Talk:Spanish flu

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 8 February 2021 and 21 May 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Dmosh75 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Jbuec2, Moblit.

Secondary bacterial infection not bacterial super infection

Most influenza outbreaks disproportionately kill the very young and the very old, with a higher survival rate for those in between, but the Spanish flu pandemic resulted in a higher than expected mortality rate for young adults.[4] Scientists offer several possible explanations for the high mortality rate of the 1918 influenza pandemic. Some analyses have shown the virus to be particularly deadly because it triggers a cytokine storm, which ravages the stronger immune system of young adults.[5] In contrast, a 2007 analysis of medical journals from the period of the pandemic found that the viral infection was no more aggressive than previous influenza strains.[6][7] Instead, malnourishment, overcrowded medical camps and hospitals, and poor hygiene promoted secondary bacterial infection. These infections killed most of the victims, typically after a somewhat prolonged death bed.[8][9] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pbvet007 (talk • contribs)

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. Do you have a proposal on how to improve the article? El_C 00:12, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

I think the idea is to attribute Spanish Flu's deadliness to the post-WWI healthcare's troubles rather than "deadliness per se". Also, IIRC, "super infection" refers to bacterial infection with resistantce to drugs than high no antibiotic would cure it instead. Uchyotka (talk) 07:24, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Timeline

Beginning of the articles states, "Lasting from spring 1918 through spring or early summer 1919" Then in the Etymology section it states: "Nearly a century after the Spanish flu struck in 1918–1920" Obviously both of these statements cannot be true. My independent research has suggest the flu lasted for 4 years into 1921. Either way something needs to change. SChalice (talk) 20:38, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

One important point that came up earlier is this article lacks a clear chronology. I've been trying to add information from 1919 and 1920 which was previously missing. If you have good sources from 1921 can you add them? My hope is that we can create subsections related to the various phases of the pandemic that I can later reorganize under a History > Timeline subsection. DallasFletcher (talk) 04:26, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

I was also a bit worried by this inconsistency. The fourth wave in 1920 was considered to be very small, but there were still some deaths in 1920.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:04, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Our article currently claims that the fourth wave was "very minor" and "mortality rates were very low", but neither of these is supported by a citation. On the contrary, the Influenza journal citation (Yang et al) tabulates its NYC mortality as nearly 70% of the third wave, and much larger than the first wave. Our summaries of the 1920 wave need to be more consistent with the published sources. —72.68.82.120 (talk) 07:22, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

This source says "Because of the lack of comprehensive medical records from 1918-20, there is not enough evidence to conclude an accurate number of deaths in any of the waves of the pandemic." Nevertheless, some people were still dying from it in 1920. For the same reason, it is hard to give an exact point in time for the end of the pandemic, although 1918-20 is the agreed timeline for many sources. This is why saying 1918-19 in the article leads to an inconsistency.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:42, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes agree the fourth wave needs a citation. A big challenge here is that the flu was heavily underreported by this point and there's a shortage of good information. Nonetheless I am digging up a few, including this CDC gem about mortality rates in 1920. I'm planning to quantify this claim, sort out inconsistencies and add refs in the next few days. DallasFletcher (talk) 01:08, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

References

@DallasFletcher: Are you still planning to do more with this "Fourth wave 1920" section of the article? I'm glad it no longer includes one of the unsourced statements that was questioned above: "Mortality rates were very low." However, our article still says "a very minor fourth wave", without a suitable citation. The section's Guardian reference calls the fourth wave "less severe". Should we use this wording instead? Or do you have a ref that would support keeping "very minor"? Thanks. —24.191.101.221 (talk) 04:55, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I am still planning to do more with this section but unfortunately good refs are difficult to find. Let me see what I can put together in a the next few days and we can figure it out from there. DallasFletcher (talk) 16:38, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Updated now. I removed the "very minor" wording because it's ambiguous and unsourceable. Also it seems like in some isolated places this fourth wave was comparable to earlier ones, not minor at all. DallasFletcher (talk) 22:06, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, much improved! —24.191.101.221 (talk) 02:38, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Better date information

Using Spring and Spring/Summer is confusing.

Is the northern hemisphere Spring or the southern hemisphere Spring being referenced, or does wikipedia change what it is based on the geo location of the user? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.210.252.77 (talk) 09:53, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, quite right that WP:SEASON discourages seasons as a way of identifying the date due to the difference between the northern and southern hemispheres. Terms like spring, summer and fall are used in the article, and these should be replaced to comply with WP:SEASON.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:08, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Also agree. Why don't we just use absolute dates, like March 1918 - June 1919 or even just 1918-1919, since the flu occurred on different timelines in different parts of the world? If nobody objects soon I'll change this. DallasFletcher (talk) 02:01, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Name of the article

Why is the article still called the Spanish flu? Spanish flu should of course point to this article, but if people want to have a geographic marker, the Kansas flu would be more accurate. 1918 flu pandemic would be more neutral as a name and be more accurate.Jochum (talk) 10:56, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

See Talk:Spanish_flu/Archive_3#Semi-protected_edit_request_on_11_April_2020 and Talk:Spanish_flu/Archive_3#Requested_move_15_March_2020.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:32, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Wow, looks like there've been multiple "waves" of attempts to change the name of this article over the past few months. That's not surprising, since the current global coronavirus pandemic has quite obviously inspired a great deal of new interest in, and discussion of, the broadly-comparable event of a century ago. Six months ago, it's extremely unlikely that anyone would've suggested this change, mainly because there really wasn't any particular reason for the subject to be on anybody's radar. But, guess what, things have changed drastically in the past five months. Clearly, there are a great many conscientious individuals who have recently become educated about the history of the so-called "Spanish flu" pandemic, including the origins of that counterfactual moniker. There's nothing at all surprising, much less conspiratorial, about the fact that a great and growing number of such people have come to the conclusion that the moniker can no longer be considered appropriate for use in an official, formal, or scholarly context — such as, indeed, the title of an encyclopedia article.
⋮
Reviewing the "discussions" of this issue in these Talk pages from recent months, I've seen quite a lot of rude, irrational, knee-jerk rejections not only of the title-change suggestion but of the individuals bringing those suggestions forward, even including accusations of vaguely sinister "political agendas" that are as bizarre as they are unsubstantiated. Such behavior is totally contrary to the rules and community standards that Wikipedia editors are expected to follow.
⋮
Given the principles that guide Wikipedians, and the guidance given by the most authoritative of sources, there is no compelling rationale for failing to change the article title at the present time. Nevertheless, it's not absolutely necessary for the change to be effected immediately; the fate of the world is not hanging on the outcome of any proposal to change the title of one Wikipedia article. I would encourage those in favor of the title change here to be patient. Try again in four months' time. If that fails, try again after another four months, and if necessary once more four months after that. I feel confident that by this time next year, consensus to change the title will have coalesced sufficiently to make it happen. — Jaydiem (talk) 05:55, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

