Jump to content

Talk:Spanish flu

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 2a02:c7f:b813:9000:1cfc:564f:fe50:7414 (talk) at 18:34, 18 March 2020. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Good articleSpanish flu has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
April 15, 2006Good article nomineeListed
May 14, 2009Good article reassessmentKept
Current status: Good article

Template:Vital article

Death Toll

Here is what the sources say on the death toll:

  • Knobler S, Mack A, Mahmoud A, Lemon S (eds.). "1: The Story of Influenza". The Threat of Pandemic Influenza: Are We Ready? Workshop Summary (2005). Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press. pp. 60–61. {{cite book}}: External link in |chapterurl= (help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl= ignored (|chapter-url= suggested) (help)

The 1918–1919 influenza pandemic killed more people in absolute numbers than any other disease outbreak in history. A contemporary estimate put the death toll at 21 million, a figure that persists in the media today, but understates the real number. Epidemiologists and scientists have revised that figure several times since then. Each and every revision has been upward. Frank Macfarlane Burnet, who won his Nobel Prize for immunology but who spent most of his life studying influenza, estimated the death toll as probably 50 million, and possibly as high as 100 million. A 2002 epidemiologic study also estimates the deaths at between 50 and 100 million (Johnson and Mueller, 2002).

Knobler cites Mueller. Here is what he has to say

...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.

I believe the two cited sources are saying the estimate should be "probably 50 million and perhaps as high as 100 million." ---- Work permit (talk) 15:24, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Arizona University?

In Spanish Flu research, the college is called the University of Arizona. No one calls it Arizona University. 2601:248:5181:B860:135:C82C:4214:8721 (talk) 02:26, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request: Small phrasing change (speculation)

In the introductory paragraph "This has led to speculation [...] Thus in 1918, China was spared from the worst ravages of the pandemic," starts by introducing the idea as uncertain, but then words it as having occurred. I would change "was" to "would have been". Small nitpick. Could someone do this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ceci N'Est Pas Un Contributeur (talk • contribs) 21:26, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Text added by obvious sockpuppet

A user is determined to add some badly written text about China to the article. They have used at least two different usernames to add it: see [1] and [2]. Those accounts were created on 20 and 25 September this year. A third account may be connected having made related edits: [3]. This user's current account has a username relating to pornography which is also inappropriate. Taputa (talk) 12:00, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I'm the user who added the text that you keep deleting [1], and I am not the same person as User:Lauraspinney or User:Interracial-is-best. Second of all, please show me an objection you have to the text I made. I have cited the following sources in support of what I wrote

Langford, Humphrey, KF Cheng, Saunders-Hastings, Killingray, among many other authors have supported the China origin hypothesis for the 1918 flu pandemic. I have cited published peer-reviewed, multidisciplinary papers that have supported this view. What exactly is wrong with what I wrote? I see you complain about the quality of writing and word choice. Well then, please improve it for me. English is not my first language, so if you think what I wrote needs improvement, please fix incorrect word-choices, grammar, or poor sentence structures. Other than that? What other problem is there with what I wrote? Laputa-skye (talk) 00:16, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Two users, created days apart less than three months ago, both adding exactly the same large chunk of text, are very obviously sockpuppets. I therefore do not trust that it is accurate. You need to make the case here for why the article suddenly needs to be significantly changed. Taputa (talk) 08:10, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Both accounts have also edited Boxer Rebellion, so 2 in common out of the 12 and 5 articles the accounts have edited. If one looks at both sets of contributions, one sees that when one account is active, the other is not. Taputa (talk) 16:47, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Taputa: If you're going to make sockpuppetry allegations, then you should open a case at WP:SPI and do so properly, rather than continuing to edit war. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 17:00, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have just reinserted the paragraphs in question. I don't see anything wrong with the English. I don't see in what way the editor's name has something to do with pornography (as Taputa says), nor what that has to do with whether his or her edit should be accepted. There was argument about whether it should be in the lede, but in the end he or she put that paragraph lower down, and then it was still deleted. I think it was unfair, and a case of people ganging up on someone. If someone has some objections to these paragraphs, then improve them, don't just revert! Eric Kvaalen (talk) 16:35, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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" Cite error: The <ref> tag has too many names (see the help page).. 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 [1]

Estimates for the death toll in China have ranged from 1 million [2] to 9 million Cite error: The <ref> tag has too many names (see the help page)., 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 Cite error: The <ref> tag has too many names (see the help page).. The Chinese death toll may never be known, however. Lauraspinney (talk) 15:45, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Spinney L (2017). Pale Rider: The Spanish Flu of 1918 and How It Changed The World. London : Jonathan Cape. ISBN 9781910702376.
  2. ^ Iijima W. "Spanish influenza in China, 1918-1920: a preliminary probe" in Phillips H, Killingray D eds. (2003) pp101-109

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.[1]

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

References

  1. ^ "Template:Request edit". Wikipedia. 15 September 2018. Instructions for Submitters: If the rationale for a change is not obvious, explain.

