Talk:Spanish flu

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 4 February 2020 and 7 May 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jbingham04 (article contribs).

Suggesting a name change.

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

---

I suggest that the title of this article be changed to "1918 Influenza Pandemic" or "1918 Flu Pandemic" as "Spanish Flu" is a very informal name and has the potential to carry false implications with it, something I don't think I've seen on any other Wikipedia article. Even the opening line says "1918 Influenza Pandemic" and specifically denotes "Spanish Flu" as a nickname for the event. I just find it weird that this article would be titled "Spanish Flu" and not say one of the titles I suggested or something. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.101.213.47 (talk) 08:18, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

So do you want to rename the Ebola virus as well?--Thronedrei (talk) 23:15, 19 March 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)

The revisionist minded Liberal-left should really leave this topic alone. Wikipedia should impose some restrictions on politically motivated editing. For a hundred years the "Spanish Flu" has been known as the "Spanish Flu" and it should be simply left alone, for reasons of maintaining historical consistency and avoiding confusion, if nothing else. Who is behind these recent name change requests anyway ? What is clear is that the current pandemic should be named the "Wuhan Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) Virus" so it will be clear to students of history where it came from and who was responsible for it. Nathan Detroit (talk) 09:05, 24 March 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)

The fact that "Spanish Flu" has been ubiquitous as the name of this epidemic means a name change will cause confusion and make the information less accessible. The desire to eliminate "Spanish" to show consistency with the name of the 2020 Covid-19 epidemic (as opposed to the so-called "China virus") is not useful and will contribute nothing in the area of clarity or accessibility. Fmanci (talk) 03:30, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

This request just up and happened, out of the blue! No. It is clearly alluding to a contemporary POLITICAL scuffle initiated by those receptive to the propaganda being generated by the Communist Party of China in relation the the Chinese Virus. The virus from the nation of China that is killing 1000's of people because of what happened in Wuhan, China. This is soviet style revisionism. EVERYONE that I know, and have known for decades has referred to the Spanish Flu just as that, The Spanish Flu. Don't bother trying to torture a fake reason for the name change of tis article, we all know why it was brought up, now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.89.229.157 (talk) 00:52, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Agreed with the previous two posters. This is a politically inspired request for change that would cause historical confusion and inconsistency. Are there requests to change all the names of viral epidemics based on location of origin or greatest disaster (i.e., West Nile, Rocky Mountain Spotted Fever, Lyme Disease, Ebola, Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS), Norovirus, Zika, German Measles, Legionnaire’s Disease)? Jemusser (talk) 06:08, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

COVID-19 should be renamed to chinese flu, it is important to point out the geographic location of a virus and the people who are responsible for spreading it.

Please check the World Health Organisation guidelines: "Terms that should be avoided in disease names include geographic locations (e.g. Middle East Respiratory Syndrome, Spanish Flu)" [1]. "Spanish Flu" is not just incorrect: it is also misleading and stigmatising. Gaianauta (talk) 10:07, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

The guidelines you've linked are for naming new diseases and do not proscribe the continued usage of "Spanish flu." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Die Pillen in mir (talk • contribs)

Support name change. This flu didn't start in Spain, it started in Kansas. To call it Spanish Flu despite that is to knowingly spread misinformation, to say nothing about the WHO guidelines the previous poster mentioned. Just because it's "known as" Spanish Flu doesn't mean we need to keep peddling that misinformation. (Note, syphilis used to be called "French Pox") Jade Phoenix Pence (talk) 17:03, 21 March 2020 (UTC)Jade Phoenix Pence

Object to name change. Renaming the article to fit a political correctness agenda, after the term has been in the common vernacular for over a century, is tantamount to historical revisionism. What's next, renaming the french fries article, just because they weren't invented in France? Renaming the Panama hat article? I say no. EJSawyer (talk) 01:24, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Object to name change; new naming guidelines by an organisation that didn't exist at the time of this pandemic shouldn't overwrite the historical context of over 100 years ago. Thankfully this has already been decided. MeanMotherJr (talk) 01:15, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Support name change. The chauvinism in the United Statesians' responses is, as always, very scary. They have their own political agenda, hidden now behind an alert of a Chinese-agenda banner. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cusano (talk • contribs) 18:27, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Support name change. Any Spanish speaker is unaware that it's called this in English and it's long been misleading as to the original source which may be convenient to Kansas, but is completely inaccurate. "AKA Spanish Flu" can always be listed in the intro. And the "This is how it's been known" argument never holds water as there are countless ethnic names that were common and derogatory that have fallen out of use to cite but one example. Should have never been called "Spanish flu" to start with as this was based upon bad historical information. Now is the chance to fix that. Primecoordinator (talk) 18:35, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

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.