The article actually hasn't been called "Spanish flu" long, and it's called that because of a recent decision to change the title over to "Spanish flu". The article actually was called "1918 flu pandemic" for years, then was moved to "Spanish flu" in a June 2018 discussion which didn't attract a lot of attentiona-only a few people voted. (The final result seems to have been 7-2 in favour of a move. I would have voted oppose but found out about it too late; I was grumbling about it in 2019.) My impression is a lot of modern scholarship avoids the term or puts "Spanish" in scare quotes, but recent political debates aside I think "Spanish flu" is the term best-known to older readers, people coming from a history background, and readers in the USA, making a big coalition of readers who prefer it. Blythwood (talk) 12:21, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

@Blythwood: "[T]he term best-known to[...]" sounds to me like a great reason for a redirect from "Spanish flu" to what I would consider to be a more appropriate encyclopedic title. Also worth noting, as I think others have mentioned elsewhere, is that there is a distinction to be made between the "Spanish flu" pandemic, as a historical event, and the "Spanish flu" virus, the infectious pathogen that was the pandemic's root cause. The title "1918 influenza pandemic", having that last P-word, avoids this ambiguity, whereas the title "Spanish flu" does not. For that reason, for as long as "Spanish flu" remains part of the canonical title of this article, I would submit that it should be redirected to the more descriptive (and encyclopedic) "Spanish flu pandemic of 1918". But then, who am I to blow against the wind? — Jaydiem (talk) 18:38, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

"the popularity of an opinion does not make it valid" (attributed to Socrates). This page should not reproduce the falsehood that the pandemic of flu in 1918-19 could in any way be blamed on Spain. The story of misapportioned blame merits a section, but it should not be emblazoned as fact in the title. See for example https://www.sciencefriday.com/articles/the-origin-of-the-spanish-flu/, and https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/03/23/fact-check-how-did-1918-pandemic-get-name-spanish-flu/2895617001/. – Timlev37 —Preceding undated comment added 12:06, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

WP:COMMONNAME dictates "name in common use" should be the main article name. Wikipedia's mission is to describe the world (and the language in use), not to attempt to alter it. There's enough about the misnomer in the article; it's not the first misnomer that became a firm part of the language and not the last, and while in many subjects "the popularity of an opinion does not make it valid", in descriptive languages like English, it does - the phrasing used by the majority is by definition the correct one, and it's against Wikipedia's mission to try to alter it. Sharpfang (talk) 00:04, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

• AFAIK, the disease was "Spanish" because Spain reported it forst (amidst the WWI events).Uchyotka (talk) 07:26, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Greetings: In article after article at the World Health Organization (WHO) website, they refer to this event by the awkward term "1918 influenza pandemic known colloquially as Spanish flu". Here's their criteria for naming future viruses and disease: https://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/notes/2015/naming-new-diseases/en/ Here's a Snopes article on how it became known as "Spanish flu" for lay interest: https://www.snopes.com/news/2020/04/09/how-did-spanish-flu-get-name/ Thank you for your time, Wordreader (talk) 21:04, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Edited to add this link - https://www.who.int/home/search?query=1918+influenza&page=1&pagesize=10&sortdir=desc&sort=relevance&default=AND&f.Countries.size=100&f.Lang.filter=en&f.RegionalSites.size=100&f.Topics.size=100&f.contenttype.size=100&f.doctype.size=101&facet.field=RegionalSites&facet.field=Topics&facet.field=doctype&facet.field=Countries&facet.field=contenttype&facet.field=Lang&tune=true&tune.0=3&tune.1=2&tune.2=2&tune.3=3&tune.4=180&tune.5=75

If we're naming 1918-20 H1N1 flu the Spanish Flu because it was first reported in Spain when it came from Kansas, America, then we should rename Covid-19 flu China-flu/Wuhan Virus because it was first reported in Wuhan, China. Hypocrite. Naming both viruses after a region/nation is super bigotted and racist and a horrible violation of WHO"s medical law. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.33.74.20 (talk) 00:45, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Articles from public health agencies such as the CDC and the WHO typically refer to it as the 1918 Influenza Pandemic or a similar term. https://www.cdc.gov/flu/pandemic-resources/1918-pandemic-h1n1.html https://www.who.int/news/item/21-05-2021-preventing-the-next-human-influenza-pandemic-celebrating-10-years-of-the-pandemic-influenza-preparedness-framework

Aspirin Poisoning heading should be renamed

to.. Aspirin Poisoning Hypothesis. The entry doesn't describe a factual event it states the researchers conclusion about a time period during the pandemic and notes that the conclusion is debated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.153.174.183 (talk) 01:43, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Proposal: Timeline reorganize

Several people have mentioned on this talk page the article lacks a clear chronology, a timeline of events. I propose we create a new subsection: History > Timeline, that reorganizes the following:

2.1 History > Timeline
    2.1.1 First wave spring 1918 (formerly 3.3 First wave spring 1918)
    2.1.2 Deadly second wave fall 1918 (formerly 3.4 Deadly second wave)
    2.1.3 Third wave 1919 (formerly 3.5 Third wave 1919)
    2.1.4 Fourth wave 1920 (formerly 3.6 Fourth wave 1920)

Please vote! On Friday June 5 I'll make this change if we have a majority. For now it's +1 :) DallasFletcher (talk) 06:33, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

There does need to be consistency throughout the article, as previously discussed. The opening sentence is saying 1918-19, while the infobox is saying 1918-20. This is due to differences over the significance of the fourth wave. This needs to be ironed out.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:52, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

We don't vote! and we certainly don't set deadlines, but I agree.Graham Beards (talk) 11:33, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! I don't know the protocol for proposing structural edits. I suggested a date because I don't want this to linger indefinitely. Let's see who else weighs in soon, of course anybody can revert my edit in the future DallasFletcher (talk) 06:32, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 June 2020

