Without A Summer
  • 1993 Storm of the Century
  • White Friday Avalanche
  • Black Saturday bushfires
  • Ash Wednesday Bushfires
  • Schoolhouse Blizzard
  • St. Felix's Flood
  • St. Lucia's flood
  • Saint Marcellus's flood

This is, I am sure, just a very small subsection of what may need to be altered to fulfil the precedent this would set, and this is only within the realm of natural disasters. I am sure there are countless articles on a wide range of topics whose title differs from that in academic usage, and even if it were feasible to change them all, I would argue that academic usage is still not sufficient to change the names of some titles. In cases such as the Black Death or Spanish Flu, these are not simply scientific phenomena, they are events in world history and take on a significance that is better expressed by their traditional epithets than by academic nomenclature. Uranium grenade (talk)

• @Uranium grenade: Those titles are not like this one because no reliable sources have started using a different name for those events. Reliable sources have started changing the name of this flu; the CDC, WHO, History.com, Britannica, CBS all call it some variant on "1918 influenza pandemic" (see links earlier in discussion). –IagoQnsi (talk) 23:34, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose Concur with Uranium grenade and many other similar sentiments above. - JGabbard (talk) 14:44, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose There are many, many diseases and outbreaks named after specific places. Maximajorian Viridio (talk) 15:03, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME as others have said. While I don't want to assume bad faith, I do think the motive behind this suggestion is politicised, which would be poor form. — Richard BB 17:24, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
• Strong oppose This is an Orwellian attempt to rewrite history for political gain. Don't tolerate it. 98.237.242.206 (talk) 17:54, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support per WP:COMMONNAME: "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." Xavexgoem (talk) 18:03, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