Commentary on this issue from April 2020 by American cultural icon Bill Maher: [2] Geographyinitiative (talk) 00:07, 12 April 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).

I agree that it should say one-third of the population, not a quarter of the population. The source articles referenced [Taubenberger and Morens, 2006] state one-third. The CDC states one-third, and even the author of Nancy Bistow (whose presentation is linked in this wikipedia entry) states one-third. Zitap123 (talk) 06:34, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

World population 1920 = 1,860 million.

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)

I changed the rate because it conflicts with official sources. Specifically I originally changed it to the WHO cited figure of 2-3% in an edit on 2/22

That number specifically comes from this source_ https

Which is an WHO document about pandemic preparedness. That document cites the European CDC here:

The CDC just says >2.5% :

Ultimately each analysis is drastically different, even among the sources cited in the current article

Case in point this article:

At the first book listed has the higher end estimate of 50 million dead in the introduction but the next has “The 1918–1919 influenza pandemic killed 20 million people” and the article after that has “The 1918 influenza pandemic killed an estimated 20–50 million people”

Ultimately I am of the opinion that if we are to list a fatalistic rate, which we should, we should go with the official WHO accepted value of 20-50 million and 2-3% CFR or the CDC of 50-100 million and >2.5% and indicate that estimates do vary

There is no estimate however that has 20% as was originally listed in the article. I will vigorously protest any such inaccurately large CFR. The 1918 pandemic was no Black Death

Hutima (talk) 06:16, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

References

And upon further research through my university library has this quotation: "Further research has seen the consistent upward revision of the estimated global mortality of the pandemic, which a 1920s calculation put in the vicinity of 21.5 million. A 1991 paper revised the mortality as being `in the range 24.7–39.3 million. This paper suggests that it was of the order of 50 million. However, it must be acknowledged that even this vast figure may be substantially lower than the real toll, perhaps as much as 100 percent understated." So the range of cases is 20 to 100 million as was already established from the various sources. At 20 million, a 2.5% CFR is possible and that is probably why the CDC says the rate is ">2.5%" and also why the WHO accepting the 20-50 million from studies until 2010 says 2-3%.

I will note that the original revision I had is as follows:

An estimated 2-3% of those who were infected died (case-fatality ratio). It is estimated that approximately 30 million were killed by the flu, or about 1.7% of the world population. died. An estimate from 1991 says it killed 25–39 million people. A 2005 estimate put the death toll at probably 50 million (less than 3% of the global population), and possibly as high as 100 million (more than 5%). But a reassessment in 2018 estimated the total to be only about 17 million, though this has been contested.

The way the paragraph above was written at the time I think supports the publicly accepted lower CFR value. The CDC statement of >2.5% is probably the best way to work around the various estimates but I will also grant that the article i cited from jhu, does conclude that 2-5% of the total world population died and if we estimate 1/3rd of the population has the disease we can estimate the CFR as 2.5-15% but I am uncomfortable publishing a CFR value not attested in literature and would be much happier if the article instead said something along the lines of ">2.5% mortality rate (cdc citation) with some studies showing an overall fatality rate of up to 20%.(jhu citation)"

Hutima (talk) 06:59, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

References

The last citation in the paragraph is newer than any of the articles cited in the response blog specifically it says

Total pandemic mortality was an estimated 15 million deaths worldwide in 1918 (n = 2.5 million in 1919) after including the rates for British India and controlling for wars and the underlying mortality trend. According to our validity analysis, simulations of total number of deaths being greater than 25 million are not realistic based on the underlying mortality rates included in Human Mortality Database and in British India. Our results suggest the global death impact of the 1918 pandemic was important (n = 17.4 million) but not as severe as most frequently cited estimates.

So regardless of the contentiosn of this off G article you cited. there isn't academic consensus around the 50-100 million figure and some authors still support the lower 20-50 million figure that would support a 2.5% CFR as this last article was published in 2018 whereas the latest academic article cited in the off-G reference you have was from 2006.

Hutima (talk) 07:12, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

References

According to this working paper by a Harvard professor of economics, the overall mortality rate seems to be 2% (more precisely, 2% of the total population, in other words, from 1918 to 1920, each year is more or less 0.66%).

Also, note that the mortality rate of China is roughly 1.2% (less than the average 2% but not significantly; notice that India has 5% which increases the rate too much). Meanwhile, Korean, Spain, Malaysia, Singapore, Hungary, Italy, etc. have a similar mortality rate as China. So the main argument proving China may be its origin breaks down (their argument is that China was affected mildly).