Please replace:

In Brazil, 300,000 died, including president Rodrigues Alves.

with:

In Brazil, 35,000 died, including president Rodrigues Alves.

because:

The current figure is wildly incorrect. Although there is some uncertainty, the actual figure agreed upon most sources is almost ten times lower than what is currently appearing in the Wikipedia entry. The Wikipedia entry in Portuguese has the correct figure:

"Ainda nas Américas, a pandemia resultou em, ao mínimo, 35 mil mortos no Brasil, incluindo o presidente Rodrigues Alves."[86][87] https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gripe_espanhola

Source:

Andrade, Rodrigo de Oliveira Andrade. A time of chaos: 100 years ago, Spanish flu wreaked havoc worldwide, killing 30 million people and 35,000 in Brazil alone.” Pesquisa FAPESP 266 (April 2018). Retrieved 5 June 2020. https://revistapesquisa.fapesp.br/en/a-time-of-chaos/

Arkel Buch (talk) 11:49, 5 June 2020 (UTC) Arkel Buch (talk) 11:49, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

The problem as ever is that the figures for the death toll are an estimate. In all countries, it was impossible to say exactly how many people died, leading to widely varying estimates. The figure of 300,000 deaths in Brazil is also sourced here. It's always a problem to know what to do when the sourcing varies considerably.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:02, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 June 2020

The Etymology section is a mess. Editors have made opinion contributions, rather than editorial which has nothing to do with the situation and perpetuates meta-discourse. 24.56.35.100 (talk) 05:34, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. Need a specific edit request, like change x to y. El_C 05:37, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

When did this strain of flu leave the world?

I was told, by someone who is knowledgeable about most things, that this strain of flu (the so-called "Spanish flu") was around intermittently into the 1950s before it finally disappeared altogether. Is this true? The article stops its discussion at that 4th wave in 1920. Thank you for your time, Wordreader (talk) 07:58, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

It's an interesting question, because the sourcing is pretty much agreed that the pandemic had faded out by 1920. This does not necessarily mean that there were no cases at all after that, but there would need to be sourcing discussing this.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 12:14, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

My understanding is that it never actually left and is still lingering around in the seasonal flu, just not in large numbers. I think you'll have a hard time finding reliable sources to support this. DallasFletcher (talk) 01:27, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

According to this CDC publication (which currently appears twice in our Citations and twice in our Bibliography), "almost all cases of influenza A worldwide have been caused by descendants of the 1918 virus, including drifted H1N1 viruses and reassorted H2N2 and H3N2 viruses." Some of these "substantially milder" descendant viruses persist in humans and in pigs.

It'd be great if a knowledgeable editor could incorporate the relevant information into our article, and consolidate the referencing. —24.191.101.221 (talk) 02:38, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Can't say if it's still around or if it was around intermediately, but this is the same strain of flu that caused the 2009 swine flu pandemic, H1N1. mossypiglet (talk) quote or something 00:50, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

See also: 1889–1890_pandemic § Coronavirus

Thank you all for the information. Fingers, toes, and eyes all tightly crossed that SARS-CoV-2 does not follow this flu's pattern. Wordreader (talk) 20:14, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Well one class of common cold viruses are coronaviruses too, so I'm afraid it is indeed likely to persist. But killing your hosts is not a good survival/propagation strategy so the strains that do that will fade away. It is a reasonable guess that this is what happened to the Spanish (aka Kentucky) Flu. The cold virus is very successful because it doesn't push its luck. Hosts (people) just feel a bit miserable, they still go to work, onto public transport and into shops, coughing and sneezing as they go. As bugs go, it CV-19 is not that clever compare to say Malaria. --John Maynard Friedman (talk)

Philadelphia Liberty Loans Parade

The Philadelphia Liberty Loans Parade has its own article but it is not mentioned here. This is something that should probably be added, as it was one of the most serious incidents of the pandemic.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:24, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

This was added. Given that the 2020 Summer Olympics has been postponed, it is interesting that the 1920 Summer Olympics in Antwerp, Belgium went ahead without any major concerns. As this source says, the Spanish flu pandemic was not considered to be a serious threat by the time that the sporting events began in August 1920. I thought about adding this, but wondered if it had WP:TOPIC problems.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:39, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

"Contemporarily"

I changed "also contemporarily referred to as the 1918 Flu Pandemic or H1N1 Pandemic" to "also now referred to as the 1918 Flu Pandemic or H1N1 Pandemic". "Contemporarily" (or rather, contemporaneously, the correct English) means at that time, not now. The term H1N1 did not exist at the time of ths Spanish flu. Zaslav (talk) 06:03, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 July 2020

Mortality - Around the globe: third paragraph,sentence that says; In Sweden, 34,000 did. Change did to died. 2601:581:8402:1EE0:304C:CD3D:3958:6A95 (talk) 23:17, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

 Done---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 23:35, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

First wave

Do we have any rough estimates, no matter how rough, from experts on how high the total death count of the first wave was? Our article here says that the third wave killed "several hundreds of thousands", making the third wave "still a lot deadlier than the first wave". --2003:EF:170B:F523:B4E9:E872:BD91:96ED (talk) 01:37, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

It is always going to be an estimate, because no exact records were kept. The consensus is that the second wave in late 1918 was the deadliest, and that the third wave was deadlier than the first.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:55, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

NOT 17 million but 50 million deaths

The lead quotes a single source suggesting the number of deaths might have been as low as 17 million. In truth, the more common estimate is 50 to 100 million people. I have deleted the reference to 17 million"

Dozens of reliable sources, including CDC, are saying 50 million. Some say 50 to 100 million.