• Comment: This portion of the WP:COMMONNAME policy is more to do with the organised source-stuffing of issues such as territorial disputes. We use the name Liancourt Rocks despite Dokdo apparently being the WP:COMMONNAME, because since the early 2000s, the South Korean government has made a concerted effort to push the name Dokdo as much as it can, inflating the numbers of google hits and whatnot. --benlisquare_T•C•E 23:13, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose This reasons for this sudden concern over the name of a historical virus aren't scientific, but political. Leave it as it is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:B813:9000:1CFC:564F:FE50:7414 (talk) 18:34, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support per Doc James et al. No need to keep this misleading name by default.  Grue  18:40, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose It's time-racist against the past to change the name to '1918 pandemic'. Millions of people and things were created in this year. Assigning a pandemic to the year of their origin would smear the names of beings living, nonliving and dead. NyetGoatk (talk) 18:51, 18 March 2020 (UTC) NyetGoatk — NyetGoatk (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Strongly oppose, the Spanish flu was a historic event of such magnitude that it needs its own name, which it already has: "Spanish flu". I also expect that the change was proposed for political reasons and would give a dangerous precedent. Neozoen (talk) 19:03, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose, The name change is a knee-jerk reaction to current geopolitical events, and will only serve to generate further confusion, as well as set a terrible precedent for revisionism — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:5B0:51C7:7278:25ED:72F6:4A8D:48F7 (talk) 19:07, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
• Strongly Oppose, any attempt to change Spanish Flu to some politically correct goodthink tier generic nonsense for clear and obvious propaganda purposes will permanently and irrevocably destroy Wikipedia's reputation forever, do not do this under any circumstances, the world is watching — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:1730:F170:4DB4:CDD3:3C7E:B673 (talk) 19:26, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose, as per the many arguments above and WP:COMMONNAME. I think renaming the article will neither have a clarifying effect nor is currently accurate. Rather, it appears to serve a contemporary agenda and, if allowed to occur, will set a revisionist precedent that will harm Wikipedia's legitimacy in future. TheAnayalator (talk) 19:32, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose, I take the WP:COMMONNAME policy as an opposition to the move. 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)
• Oppose, it's clear that events in world history are given geographic eponyms and naming the article consistent with those is given from WP:COMMONNAME. Many editors are suggesting this proposal is for accuracy when the timing of "adjusting" the title of this article clearly serves a political and revisionist purpose. If this proposal is accepted, it is an indicator of the growing weakness in Wikipedia's mission of neutrality. Lordevi (talk) 20:01, 18 March 2020 (UTC) — Lordevi (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Oppose, changes like this shouldn't be done at a time when there is a likely-temporary political movement against a well-established naming convention. Also, a world where everything is named as boring as possible isn't one I want to live in. Proofbygazing (talk) 20:30, 18 March 2020 (UTC) — Proofbygazing (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Mixed, While the name is a misnomer, I can see this campaign as being heavily influenced by current events, and potentially pushed by certain international forces. Instead, I think it would be a good idea to keep the name as-is for now, and return to the issue a few months later, when things aren't as heated. Perhaps then, a more level-headed conversation can be had. In any case, the original name 'Spanish Flu' must be clearly referenced in the intro paragraph, to ensure an academic continuity. 2607:9880:2148:50:8824:66AC:6E4:899E (talk) 21:44, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME, but I would not be opposed to revisiting the subject when everything in the world has calmed down. QueerFilmNerd^talk 22:16, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
• Comment. IMO it would be better to shelve this discussion for the moment and revisit it when it stops being a US culture war issue. There is a case both ways, but reading the discussion above the likelihood of giving it a fair consideration right now seems fairly low to me. —Nizolan ^{(talk · c.)} 23:01, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. Upsidedown Keyboard (talk) 23:13, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
• Wrong time This appears to be a culture war issue, as put above. This discussion is being canvassed on Reddit, and attracting strong opinions not based on policy. I don't see consensus emerging here. I think this should wait 6-12 months, at which point this should be re-heard in a more calm climate. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 23:32, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
• Strong oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. This seems to be an attempt to censor/prevent people from using the widely used "Wuhan Virus"/"Wuhan Coronavirus" names in reference to the new coronavirus from Wuhan China, by retroactively modifying history to pretend that the precedent of naming viruses based on geographical origin does not exist, when it clearly does. Symphony Regalia (talk) 23:37, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
• Strong oppose per WP:COMMONNAME and the fact the '\[year\]-[disease] outbreak' format doesn't evoke any associations unless you're a scholar, and in particular doesn't distinguish the catastrophic pandemic from minor local events. For this reason it appears at similar frequency to the common name in scientific articles, but NOT in common use. We don't call Hurricane Katrina '2005 Tropical Storm', no matter how persons named Katrina might be offended. We don't call Second World War 'Armed Conflict of 1939-3945'. We don't call the Holocaust '1941-1945 Jewish pogrom series'. Sharpfang (talk) 23:58, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
• Strong oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. Changing it would be beyond ridiculous and would destroy any integrity or value Wikipedia even has left. Let's not try to rewrite history because of shortsighted modern political-correctness. Bruce Campbell (talk) 00:03, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose This is a legitimate question, but it is clearly not an appropriate time to make this change since the proposal is obviously in response to the controversy around the term 'Chinese Coronavirus'. For what it's worth, where I live I have almost exclusively heard of this referred to as the Spanish Flu. Worth taking up the question again when the current pandemic has blown over. --DrCruse (talk) 00:28, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support There are many reasons not to call it the Spanish Flu. I'm not convinced by any of the arguments in favor of retaining that name. - kosboot (talk) 00:34, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support There are many reasons not to call it the Spanish Flu. I'm not convinced by any of the arguments in favor of retaining that name. I agree with the option of Kosboot above and so repeat and repeat from others-the 1918 pandemic did not originate in Spain and so is mis-named. -Mattamsn (talk) 15:39, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose because of obvious WP:COMMONNAME issues. No one, but no one, calls it the 1918 infuenza pandemic. It's been called the Spanish flu for a century, and it will remain so. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 01:19, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support For the same reason we should consider renaming towns/rivers with prejudicial names. Additionally, since there is no evidence that the 1918 flu originated in Spain it is misleading to call it the 'Spanish Flu'. - Del-Domi-ponte (talk) 01:29, 19 March 2020 (UTC) — Del-Domi-ponte (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • That's nonsensical. "We" don't get to rename towns/rivers with prejudicial names because "we" are not some political power, "we" are an encyclopedia neutrally reporting facts... such as what this epidemic has been commonly called for a hundred years now. If you want to go on some grand crusade to Right Great Wrongs, you're on the wrong website. 98.237.242.206 (talk) 02:22, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose The original name is the WP:COMMONNAME. The proposed change would push some political views in contravention of WP:NPOV. Wikipedia uses the common name by default to avoid favoring any particular side. —Lowellian (reply) 01:54, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