I would suggest to rewrite the beginning of the subsection "1.1.3 China" as it's quite misleading (the data turns out to be incorrect). See also the figure 1 of this page.

Rationalcurve (talk) 17:59, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

References

First reported

It was first reported in Fort Riley, Kansas. Change it in the info tab — Preceding unsigned comment added by Niskka (talk • contribs) 10:51, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

The Spanish flu is named "Spanish" because it was first publicly reported there. History now tells us that outbreaks happened earlier for sure, but facts are so murky that we cannot pinpoint the first outbreak with certainty. Agathoclea (talk) 11:00, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Traditional Chinese medicine

In the section on China as a potential origin of the disease we currently say

However, a study by K.F. Cheng and P.C. Leung in 2006 has suggested it was more likely because the traditional Chinese medicine played an important role in prevention and treatment.

The source of this statement appears reliable, which is why I find it highly unlikely that a paper in a reputable journal would credit Traditional Chinese medicine (which is basically a pseudo-science) with being an effective treatment to the Spanish flu. Can someone with access to the article check that? If it does indeed make this rather extraordinary claim, it is further worth considering whether this information is wp:due or whether anyone else has challenged the conclusion (because I'm sure the majority of the medical community does not believe that traditional Chinese medicine stopped the Spanish Flu).--Ermenrich (talk) 13:42, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

See the section Talk:Spanish_flu#Removal_or_edit_of_mention_of_Chinese_medicine_use above. Anyway, this should go as discussed unless it has multiple third party reliable sources, per WP:MEDRS.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:20, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Oops, should've checked the talk page. Anyway, definitely should be removed.--Ermenrich (talk) 16:23, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Charts showing effects of social distancing in the US 1918 flu pandemic

I have uploaded 4 variations on the same chart (.png & .jpg, with & without supporting data) depicting the effects & timing of social distancing, each having with Weekly excess flu death rates per 100,000 for 4 US cities final 16 weeks of 1918 in the title. They depict rates for the cities of Boston, Philadelphia, St. Louis, & Seattle. They are in commons:Category:Spanish flu in the United States charts. I am going to leave it to other editors as to where & whether to place them or not.

I think the biggest take away of the chart is to avoid a big parade at the start of a pandemic.

Peaceray (talk) 16:30, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Nursing in a sitting position to prevent hypostatic pneumonia

Every photo I have seen of hospital care for Spanish flu victims shows a flat bed with maximum 2 pillows, and many patients flat on their backs.

Hypostatic pneumonia is a fatal type of pneumonia caused exactly by this, lying in a flat position with inadequate natural drainage of the lungs, especially in a patient with weakened shallow breathing. This results in build up of fluid which then becomes infected resulting in the illness.

References are easy to find.

I entered nursing in 1972 and by then the dangers of hypostatic pneumonia were recognized and we were taught to nurse bed ridden patients in a seated position, either by mechanically raising the head of the bed or by adding pillows in an armchair shape, combined with intensive physical therapy. The ideal being to get the patient out of bed "nursed in chair" as soon as possible and for as long as possible in any case.

I can find no mention of this factor in contributing to the fatality of the Spanish flu. Neither is there an entry for hypostatic pneumonia on the Wikipedia pneumonia page.

Any suggestions for the best way to bring this to public attention via Wikipedia?Jiver2 (talk) 12:36, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

References

It really comes down to if you have good sources that say Hypostatic Pneumonia was a factor in the fatality of the Spanish Flu. While your years of nursing may make it seem obvious to you that this is a simple 1+1=2, You doing that math here and then documenting it violates WP:NOR. Your experience in nursing though should help you vet good sources that back this claim up though. 74.140.215.175 (talk) 19:02, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Deaths in India

Deaths in India numbers don't make a lot of sense when you compare them with recent estimates of total deaths. Doug Weller talk 20:15, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 April 2020

Hello, I'm not sure if I'm at the right "spot"... Re.: "Spanish flu": I believe we are talking about VIRUS not "bacterial superinfection" (you can do a "search" (you'll get one "hit" only! See: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_flu 199.119.233.216 (talk) 22:27, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: You're in the right spot, but the "bacterial superinfections" is correct. See, for example, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5481322/ EvergreenFir (talk) 22:31, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Google discrepancy

If you look this up on Google, the preview says “First Reported in Spain.” Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 13 Nisan 5780 15:25, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

You're quite right, here is a screenshot from Google Search, which is apparently quoting the infobox of the Wikipedia article. This sort of thing has happened before, and it is hard to guarantee how Wikipedia articles will appear in external search engine results. Possibly this is taken from an older version of the article.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:22, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