• The number of deaths was estimated to be at least 50 million worldwide with about 675,000 occurring in the United States. https://www.cdc.gov/flu/pandemic-resources/1918-pandemic-h1n1.html
• National Public Radio: Its death toll is unknown but is generally considerd to be more than 50 million. https://www.npr.org/2020/04/02/826358104/the-1918-flu-pandemic-was-brutal-killing-as-many-as-100-million-people-worldwide
• US National Archives: The influenza epidemic that swept the world in 1918 killed an estimated 50 million people. https://www.archives.gov/exhibits/influenza-epidemic/
• National Geographic between 50 and 100 million people https://www.nationalgeographic.com/history/2020/03/how-cities-flattened-curve-1918-spanish-flu-pandemic-coronavirus/
• Encyclopedia Britannica as many as 40–50 million deaths. https://www.britannica.com/event/influenza-pandemic-of-1918-1919
• MedicineNet: killing an estimated 50-100 million people ... https://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=228841
• New York Times: between 50 million and 100 million people https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/17/opinion/coronavirus-1918-spanish-flu.html
• National Library of Medicine, US: caused ≈50 million deaths worldwide, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3291398/
• BBC: between 50 million and 100 million people are thought to have died. https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20200302-coronavirus-what-can-we-learn-from-the-spanish-flu

Peter K Burian (talk) 16:24, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Those are popular sources repeating the same numbers through citogenesis, but there is no reason to remove the 17 million figure (which, by the way, corresponds to a global mortality rate of roughly 1%, about the same as war-torn Europe and considerably higher than the U.S. and other less-affected regions of the globe, such as Japan and possibly China) from the range in the lede given that it is sourced to a recent (2018) academic study. Frankly, the 2005 study postulating up to 100 million deaths was something of an outlier at the time of publication relative to the numerous previous studies over decades that gave estimates ranging from 21 million to 40 million, yet its "50–100 million" range circulated over the Internet and has been widely repeated since, even though it was not believed for almost a century that Spanish flu mortality could possibly have been that high. Whether the 2005 study is correct or not, it's far from clear that repetition in mass media should be taken as an indication that its findings are the academic consensus, or that the 2018 reassessment should be excluded as a fringe viewpoint (even if it is slightly on the low side).TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 17:53, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

(I've formatted the list to make it easier to follow Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:58, 29 September 2020 (UTC))

I disagree TheTimesAreAChanging but do not want to start an edit war by reverting. Your comments are well thought-out but what sources confirms 17 million?? The sources I quoted include NOT only mass media:

• United States National Library of Medicine: caused ≈50 million deaths worldwide, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3291398/ Encyclopedia Britannica as many as 40–50 million deaths. https://www.britannica.com/event/influenza-pandemic-of-1918-1919
• MedicineNet: killing an estimated 50-100 million people ... https://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=228841
• Encyclopedia Britannica as many as 40–50 million deaths. https://www.britannica.com/event/influenza-pandemic-of-1918-1919

Peter K Burian (talk) 18:03, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

A few mass-media sources mention 17 million but the vast majority - including scientific sources - say 50+ million: https://www.google.com/search?q=1918+pandemic+17+million+deaths&rlz=1C1CHBF_enCA918CA918&oq=1918+pandemic+17+million+deaths&aqs=chrome..69i57.18148j0j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 Peter K Burian (talk) 18:05, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Your thoughts ♦IanMacM♦? Peter K Burian (talk) 18:08, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

"what sources confirms 17 million??" The 2018 reassessment can be found here; I've just been reading through it and it has a lot of useful information on death rates by country/age group where that data is available. According to the study, estimates of 50 million deaths globally approximate data from India (considered to be the hardest-hit country during the 1918–1919 pandemic), while estimates of 100 million or more assume that "there would have been many countries that had even much higher mortality rates than India," which is not supported by any available evidence. Given that Japan, the U.K., and the U.S. all had excess mortality rates of less than 1% (~0.76%-0.97%, ~0.28%-0.4%, and ~0.59-0.6%, respectively) and that "there is a discussion that China was hit mildly by the 1918–1919 pandemic," a global death rate of roughly 1% should hardly be considered "low." The data from India, moreover, contains wide variations in the excess mortality rate (ranging from a low of 0.47% to a high of 6.66% depending on the region) and given that India already had an unusually high mortality rate in 1917 and that the largest mortality increase in 1918 occurred within the 0-14 age group (which was relatively unaffected by the Spanish flu in other countries) it is likely that other factors (famine, unrelated diseases, etc.) at least partially account for the high 1918 mortality observed. The researchers perform several consistency checks, concluding: "We also show that it is important to test the theoretical feasibility of estimates (e.g., 100 million deaths), because results of such tests suggest the true estimate is very unlikely to be higher than 25 million and probably closer to our final estimate of 17.4 million deaths (1918 and 1919 combined)."TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 19:35, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

As I've said many times, all of the figures are an estimate; none are absolutely right or wrong. The typical estimate for deaths from Spanish flu is 20-50 million worldwide. This is in line with what Britannica says.[1] I've always thought that the estimate of 100 million is on the high side, but it is okay to include it as long as it is reliably sourced. But let's not have a debate that goes along the lines of "source a is better than source b".--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:49, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

• At a time when the world's population was around two billion people, a mortality rate of 1% works out at 20 million deaths. 100 million deaths would be a mortality rate of 5%, which is considerably higher than suggested by data about the mortality rate in developed countries. There is a good article about the competing claims here.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:03, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

We should go with what the vast majority of sources say, though the 17 million deaths estimate is definitely worth mentioning. For the infobox, I think that the best option for us at this point would be to either include a single range (17–100 million) or two separate ranges (17 million & 50–100 million) for the death toll. If we go with the second option, I would specify that the 17 million figure is a 2018 estimate by the American Journal of Epidemiology while the 50–100 million figure is the most widely-accepted estimate. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 20:03, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

OK, so I was cleaning up some stuff in the article and checked the refs. I couldn't find the 17 million number. Then I did finally find it and was going to change the 20 to 17, only to have an edit collision with TheTimesAreAChanging. That's fine, but I don't think we need to say it twice, "The death toll is typically estimated to have been somewhere between 20 million and 50 million, although estimates range from a conservative 17 million to a possible high of 100 million" (and the labels don't seem warranted). How about: "The death toll is is usually estimated to have been somewhere around 50 million, although estimates range from as low as 17 million to a high of 100 million"? — UncleBubba ^{( T @ C )} 00:29, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Rename Spanish Flu back to 1918-1920 H1N1 Flu to prevent racism for the sake of Spanish speaking people and Hispanics

If we're naming 1918-20 H1N1 flu the Spanish Flu because it was first reported in Spain when it came from Kansas, America, then we should rename Covid-19 flu China-flu/Wuhan Virus because it was first reported in Wuhan, China. Hypocrite. Naming both viruses after a region/nation is super bigotted and racist and a horrible violation of WHO"s medical law. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.244.83.111 (talk) 20:04, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