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)[reply]

Less affected areas

Information to be added... because the current information is out-of-date and because I spent three years (2013-2016) travelling and conducting research to shed more light on what happened in these important areas (China, Russia). As I wrote in my suggested addition, the widely quoted 1991 Patterson & Pyle estimate for the death toll in Russia was, to quote them, a "shot in the dark" - they had no real data to work with. That is why my actual Russian data represent an improvement. With regards to China, the same authors were extrapolating from other countries and again had no local data to work with; I did. This is the second time I've tried to update this section and had my request refused (the first time without explanation). My name is not Linney but Spinney, as correctly spelled in my suggested addition, which I have now modified (below). If the citations are not correctly formatted, I would appreciate some help in doing so. Thank you!

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" Cite error: The <ref> tag has too many names (see the help page).. 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 [1]

Estimates for the death toll in China have ranged from 1 million [2] to 9 million Cite error: The <ref> tag has too many names (see the help page)., 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 Cite error: The <ref> tag has too many names (see the help page).. The Chinese death toll may never be known, however. Lauraspinney (talk) 17:57, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Spinney L (2017). Pale Rider: The Spanish Flu of 1918 and How It Changed The World. London : Jonathan Cape. ISBN 9781910702376. pp167-169
  2. ^ Iijima W. "Spanish influenza in China, 1918-1920: a preliminary probe" in Phillips H, Killingray D eds. (2003) pp101-109
You've stated that there is information in the article which is out of date. You have proposed here information that you say 'updates' the incorrect information, but you have not given the passage from the article which your proposed text is meant to replace. That is required for a substitution of text to be considered. Please provide the text which is to be replaced. If this is to be a straight addition to the article, then the text needs to be modified. It currently uses Wikipedia's voice to make certain assertions ("This seems unlikely, given that the country was in the grip of a civil war, and the infrastructure of daily life had broken down.") Those claims cannot be made using Wikipedia's voice, they need to be properly attributed to the author(s) making them. Regards,  Spintendo  20:54, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Less affected areas

Information to be added. Spintendo, may I just laud your rigour and say that I wish it had been applied to the rest of the Spanish flu article, where theories are aired that are entirely speculative and have nothing other than circumstantial evidence to back them up (I'm referring to theories that favour one origin of the pandemic over any other, since there is no way of choosing between these currently). I have no theory, by the way. I'm just trying to provide better - though certainly not definitive - information. When I originally made my addition, there was existing text on China and Russia in this section. It has since been removed, again for reasons that have not been explained, but that I suspect have to do with the intervention and subsequent blocking of a sockpuppet. I hope the following passes muster. The point is that, until my book, Russia and China were considered to have been lightly affected. My information suggests that was not the case.

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" Cite error: The <ref> tag has too many names (see the help page).. If it is correct, Russia lost roughly 0.2% of its population, meaning it suffered the lowest influenza-related mortality in Europe. This is unlikely, according to the science journalist Laura Spinney, 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 [1]

Estimates for the death toll in China have ranged from 1 million [2] to 9 million Cite error: The <ref> tag has too many names (see the help page)., 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, collected by Spinney, suggest that it did penetrate the interior and that it was bad there Cite error: The <ref> tag has too many names (see the help page).. The Chinese death toll may never be known, however. Lauraspinney (talk) 23:12, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Spinney L (2017). Pale Rider: The Spanish Flu of 1918 and How It Changed The World. London : Jonathan Cape. ISBN 9781910702376. pp167-169
  2. ^ Iijima W. "Spanish influenza in China, 1918-1920: a preliminary probe" in Phillips H, Killingray D eds. (2003) pp101-109
​ Done, I reworded a couple of sentences. – Thjarkur (talk) 00:01, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Þjarkur but the references aren't working correctly. Ref 22 does not link to my book, Pale Rider (please see ref in text above).

81.29.176.246 (talk) 20:07, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A reference needs correcting in the following two paragraphs (the Spinney one doesn't currently work - I hope I've put it in the right format now; please help/advise if not). Also the text on China is currently inaccurate, since it doesn't capture the ongoing debate over that country. I think it's important to say why this debate exists (because there was no centralised collection of health data in China at the time; this was the warlord period). If a reference is needed for this latter statement, either Iijima or Spinney could be given.