• @Lowellian: It's not political; the name "Spanish flu" has fallen out of favor with the CDC, WHO, Britannica, and CBS, all generally non-partisan sources. This discussion was started a day before Trump made his tweet about "Chinese Virus" as a name for COVID-19. I presume this discussion being started is just a natural result of this article having a lot more eyes on it recently. –IagoQnsi (talk) 03:22, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

It is absolutely politcal, at least the most recent push to change the name.TheDarkMaster2 (talk) 11:38, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Spanish flu remains the most common name, and the organizations you name still commonly use the term Spanish flu. And when certain political factions are pushing a particular name, it absolutely is political. —Lowellian (reply) 04:38, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

• Support. It was mislabeled to begin with, not much argument refuting that. CDC calls it the 1918 flu. History books will be slowly revised to align with the facts, maybe leaving a footnote “for 100+ years the flu was misnamed as the Spanish Flu, due to much of the news at the time being published by Spain.” It’s a generational thing - after everyone clinging on to this wrong name pass on, and more people are educated with it being called by a more proper name, its “common name” will become the 1918 flu. No doubt this will change one day. Think of this Wikipedia decision as deciding to fix the article name now, or waiting ~30 years to fix it. Skeptic? I bet you can come up with at least 10 “common names” for other things that were mislabeled in the past and now are no longer used. --Zojj tc 01:55, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

• Comment: "after everyone clinging on to this wrong name pass on, and more people are educated with it being called by a more proper name... No doubt this will change one day." - When it happens, it'll happen. We'll worry about it then. Until that point in time, there are plenty of these old-fashioned people still alive and kicking, and some of them (such as myself) don't plan on dying for at least another 60 years. Wikipedia was not built in one night, and there is no rush to correct this injustice in preparation for the hypothetical event that everyone will call it the 1918 influenza in three decades from now. Consensus on Wikipedia can change in the future, and the WP:COMMONNAME of the topic in mainstream literature can also change in the future; when they eventually do change, we can revisit this discussion, and make the required changes if necessary. --benlisquare_T•C•E 03:01, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

I Think you mean the more easily led younger generation.TheDarkMaster2 (talk) 11:38, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose Per WP:COMMONNAME and to generally preserve, rather than re-write, history. Lots of diseases are named for places where they first became well-known; there's nothing stigmatizing about Spanish Flu. Argyriou (talk) 01:57, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

• @Argyriou: The only people talking about the name being stigmatizing or racist or whatever have been people voting "oppose"; no one is arguing that we should change it for that reason. The real issue is that it's misleading. The virus did not originate in Spain, and was no more prevalent there than in France/UK/Germany/US; the name came about because the newspapers at the time were minimizing coverage of the virus in warring countries. Reliable sources such as the CDC, WHO, Britannica, and CBS have started using a different name, and we should follow suit. –IagoQnsi (talk) 03:16, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

• Not matching the country of origin is not necessarily grounds for renaming. The English horn was invented in France, the French horn was invented in England, Guinea pigs came from South America, Japanese pirates were overwhelmingly Chinese and Korean in ethnicity, Chinese checkers was invented in the United States, and greek service (definition 7) isn't Hellenic in origin. --benlisquare_T•C•E 03:29, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
• @IagoQnsi: NO. "Following suit" is absolutely the wrong thing to do. The fact that CDC, WHO, Britannica and CBS are changing things now merely shows that these sources are making a political move that the Communist Party of China wants us to make for them (self censorship)- it's a mark against their credibility my friend, not evidence that Wikipedia should change to suit the whims of a political frenzy. Geographyinitiative (talk) 03:35, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