See Talk:Spanish_flu/Archive_3#Requested_move_15_March_2020. TBH I'm not greatly fond of the term Spanish flu, but Wikipedia has to take on board WP:COMMONNAME. BBC News still uses it.[2] The theory that it came from Kansas is not regarded as certain by academics. The term Spanish flu has stuck because it was first widely reported there at a time when countries involved in WW1 were censoring news reports.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 22:28, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Most people refer to it as Spanish flu, it is not "racist" and we don't need to rename everything retrospectively just because of political correctness. Oppashi ^Talk 12:42, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Totally agree with User:Oppashi. The historical name has been used for DECADES and should stay that way. And some anonymous Wikipedia INDIVIDUAL renaming it as "1918-1920 H1N1 Flu" is NOT his prerogative; naming important science-related events is done by the relevant scientific or international body, and not by a single person.Titus III (talk) 03:44, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

If we’re following your logic, Then we should name COVID-19 to China flu like Trump did — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.244.83.111 (talk) 13:29, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Agree with the above IP. If Zika Virus, Ebola, Hendra virus, MERS, Swine flu, et al get to keep their names, even though WHO and other's have officially stated they are either racist or inaccurate, then Wuhan Flu or China Flu should stay. Period. Else, it's political correctness and virtue signaling. Sad. 179.53.41.19 (talk) 05:19, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Nah. Only Trump called it "China flu" but MOST people (like 80-90% of them) call it "spanish flu" in almost every language, thus it is the common name of it. It is not racist just because it doesn't fit the contemporary PC agenda. Oppashi ^Talk 21:31, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

It is not racist just because it does not fit the contemporary PC agenda. It is racist because it is based on prejudice. BarryBorgia (talk) 02:23, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

No. Oppashi ^Talk 09:20, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Unsourced - pathogenic viruses become less lethal with time

"Such evolution of influenza is a common occurrence: there is a tendency for pathogenic viruses to become less lethal with time, as the hosts of more dangerous strains tend to die out."

This claim is unsourced (it is listed with source, but that source does not appear to speak on this point).

Although this is commonly believed, the best source I can find is a virologist who says "I believe that...", i.e. it is not a researched claim.

It's speculative and should be marked as such or - better yet - deleted.

Not really speculative, AFAIK: https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/news/071201_adenovirus "The idea is that there may be an evolutionary trade-off between virulence and transmission. [...] This virus does a lot of damage to the host — in other words, is highly virulent. From the virus's perspective, this would, at first, seem like a good thing; extra resources mean extra offspring, which generally means high evolutionary fitness. However, if the viral reproduction completely incapacitates the host, the whole strategy could backfire: the illness might prevent the host from going out and coming into contact with new hosts that the virus could jump to. A victim of its own success, the viral lineage could go extinct and become an evolutionary dead end. This level of virulence is clearly not a good thing from the virus's perspective. Natural selection balances this trade-off, selecting for pathogens virulent enough to produce many offspring (that are likely to be able to infect a new host if the opportunity arises) but not so virulent that they prevent the current host from presenting them with opportunities for transmission. Where this balance is struck depends, in part, on the virus's mode of transmission. [...]" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Extremophile (talk • contribs) 14:50, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Is Spanish flu virus no more aggressive than ordinary flu?

"Scientists offer several possible explanations for the high mortality rate of the 1918 influenza pandemic. Some analyses have shown the virus to be particularly deadly because it triggers a cytokine storm, which ravages the stronger immune system of young adults.[7] In contrast, a 2007 analysis of medical journals from the period of the pandemic found that the viral infection was no more aggressive than previous influenza strains.[8][9] Instead, malnourishment, overcrowded medical camps and hospitals, and poor hygiene, all exacerbated by the recent war, promoted bacterial superinfection. This superinfection killed most of the victims, typically after a somewhat prolonged death bed.[10][11]"

Concerning this sentence and the following two sentences: "In contrast, a 2007 analysis of medical journals from the period of the pandemic found that the viral infection was no more aggressive than previous influenza strains.[8][9]"

I wonder if this is true. Is there a source for the 2007 analysis? Some who died around the world were apparently not directly affected by these wartime hardships, and were in good health before being precipitously felled by this flu. Look at this article, which gives an example of women playing cards and dying overnight:

• https://virus.stanford.edu/uda

I looked briefly at the two references given [8][9], which are medical journal articles from 1919 describing the pathology of the Spanish flu, but did not immediately see them declare that this was no more virulent than ordinary flu. On the contrary, accounts I have read describe a grim and rapid deterioration that does not sound like the ordinary flu.

• https://www.history.com/topics/world-war-i/1918-flu-pandemic
• https://www.history.com/news/spanish-flu-second-wave-resurgence

These last two sources mention a mutated virus that was especially deadly to victims of the second wave of the pandemic, in the fall of 2018. I am not a pathologist, so I may have missed something in the medical journal articles – it would be nice to have an expert comment on them in this discussion blog.

It's possible that the mere fact of the Spanish flu being more contagious than the ordinary flu (if that is true) combined with wartime hardships led to an overwhelming of the healthcare system and more death from associated causes. I wonder if there are previous and later accounts of death by ordinary flu among susceptible populations, and with possible deficiencies in healthcare provision, that match those described for Spanish flu.

I just found this article saying a 2008 study of Spanish flu tissue samples show that a majority died of bacterial infections occurring after infection by the flu virus.

• https://academic.oup.com/jid/article/198/7/962/2192118

But this does not mean that the virus was less virulent. That's like saying it was really lack of oxygen (hypoxia) that killed the victim of a gunshot wound, not the bullet. Deardavid7 (talk) 08:16, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Economic Effects of the 1918 Influenza Pandemic

• Garrett, Thomas A. (2007-12-12). "Economic Effects of the 1918 Influenza Pandemic" (PDF). Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis. Retrieved November 23, 2020.

24.7.104.84 (talk) 22:00, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Do we...

add details on the COVID-19 pandemic in the Spanish flu#Comparison with other pandemics header? Marc Raphael Felix (talk) 10:25, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes, when we have the numbers. In about ten years from now, for a guess? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 10:45, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Is this answerable?

(Are the answers on another wiki page?)

How did the epidemic subside?

Did susceptible (humans) die out; or did the world develop immunity?