Extended content

The death toll in Russia was estimated at 450,000 in 1991, though the epidemiologists who suggested this number called it a "shot in the dark". [1] If it is correct, Russia lost roughly 0.2% of its population, meaning it suffered the lowest influenza-related mortality in Europe. Another study considers this number unlikely given that the country was in the grip of a civil war, and suggests that Russia's death toll was closer to 1.2%, or 2.7 million people. [2]

The Chinese death toll may never be known, because there was no centralised collection of health data in China at the time. Some estimates suggest it was mild there [3], but these assume that the flu arrived at the ports and that poor communications prevented it from penetrating the interior. Other studies suggest these assumptions are not valid. [4]

Lauraspinney (talk) 16:35, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Patterson & Pyle 1991.
  2. ^ Spinney 2017, p. 167.
  3. ^ Iijima W. "Spanish influenza in China, 1918–1920: a preliminary probe" in Phillips H, Killingray D eds. (2003) pp. 101-109
  4. ^ Spinney 2017, p. 169.

The ref tag as it was formatted by Thjarkur has been corrected (it was not displaying because the ref tag name ":0" was already engaged by another reference). Whether or not the text that this ref tag was placed under is incorrect, I'll leave for them to fix.  Spintendo  18:58, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for that, I had worked on this in my sandbox and didn't notice the clash. Have fixed. Dazoutti added "to 2.7 million" to Russia but did not explain whether this was information from the cited source, feel free to add again if this is what the cited source says. – Thjarkur (talk) 19:49, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Journal Article Confirms Experimental Bacterial Meningitis Vaccine Administered at Fort Riley Shortly Before First 1918 Flu Outbreak

Following meningitis outbreaks in 1917, the U.S. military attempted to develop a bacterial meningitis vaccine cultured in horses which they began administering experimentally in multiple series from late 1917 through February 1918 to soldiers at Fort Riley, Kansas where shortly thereafter the first known incidences of "Spanish Flu" were documented. The first case was Albert Gitchell who reported his illness on March 4, 1918. The administration of experimental vaccinations is confirmed by a journal article obtained from the National Institute of Health published by Dr. Frederick L. Gates, M.D., U.S. Army Medical Corp. from the Base Hospital at Fort Riley, Kansas, in cooperation with The Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research, New York, entitled "A Report on Antimeningitis Vaccinations and Observations in Agglutinins in the Blood of Chronic Meningococcus Carriers," The Journal of Experimental Medicine, Vol. XXVIII, submitted for publication July 1918. Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2126288/pdf/449.pdf Brom4880 (talk) 21:19, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

To facilitate Search, make it

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 6 February 2020

The calculation of the mortality rate is wrong here: "In the U.S., about 28% of the population of 105 million became infected, and 500,000 to 675,000 died (4.8 to 6.4 percent)."

If 28% of the population became infected, that is 29,400,000 people. 500,000 to 675,000 of those people dying is 1.7 to 2.3 percent Asg1986 (talk) 20:39, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I took that percentage out for now. It looks like a misplaced decimal point. By my math, those numbers come to 0.48 to 0.64 percent of the 105 million population (or as you say, 1.7 to 2.3 percent of the infected population). Pinging User:Eric Kvaalen who added this to the article earlier today. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 20:54, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@ElHef: Thanks for pinging me. You're right. I used the Google Search box at the top of my browser to do the division, and just did (5)/105 and (675)/105, and then used the answers without thinking enough about where the decimal point should go! It's strange that the death rate was ten times lower than worldwide. I've fix'd it now. By the way, you could have just fix'd it yourself, but I'm glad that you pointed out my error to me. Asg1986, I mean percent of the total population. Eric Kvaalen (talk) 09:27, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What is so strange? I could find only two places where both infected/deaths are known (USA and Japan), and they have consistent mortality rates! --Ilya-zz (talk) 08:48, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Ilya-zz: It's true that the percentage of those affected who died was similar in Japan and in the US (at least 1.7% in Japan and between 1.7 and 2.3% in the US). But this is a lot lower than the figure of 10% or 20% at the beginning of the section Spanish flu#Around the globe. Actually, what I meant was that it's strange that the percentage of the whole population that died was so low, (much lower than the 3 to 6 percent in the lede) but that's because a low percentage of those who caught the illness in Japan or the US died. Eric Kvaalen (talk) 11:50, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

The numbers dont add up

The WHO report[1] 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 [2] (and see here[3]), 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[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/44123/9789241547680_eng.pdf
  2. ^ https://web.archive.org/web/20200207230616/https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/12/1/05-0979_article
  3. ^ https://web.archive.org/web/20200211010821/https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK22148/. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)

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)[reply]

Serious problem with Spanish flu article?