• @Geographyinitiative: Those sources all seem to meet WP:Verifiability, one of Wikipedia's core policies. You may think they're being political, but Wikipedia aims for verifiability, not truth; whatever reliable sources say is what Wikipedia should reflect. –IagoQnsi (talk) 03:46, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose There is no strong argument in favor of a change other than that a date is more specific and often used in common reference. Thus, the only reasonable change would be to '1918 Spanish Flu'. If the name of a country or place is racist then there would be definite issues when making a map and labeling everything as 'X'. There could be no Irish pubs, Mexican food, British cars, Canadian bacon, French dresses, or Italian leather. It's a strong attack on the integrity of the English language, our ability to communicate, and even our ability to think using clearly defined conceptual symbols and representations. Wikipedia is one of the greatest collections of human knowledge ever assembled, and to submit to usurpation by such a politically driven agenda would be a grave corruption of its use and purpose. JeffreyAlexanderMartin (talk) 02:00, 19 March 2020 (UTC) — JeffreyAlexanderMartin (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Strongly oppose per WP:COMMONNAME and general historical consensus on the name. Kettleonwater (talk) 02:28, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose Since when we start changing history because someone hurts his/her feeling? Should we also rename all history event?
• Strongly oppose This is my fourth comment here. What this is that we are doing here is called self censorship. The Communist Party of China wants us to forget that the original name of the virus was Wuhan coronavirus, and to do that it must wreck the history of the English language which includes viruses that were named after locations. I repeat- the fact that CDC, WHO, Britannica and CBS are changing things now merely shows that these sources are making a political move that the Communist Party of China wants us to make for them (self censorship)- it's a mark against those sources' credibility my friends, not evidence that Wikipedia should change to suit the whims of a political frenzy. Geographyinitiative (talk) 03:38, 19 March 2020 (UTC) duplicate Oppose struck
  • It should be noted that the article history of the Britannica page on this topic clearly shows that it has had the name "Influenza pandemic of 1918–19" for many years. The last time the title was changed was in 2009, when it was changed from "Influenza epidemic of 1918–19" to its current name. The CDC article was last modified on 20 March 2019, so its title has also not been altered in response to COVID-19. I assume the note on CBS refers to this article, mentioned by a user above. This article was written on 8 March 2020 with no mentioned alterations so it is unlikely CBS changed this title recently; however, this article could be evidence of changing standard naming practices at CBS, which in turn could be but is not necessarily evidence of self-censorship. Jaydavidmartin (talk) 04:17, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
    • This can also be independently verified using the Wayback Machine: CDC, Britannica. Jaydavidmartin (talk) 04:43, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
• Strongly support as it is a more adequate name. Veverve (talk) 03:41, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose as it is not by any measure a more adequate name and is not the Wiktionary-used name. Geographyinitiative (talk) 03:45, 19 March 2020 (UTC) duplicate Oppose struck
• Oppose Maybe "oppose" doesn't begin to capture it. It is obvious to any honest person that the only reason this is up for discussion is because the CCP has a fragile ego about the Wuhan Coronavirus, and literally compensates people to make any argument that could help them disassociate the current events with their actions and inactions. I understand having a soft spot for "correctness" and sensitivity, but it's literally just called the Spanish Flu, it is hardly ever referred to by any other name, and the recent interest in doing so comes from a disgusting place in the human heart. There is no Spanish person harmed by the name "Spanish Flu", and there is no conceivable way that this article will be found by the proposed incorrect name. The motivations for changing the name of this article are inappropriate. Aaron Muir Hamilton <aaron@correspondwith.me> (talk) 04:49, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
• Strong oppose everyone calls it the Spanish Flu in common parlance. WP:COMMONNAME carries. As it does with Black Death, Plague of Justinian, Antonine Plague, Year Without A Summer, 1993 Storm of the Century, White Friday Avalanche, Black Saturday bushfires, Ash Wednesday Bushfires, Schoolhouse Blizzard, St. Felix's Flood, St. Lucia's flood, Saint Marcellus's flood, and others. Keep the Spanish Flu. Keep the common names. End this canvassed revisionism. —wing gundam 05:06, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
• Strong oppose as ridiculous revisionism after it has been decreed in obscure circles that we cannot call our current affliction a "Chinese virus". Dahn (talk) 05:46, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
• Why is the opening sentence still revisionistic despite the overwhelming vote of opposes? 2601:602:9200:1310:89EC:62D:4BF:1B7F (talk) 09:53, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

• This is not a vote, and Wikipedia is not a democracy. Consensus is gained through discussion of policy and content, rather than a game of numbers; otherwise, anyone can amass a mob and push though disruptive changes by majority rule. Once an adequate duration of time has passed, this move discussion will eventually be closed; until then there's no need to rush it, the article isn't going anywhere. --benlisquare_T•C•E 11:26, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose The page should remain under the current title because the epidemic is popularly known as SPANISH FLU. People who want to read about this will always search for SPANISH FLU rather than its new name. Changing the page title will confuse the common user who doesnt understand the complexities of a title. Yaksha Prashna (talk) 10:05, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
• Strongly Support Keep as a redirect, but use the correct name as per WHO / CDC / most official sources. SQB (talk) 12:13, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support Move The CDC, WHO, and Britannica all use the name "1918 Influenza Pandemic". Even if there's a different name that people use casually, it's good for us to follow appropriate conventions and use the accurate name. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 13:05, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
• Strongly Oppose Per WP:COMMONNAME. It is most commonly known by everyone as the Spanish Flu and should not change. Michael14375 (talk) 13:36, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
• Comment: Interestingly, the Global Times, one of the propaganda arms of the Chinese Communist Party, seems to have taken somewhat of a keen interest in this Wikipedia page in their latest article. It makes mention of specific Wikipedia users by name who have edited the content of the article, and it also mentions, quote, "a foreign Twitter campaign to ensure that the designation of the 1918 influenza pandemic as the Spanish Flu does not repeat once again (with the 2019 coronavirus) to sully the name of China". We might have more state-based actors quietly watching our discussions than we've previously thought. --benlisquare_T•C•E 15:25, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Wrong death rate