• It looks as though the "first reported" field in the infobox was changed from Spain to United States in this edit on 31 March 2020. Is everyone happy about this?--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:30, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

I think the question comes down to what does “first reported” mean in this case. For political reasons Spain was the first country to publicly acknowledge and “report” it, but as historians and virologists have looked back they seem to have formed a consensus the mutation originated in the US74.140.215.175 (talk) 18:37, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

I thought about this mores and saw that it wasn’t nearly a large of consensus saying it originated in the US despite what people have been saying in this talk page, and considering there is a “first outbreak” field which may or may not be appropriate as US, I think Spain is the correct for first reported as again, that’s where they were first “allowed” to be reported. That said, considering it has such a murky start as already identified in the article, could “Unknown” be appropriate? 74.140.215.175 (talk) 20:25, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Origin of the Spanish Flu

I searched for the flu and got the 1918 Flu pandemic via Siri knowledge. The summary page shows the origin as the USA. Wikipedia says the origin is unknown. How does one go about correcting Siri Knowledge? Sloanish (talk) 14:01, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

This is similar to the section "Google discrepancy" above. If the truth be told, there is no overwhelming consensus on the first country to have an outbreak of this type of flu, so different sources may say different things. Siri is made by Apple, so Wikipedia cannot do anything about the replies that it gives to questions.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:21, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

• The article in Britannica is called "Influenza pandemic of 1918–19" and says "it remains uncertain where the virus first emerged". In view of this and the wording in the Wikipedia article, I have removed the United States from the "first reported" field of the infobox. This isn't supported by the article text, because it is only one of the theories about where it originated.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:28, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Not the second deadliest

I have added citation needed tag to lede statement "making it one of the deadliest pandemics in human history, behind the Black Death.", as it contradicts with death toll depicted in Plague of Justinian. Is there any reliable source comparing the three critically? Capankajsmilyo^{(Talk | Infobox assistance)} 04:24, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

The death toll of the Plague of Justinian given by historians is largely speculative and an estimate, and this is also true of the Black Death. This makes an exact comparison in the style of Guinness World Records difficult. "Deadliest" as a percentage of the population killed probably makes the Plague of Justinian and the Black Death more deadly than Spanish flu, as they are reckoned to have killed anything between a third and a half of the population of Europe at the time. By contrast, the death rate of Spanish flu is given as around 3%.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:32, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Then call it should be called the deadliest of the modern era.--Fruitloop11 (talk) 11:37, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

I've tried to avoid WP:OR by sticking to this source. I don't think we are ever going to have a satisfactory Billboard chart of the deadliest pandemics, because the figures for the death tolls of the Plague of Justinian, the Black Death and Spanish flu are all estimates. The phrase "modern era" is somewhat vague and open to various definitions leading to problems with WP:RELTIME, and needs further explanation which is not given in the Washington Post source.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:20, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 April 2020

Change: "A 2020 study found that US cities that implemented early and extensive non-medical measures (quarantine etc.) suffered no adverse economic effects.

To: "A 2020 study found that US cities that implemented early and extensive non-medical measures (quarantine etc.) suffered no additional adverse economic effects due to implementing those measures, when compared with cities that implemented measures late or not at all..

The study concludes that all cities suffered economic impacts, but NPI measures did not increase the economic impact. The original statement made is misleading.

References

Awmon84 (talk) 11:07, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

 Done {{replyto}} Can I Log In's (talk) page 00:26, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 April 2020

Spanish flu is inaccurate it came from any Army base in Kansas. Please change the page name to Kansas flu. 73.158.125.203 (talk) 20:01, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. We go by the WP:COMMONNAME on Wikipedia. El_C 20:07, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

See also the most recent discussion at Talk:Spanish_flu/Archive_3#Requested_move_15_March_2020. "Kansas flu" is not even remotely a COMMONNAME, and although it may have originated in the USA, nobody really knows.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:52, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

I would bet he's being factitious, but your citation of WP:COMMONNAME brings up a relevant statement that "[w]hen there are multiple names for a subject, all of which are fairly common, and the most common has problems, it is perfectly reasonable to choose one of the others." Following the WP:COMMONNAME guidance the common but problematic "Spanish flu" for the common and less problematic "1918 flu pandemic". Even if one ignores the inaccuracy of the current page name, that it is titled as though it's a type of flu (e.g. Swine flu) rather than an event (e.g. 2009 Swine flu pandemic) is even more problematic, especially considering both pandemics are the same type of flu (A/H1N1). It's like having a page named Cougar, and another page named Mountain lion that contained the Washington cougar attack. The page should at a bare minimum be titled either "Spanish flu pandemic" or better "1918 Spanish flu pandemic", even if both are still problematic. Nebes (talk) 05:27, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 April 2020