Seems there may be a serious problem with the Wikipedia Spanish flu article according to recent news.[1]

An earlier entry, apparently correct, was changed to one that may not have been correct (on February 22, 2020). Earlier and Current edit => It is estimated that one third of the global population was infected,[2] and the World Health Organization estimates that 2–3% of those who were infected died (case-fatality ratio).[3][failed verification]

I tried to restore the apparently incorrect entry to one that was correct - and this time with several updated references - as follows: New edit => The global mortality rate from the 1918–1919 pandemic is not known, but an estimated 10% to 20% of those who were infected died (case-fatality ratio).[4][5] About a third of the world population was infected, and something between 1% and 5.6% of the entire global population of over 1800 million[6] died.[2]

However - my edit was reverted and a discussion requested.

If interested - some of my own thinking about this Spanish flu information:

Fatalities (est) = as high as 100 million.[7][8]

Infected (est) = 620 million ("one-third" of world population).[9]

World population 1920 = 1,860 million.[10]

Case-fatality ratio (CFR) => 2.5%.[4][5]

This CFR may be much too low according to others.[4][5]

My own calculation => Case-Fatalities Ratio = 100 million/620 million = 16% CFR

Comments Welcome from other Editors - Thanks. Drbogdan (talk) 15:07, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Black, Catte (March 9, 2020). "Wikipedia Slashes Spanish Flu Death Rate - From 20% to 2% is a quite a drop. What's going on?". Off-Guardian.org. Retrieved March 11, 2020.
  2. ^ a b Taubenberger & Morens 2006.
  3. ^ https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/44123/9789241547680_eng.pdf
  4. ^ a b c Jabr, Ferris (February 24, 2020). "Twitter - Many people are claiming that the new coronavirus is as deadly as the 1918 Spanish flu, citing a case fatality rate (CFR) of ~2.5% - The truth is that this comparison is, at best, highly unreliable, and may be completely wrong. Here's why:". Twitter. Retrieved March 11, 2020.
  5. ^ a b c Matthews, Dylan (March 9, 2020). "Why we should stop comparing the Covid-19 coronavirus outbreak to the 1918 Spanish flu - The Spanish flu killed tens of millions of people. Here's what it can and can't tell us about Covid-19". Vox. Retrieved March 11, 2020.
  6. ^ "Historical Estimates of World Population". Archived from the original on 9 July 2012. Retrieved 29 March 2013.
  7. ^ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK22148/
  8. ^ Johnson NP, Mueller J. Updating the accounts: Global mortality of the 1918–1920 “Spanish” influenza pandemic. Bull Hist Med. 2002;76:105–115. [PubMed] [Reference list]
  9. ^ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3291398/
  10. ^ https://web.archive.org/web/20120709092946/https://www.census.gov/population/international/data/worldpop/table_history.php
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)[reply]
A follow up article by the same writer explains how the wrong figure of 2.5% was obtained.[1] 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
 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)[reply]
excellent thanks Drbogdan.Burrobert (talk) 16:24, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Black, Catte (11March 2020). "Guardian uses misleading data to imply COVID worse than Spanish Flu". Off Guardian. Retrieved 11 March 2020. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

The disease has been called this for many years and any attempt to change it would be historical revisionism. Isothermic (talk) 17:43, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Comparisons have also been drawn between the Spanish flu pandemic and the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic,[1][2] in particular when it comes to the recommendation of social distancing.[3]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Closed borders and 'black weddings': what the 1918 flu teaches us about coronavirus". The Guardian. 11 March 2020. Retrieved 13 March 2020.
  2. ^ "What 1918 Spanish Flu Death Toll Tells Us About COVID-19 Coronavirus Pandemic". MedicineNet. 12 March 2020.
  3. ^ "This chart of the 1918 Spanish flu shows why social distancing works". Quartz. 11 March 2020. Retrieved 11 March 2020.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME.--Ortizesp (talk) 00:07, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Oppose Most commonly called Spanish flu. Fernsong (talk) 07:51, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Spsnish is a misnomer deisenbe (talk) 09:17, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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).[reply]
    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)[reply]
  • Oppose – Common name criteria, per reasons given above. Standardorder (talk) 17:08, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • SUPPORT:

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

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Oppose as per user Renata. cagliost (talk) 08:04, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose move. It is widely know as the Spanish flu. Robert Brockway (talk) 08:45, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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:

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)

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)[reply]

 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

 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)[reply]
 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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Spanish_flu&oldid=946199550"