Did the virus attenuate?

Does the virus still exist in the population (in 2020); (if so) how much; and is it still as deadly?

MBG02 (talk) 13:56, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

See Talk:Spanish_flu#When_did_this_strain_of_flu_leave_the_world? above. It is hard to give exact answers to these questions, but after 1920 the virus is believed to have mutated into less virulent forms that are still around today.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:14, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I posted that before I searched Google.

There's a bit here: (amp.abc.net.au/article/12596954) and other sites.

Worth including? https://www.history.com/topics/world-war-i/1918-flu-pandemic says: In 2008, researchers announced what made the 1918 flu so deadly: a group of three genes [...] that cleared the way for bacterial pneumonia.

I was expecting there'd be (easily understood) textbooks on it: especially the “herd immunity” and “attenuation” aspects. And that that would be (mentioned and summarised) in this article.

MBG02 (talk) 17:29, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Covid-19 comparison

Given the current situation, many of us would be wondering about past pandemics. A comparison to the SARS-cov-2 virus outbreak this year may be an idea as an addition to the table comparing the 1918 pandemic to various other coronavirus outbreaks. Mr anonymous username (talk) 20:08, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

See the thread Talk:Spanish_flu#Do_we... above. It's too early to make exact comparisons between Covid-19 and other pandemics, but the article COVID-19 pandemic death rates by country has up to date figures for death rates in different countries, which vary considerably.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 22:59, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

PS: Some other factors (in spike, then subsidence); weakened population due to War; crowding (civilians and military); and over-use (overdosing) of (the newly created) aspirin.

The 1st is in this article; 2nd is alluded to; and the 3rd is not here (but is on google). MBG02 (talk) 15:21, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

US Deaths in final four months of 1918 misleading

Under History- Deadly Second Wave, the cited CDC report, ref 37, only has deaths for "Registered" states, only 24 of the 48 states in the union at that time. See page 10 of the cited article for discussion of which states were registered. Of the 30 registered, only the 24 were used in the table for the other 6 didn't have comparable historic information. Not sure if there is a more accurate number of if the citation should be contextualized to 24 states. 18:01, 9 December 2020 (UTC)74.62.128.66 (talk)

Edit request on police state and liberal fascism

Remove “Liberal Fascist state under the presidency of Woodrow Wilson” in the “American Flu” subsection 2603:6010:E742:1F00:F3:2E6E:DFE8:2114 (talk) 03:01, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

I was looking at this too. The link to the book Liberal Fascism doesn't seem appropriate for the context, and describing the US during WWI as a fascist state seems like a stretch. Eric684 (talk) 03:30, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

That change was made just today. The previous wording used the same Wikilink (to Liberal Fascism) to describe Wilson's approach as a police state. It is well sourced. Which wording do you prefer? HiLo48 (talk) 03:33, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Let's be careful here, part (or most?) of the description of the US under Wilson ("liberal fascism" and "police state") came from a piece in The Spectator, which the WP Reliable Sources Noticeboard list describes as an editorial/opinion publication:

The Spectator primarily consists of opinion pieces and these should be judged by WP:RSOPINION and WP:NEWSBLOG.

I'm not at all sure information obtained solely from it can be considered reliably sourced. I'm wondering if the entire addition can be allowed to remain. — UncleBubba ^{( T @ C )} 05:05, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

I remove the Liberal Fascism commentary since it is not entirely necessary for the point it is making. With the help of two more sources, I rewrote the police state commentary. Lovewhatyoudo (talk) 06:44, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

I have reverted this addition consisting of low-quality op-eds and polemics as a tendentious WP:COATRACK largely unrelated to coverage of the 1918–1919 pandemic in academic sources and medical journals. Lovewhatyoudo should familiarize himself with Wikipedia's content policies and sourcing guidelines, rather than scraping the bottom of the barrel with The Spectator (a conservative-leaning opinion tabloid), a blogpost from the Mises Institute (a fringe libertarian think tank), and even World Travel Market (which appears to lack notability and was likely selected because it was one of the only results that came up when Lovewhatyoudo googled "American flu," his newly-created redirect for this article). All of Lovewhatyoudo's sources are opinion articles of some variety or another, all are dated 2020, and not one is authored by a subject-matter expert (except presumably the University of Michigan source, but that seems to be misrepresented and is not used to support any of the main claims in the section); these sources are primarily focused on the COVID-19 pandemic and are using the dispute over the origins and name of the "Spanish flu" to make political arguments regarding the current pandemic. Now, Max Boot may very well be right to say that "Trump can't blame China for his own coronavirus failures," to quote the title of one of the more reputable op-eds produced by Lovewhatyoudo, but that is not the type of sourcing that should be featured so prominently in this article. I would advise against reinstating this disputed content absent a clear consensus for inclusion.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 08:16, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Criticism accepted. Complete overhaul of sourcing and relocate selected sentences to more relevant paragraphs on US responses rather than on etymology. -- love.wh 11:08, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

@Lovewhatyoudo: I agree with TheTimesAreAChanging that this article is a discussion of a flu pandemic over a century ago, and while there are some parallels to current political machinations going on, the info you're attempting to insert seems a bit POV. I am also trying to be really cautious about this article, since (see the top of the Talk page) discretionary sanctions are in effect (for exactly these reasons). This article doesn't need to be colored by Trump, any American political party, or the current response to the COVID-19 pandemic (or lack thereof), so let's discuss your proposed changes here, first. Cheers! — UncleBubba ^{( T @ C )} 00:23, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Your revert on American flu's etymology led to "collateral damage" on the paragraph on the US response (Under "Response" paragraph) which mostly citing professional history sources in 2005 and before. As you have mentioned no issues regarding that paragraph, I will put it back. -- love.wh 00:39, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

@Lovewhatyoudo: No, there was no collateral damage; my revert restored the original text which, as I mentioned above, was my intent. Please discuss your proposed additions here before changing the article text. — UncleBubba ^{( T @ C )} 03:14, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Sourcing on the claim

Here is proposed sourcing of the police state claim in question. -- love.wh 03:33, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

“ The Sedition Act of 1918 made it punishable by 20 years in jail to “utter, print, write or publish any disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive language about the government of the United States”, hence few people contradict the official line on pandemic control. All in all, the Wilson administration response was characterized as a police state. ”