{{subst:trim|1=

In two places you state that the Spanish flu infected a quarter of the population (in the into paragraph, and in the first paragraph of the Mortality section)

[intro paragraph] Change from

it infected 500 million people – about a quarter of the world's population at the time. The death toll is estimated to have been anywhere from 17 million to 50 million

Change to

it infected 500 million people – about one-third of the world's population at the time. The death toll is estimated to have been anywhere from 17 million to 50 million

[1st paragraph in the Mortality section]

Change From

″The Spanish flu infected around 500 million people, about a quarter of the world's population.[1] Estimates as to how many infected people died vary greatly, but the flu is regardless considered to be one of the deadliest pandemics in history.″

Change to "The Spanish flu infected around 500 million people, about one-third of the world's population.[1] Estimates as to how many infected people died vary greatly, but the flu is regardless considered to be one of the deadliest pandemics in history."

I would just like to see consistency between information cited in the footnotes at the bottom of the Spanish Flu entry and what is actually written on the Wikipedia page for the Spanish Flu. It is very misleading to have that inconsistency. If the cited references state that it was one-third of the population, how do you get one-fourth (quarter of the population) being infected? There is more evidence for the one-third number whereas one-fourth is not documented in the references

Reasons why the change is requested

This last item ( in the mortality section) has a reference to footnote number 1 --- by Taubenberger and Morens, 2006. If you look at that cited reference document it states:

″An estimated one third of the world's population (or ≈500 million persons) were infected and had clinically apparent illnesses (1,2) during the 1918–1919 influenza pandemic. The disease was exceptionally severe. Case-fatality rates were >2.5%, compared to <0.1% in other influenza pandemics (3,4). Total deaths were estimated at ≈50 million (5–7) and were arguably as high as 100 million (7).″ [3]

The CDC states that one-third, not a quarter, of the world's population was infected by the Spanish flu. [4]

"It is estimated that about 500 million people or one-third of the world’s population became infected with this virus. The number of deaths was estimated to be at least 50 million worldwide with about 675,000 occurring in the United States. Mortality was high in people younger than 5 years old, 20-40 years old, and 65 years and older. The high mortality in healthy people, including those in the 20-40 year age group, was a unique feature of this pandemic."

Zitap123 (talk) 22:12, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Rename Article "1918 Influenza Pandemic"

For the sake of accuracy and helping others learn from the mistakes of the past during this challenging time, I suggest the article should be renamed to "1918 Influenza Pandemic". The name "Spanish Flu" is a misnomer which was given only because countries involved in the war effort under reported their own cases and reported only on those in Spain. In our current time of crisis when it is critical to promote truth and learn from the mistakes of the past, a misnomer should not be the name of the article about the worst pandemic in modern history. The name Spanish Flu should be discussed in the article in the historical context from which it emerged, but most certainly should not be the name of the article. EpidemiologyAccuracy (talk) 09:18, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

@EpidemiologyAccuracy: if you look further up the talk page you will see that such a move request was made and closed only a few days ago. It's far too soon to start another one. Doug Weller talk 09:50, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Many names are misnomers. Attempts to change the name of this page come from non-native English speakers who disagree politically. The name must not be changed and attempts to change it must be considered as causally connected to China's current flu-naming problem. 121.45.171.107 (talk) 04:57, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

One of our key policies is to assume good faith. You are only guessing in claiming to know why other editors think the way they do, and in my case, you are simply wrong. Discuss the issue, not other editors. HiLo48 (talk) 05:21, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Britannica uses the title Influenza pandemic of 1918–19 which is in line with what some medical experts prefer. There may come a time when this article is renamed, but the most recent debate decided to stick with Spanish flu.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:59, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

"Spanish Flu" is a name that comes from false reporting. Need to correct article name.

Currently the initial sentence: "The Spanish flu, also known as the 1918 flu pandemic…"

Change it to: The 1918-1920 flu pandemic, better known as the "Spanish flu"…

And then change the title to 1918-1920 flu pandemic.

The article, '1889–1890 flu pandemic,' starts with this sentence: "The 1889–1890 flu pandemic, better known as the "Asiatic flu" or "Russian flu", was…"— Preceding unsigned comment added by Nousidios (talk • contribs) 15:20, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

MOS:FIRST says "If possible, the page title should be the subject of the first sentence." Generally speaking, the opening sentence should not contradict the article's title. As for renaming the article, see the section immediately above.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:27, 15 April 2020 (UTC)