The 2.5% death rate mentioned at the end of the "Around the globe" in Mortality is erroneous and is contradictory to the No. of deaths/No. of cases in the same study (which gives ≈10% CFR). Read more here: Is Not the Spanish Flu 2001:8F8:1333:956C:7983:AF6E:29FB:76FD (talk) 21:32, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

 Done - Yes - *entirely* agree - text now removed from the main article until better text/refs determined - please see related discussion above at => "Talk:Spanish flu#Serious problem with Spanish flu article?" - thanks. Drbogdan (talk) 01:33, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 March 2020

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)

 Not done. That seems pretty reasonable, but edit requests must be precise and must supply sources to support any claims, if applicable. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 19:45, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

 Partly done. On second thought, I went ahead and removed the statement about life expectancy altogether. It's a less useful statistic than simple mortality rate and such, and as pointed out above, it has the added disadvantage of being especially misleading when there was another major, concurrent cause of death among the young. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 20:15, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps surprisingly, the Spanish Flu did indeed have a greater impact on US life expectancy than WWI did; the biggest impact of WWI on US life expectancy in 1918 was to facilitate the spread of the pandemic. 70.131.48.56 (talk) 18:15, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Russian death toll

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)

Spanish flu is an accurate and appropriate name for the disease

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)

Exactly, it is not inaccurate or bigoted to use this name again, will other animals be given the same treatment.TheDarkMaster2 (talk) 15:47, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

The New York Times story is online here at File:NY Times "Spanish Influenza" Sep-22-1918.pdf Rjensen (talk) 19:37, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

The argument is not that Spanish flu is not a usable name for the flu; it's just that it doesn't seem to be the best one. I'm sure if you look at New York Times articles from the same time, they'll talk about the "Great War"; however, Wikipedia's article on that topic is titled World War I. Naming conventions change as the world's perception of events changes. No one is arguing that the name "Spanish flu" should be entirely purged from the page; this discussion is just about what should be in big text at the very top. –IagoQnsi (talk) 04:06, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

You must be very naive to think there are not political motivations for this sudden change.TheDarkMaster2 (talk) 11:34, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Proposal to move this to 1918 Chinese Flu

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.

---

Per reputable sources, this disease originated in China. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0968344513504525 and https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/1/140123-spanish-flu-1918-china-origins-pandemic-science-health/

205.175.106.240 (talk) 20:34, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Oppose - and not bothering to say why. Carptrash (talk) 20:37, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

• Can you be bothered to update the [unreliable source] tag in the main text at least? Or you are ok with murkying it out with a disingenuous tag? 205.175.106.240 (talk) 21:02, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

No way, per WP:COMMONNAME. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:25, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

I think he's actually trying to make an indirect point to you all, showing how silly the "b-but the Spanish flu didn't originate in Spain!" arguments are in the move discussion section above, rather than attempting to make a serious proposal to move the article to this name. Read between the lines, everyone. --benlisquare_T•C•E 23:02, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose There is no strong argument in favor of a change other than that a date is more specific and often used in common reference. Thus, the only reasonable change would be to '1918 Spanish Flu'. If the name of a country or place is racist then there would be definite issues when making a map and labeling everything as 'X'. There could be no Irish pubs, Mexican food, British cars, Canadian bacon, French dresses, or Italian leather. It's a strong attack on the integrity of the English language, our ability to communicate, and even our ability to think using clearly defined conceptual symbols and representations. Wikipedia is one of the greatest collections of human knowledge ever assembled, and to submit to usurption by such politically driven agenda would be a grave corruption of its use and purpose. JeffreyAlexanderMartin (talk) 01:58, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

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