Sources

"...a virtual police state..." and "...the closest the US ever came to becoming a full police state..." are still NOT a police state. While I agree that the Wilson administration definitely pushed the US in an authoritarianism direction during the war, characterizing it as a "police state" seems like unnecessary rhetoric for this article. Eric684 (talk) 16:07, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Not only is this content lacking support from multiple high-quality reliable sources, but also the very notion that the U.S. adopted "police state" measures during World War I smacks of a POV WP:COATRACK at best only tangentially relevant to this article.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 18:36, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Your objection to the sourcing of the claim is well founded. Besides, that claim is indeed not at all necessary for the point it is trying to make. The claim should not be reinstated. -- love.wh 01:47, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Rewrite the response of the US media and the authorities

First draft

I propose to add a separated paragraph on the response of the US media and the authorities under a new subheading "Wartime censorship" under the current section "Response". -- love.wh 03:33, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

“ When it first appeared, officials routinely insisted it was only ordinary influenza; as the epidemic exploded, officials almost daily assured the public that the worst was over. In 1918, John Dill Robertson, the Chicago Public Health Commissioner said, “It is our duty to keep the people from fear. Worry kills more people than the epidemic.” Newspapers across the US pushed out similar messages like “Don’t Panic” and “Don’t Let Flu Frighten You to Death”. In 1917, Senator Hiram Johnson (R-Cal.) made the since-famous observation that “The first casualty when war comes is truth.” The false reassurances given by the authorities and the press destroyed trust, "they were assisted—not challenged—by the press, which although not censored in a technical sense cooperated fully with the government's propaganda machine”, The Wilson administration used the pandemic as a justification for the continued US censorship at her home front during World War I lest it be seen as unpatriotic or to be undermining the US home front. The Sedition Act of 1918 punished up to 20 years in jail if one “utter, print, write or publish any disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive language about the government of the United States”, hence few people contradict the official line on pandemic control. ”

Sources

Some thoughts:

• The word "exploded" is hyperbole; something like "expanded" or "accelerated" would be much more encyclopedic (and accurate).
• After reviewing several pieces published by The Spectator, I see why there is a cautionary note on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard list. Just because the contributor feels that the disease should be renamed "American Flu" doesn't mean the opinion should be published in an encyclopedia. The reference from The Spectator does not belong in this article.
• "Destroyed trust" is a pretty sweeping statement. As written (without a modifier), it's telling the reader that ALL trust was destroyed. I don't believe that for a second. How about "damaged citizens' trust in Public Health authorities" (assuming you can find a reliable source for that)?
• You misstated the penalty section of the so-called Sedition Act. The law provides for fines and confinement up to 20 years.
• The statement "the US almost slid into authoritarianism" is pretty sweeping. Granted, Wilson did lean that way, but was the risk really that high?

Remember that this is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper or tabloid. We need to report the facts ("Disease X is contagious and has resulted in death in 2.6% of the patients contracting it. So far, research indicates it spreads more rapidly than the common cold, but not as quickly as SARS."), as opposed to drawing conclusions about them ("Disease X spreads from person to person like wildfire, resulting in gruesome deaths everywhere it goes, and airborne spread means that it's going everywhere!").

A while back, I read something in a Wikipedia essay that stuck with me because it's proven true time after time: "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary sourcing." I think most—if not all—these suggested additions fall under that umbrella. — UncleBubba ^{( T @ C )} 17:44, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Second draft

I've taken into account the comments of @UncleBubba above and produce a second draft, which is entirely a direct rewrite of Barry 2005 (a US medical professor's account presented at the Institute of Medicine), supplemented by Maryon-Davis 2014 (himself a chair of advisors of a UK health agency). All your concerns in the renditioning are direct wording from these two professionals. I overhaul the footnotes for everyone interested to check out the quotes. When multiple citations are offered for the same sentence, always check against Barry 2005 first.

I propose the following to be added as a separated heading "United States" under a new subheading "Wartime response and censorship" under the current section "Response".

Chief source (US): Barry, John M. (2005). "1918 Revisited: Lessons and Suggestions for Further Inquiry". The Threat of Pandemic Influenza: Are We Ready? Workshop Summary. National Academies Press. ISBN 0309095042. This book is a summary of expert opinions presented at the Forum on Microbial Threats held by the Institute of Medicine on 16-17 June 2004 {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |1=, |2=, and |3= (help)CS1 maint: ref duplicates default (link)

Supplementary source (UK): Maryon-Davis, Alan (2014-03-18). "Into the valley of death…". Index on Censorship. 43 (1). {{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |1= and |2= (help)CS1 maint: ref duplicates default (link)

-- love.wh 04:08, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

“ In Autumn 1918, during World War I, there have been calls to stop US troopships to France until the epidemic ended as the troops were getting infected during voyage. "It is impossible to state how many soldiers the ocean voyages killed, especially when one tries to count those infected aboard ship who died later on shore," however, the call to stop the shipment failed upon the repeated objection of Peyton March, the US Army Chief of Staff, against the urge of acting army surgeon general Charles Richard and against the concern of President Woodrow Wilson.

To avoid damaging morale and the U.S. effort at her home front during World War I, local officials almost universally told half-truths or outright lies regarding the epidemic . When it first appeared, officials routinely insisted it was only ordinary influenza; as the epidemic accelerated, officials almost daily assured the public that the worst was over. The idea “fear kills more than the disease” became a slogan put forward by the authorities and the media in cities nationwide, with such views most notably uttered by John Dill Robertson, the Chicago Public Health Commissioner. The false reassurances given by the authorities and the self-censored press systematically destroyed trust, “they were assisted—not challenged—by the press, which although not censored in a technical sense cooperated fully with the government's propaganda machine” (i.e. Committee on Public Information, CPI). Few people contradicted the official line on epidemic control, with a prominent reason being the rigid control imposed by the CPI and the newly passed Sedition Act of 1918, which punished up to 20 years in jail if one “utter, print, write or publish any disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive language about the government of the United States”.

”

References

Rewrite the role of WWI in etymology

I proposed to rewrite the role of WWI in etymology paragraph. I am glad to have found a much needed Spanish academic voice on etymology. -- love.wh 03:33, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

“ To avoid hurting morale, the press in countries fighting in the World War I did not mention the outbreak even in the nonlethal first wave. Spain was not at war and therefore its press was free to report the illness there, so the pandemic became known as the Spanish flu. Widely-spread stories of the grave illness of King Alfonso XIII in particular created a false impression of Spain as especially hard hit. "American flu" was first used by French journalists as the virus' origin was believed (and still now) to be American solders, but the French phased out the term after being advised it would hamper the US-France alliance in WWI. ”

References

Most of this looks to me to be rehashing info already included in the section, with the exception of the last sentence. I would support its addition to the article since there currently is no mention of the French use of the term "American Flu". However, I would suggest leaving out the "...(and still now...)" portion since the actual origin of the virus has yet to be conclusively determined, and IMO this gives undue weight to the American source theory. Eric684 (talk) 17:45, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 December 2020

Please remove the term waves, viruses do not come in 'waves'. As per this paper written in April. https://www.cebm.net/covid-19/covid-19-epidemic-waves/ Jobrads (talk) 17:59, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

•  Not done: Wikipedia articles reflect the terms used in reliable sources. The terms "first wave" and "second wave" are commonly used, eg here on CNN. Also, per WP:MEDRS, it doesn't help that the cite given above has a footnote saying "Disclaimer: the article has not been peer-reviewed; it should not replace individual clinical judgement and the sources cited should be checked. The views expressed in this commentary represent the views of the authors and not necessarily those of the host institution."--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:21, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 January 2021

Calling the 1918 pandemic the "Spanish flu" in plain XXI century is comical. This should be renamed as the "1918 Influenza pandemic, wrongly named Spanish Flu." 83.58.171.203 (talk) 12:21, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

•  Not done: Please see Talk:Spanish_flu/Archive_3#Requested_move_15_March_2020 and the various other talk page discussions about this. Page names can usually only be changed with a consensus after a discussion.-♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 12:37, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

How/why did it end?

Am I missing something (it's a long article) or does the article fail to say anything about how and why the "Spanish flu" (no slur intended) ended? Did we develop herd immunity, or was it some pharma innovation, or what? If it doesn't say anything about that, the article is incomplete. If we still don't know how it ended, the article should say that. HandsomeMrToad (talk) 16:29, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

See the threads Talk:Spanish_flu#When_did_this_strain_of_flu_leave_the_world? and Talk:Spanish_flu#Is_this_answerable? above. It doesn't make sense to assume that Influenza A virus subtype H1N1 magically vanished off the face of the earth after 1920, so one of the most likely explanations is that it mutated into less virulent forms. As for sourcing, this says "The impact of this pandemic was not limited to 1918–1919. All influenza A pandemics since that time, and indeed almost all cases of influenza A worldwide (excepting human infections from avian viruses such as H5N1 and H7N7), have been caused by descendants of the 1918 virus, including "drifted" H1N1 viruses and reassorted H2N2 and H3N2 viruses. The latter are composed of key genes from the 1918 virus, updated by subsequently incorporated avian influenza genes that code for novel surface proteins, making the 1918 virus indeed the "mother" of all pandemics." This goes some way towards answering the oft-asked question "What happened to this strain of flu after 1920?" This is already mentioned as a theory in the article, although as ever with Spanish flu, it is only a theory and other possibilities are available.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:19, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Camp Greene?

The lead states that the disease was seen "months earlier at Camp Greene", but the body contains no text whatever about Camp Greene, let alone more details. The cited source is privately published, making it little better than WP:OR and not a WP:reliable source, so for now I have tagged it as {{better source needed|for something so important, a privately published source is just not good enough}} and {{dubious|Camp Greene}}. Is there any convincing reason why this statement should not be deleted? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 15:43, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Compare that to a far more convincingly cited statement in the body (in #First wave of early 1918):

The disease had been observed in Haskell County, Kansas in January 1918, prompting local doctor Loring Miner to warn the US Public Health Service's academic journal.

I'm even more convinced that we should delete the Camp Greene reference. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 15:52, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

The dubious content continues: the text "The first observations of illness and mortality were documented in the United States (in Kansas and New York City, " conflicts with cited text in #Second wave that says that NYC saw its first fatality in September. Something seriously amiss here. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:00, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

WP:LEAD says that the lead should summarise body content. We have a whole section, #Potential origins, which contains properly cited studies about its potential origin, which is not reflected in the lead. Instead we have dubiously cited content that is not reflective of the body. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:12, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

This content was added to the lede last November by the author of the self-published book in question, Santiago Mata, using his (rarely-active) single-purpose account User:Centroeuropa, which previously cited Mata's own self-published website to make a similar claim, apparently as part of a nationalistic effort to avenge Spain's honor which has been tarnished by the (admittedly erroneous) English-language common name "Spanish flu." Apart from all of the other issues with the source, an author highlighting his own self-published research as especially significant in the lede of a highly-visible article raises legitimate conflict of interest concerns. Accordingly, and in line with John Maynard Friedman's observations above, I have removed this content from the lede.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 20:27, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

References

film: by Andrew Thompson (dir): The Flu That killed 50 Million.

GB, bbc, 2018, documentation, 49 Min.

• imdb - original, engl. Version, 49 min.

Cast & Crew

Wendy Barclay - as Herself, professor, Imperial College London

Catharine Arnold - Herself, author of "Pandemic 1918: The Story of the Deadliest Influenza in History"

Mark Harrison - Himself, professor, University of Oxford

Mark Honigsbaum - Himself, lecturer at City University of London

Michael Bresalier - Himself, lecturer in the history of medicine, Swansea University

Paul Birchard as William Welch

Iain Davie ~ Ernest Gibson

Jeremy Edwards - Basil Hood

Kenny Fullwood ~ Alexander Jamieson

Amy Kennedy ~ Katherine Garvin

Hannah MacPhail ~ Ada Berry

Isabel McClelland ~ Mary Dobson

Brian Pettifer ~ Victor Vaughan

Allan Tall - James Niven

Anita Vettesse ~ Catherine MacFie

Finlay Welsh ~ Arthur Newsholme

Christopher McPhillips ~ Doctor's Auxiliary

Production: Richard Bright, Andrew Thompson (director)

Kamera: Tom Hayward

Quousqueta (talk) 00:47, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

RfC COVID-19 comparison

@Mr anonymous username, Ianmacm, Marc Raphael Felix, and John Maynard Friedman: I also think that a comparison to the SARS-COV-2 virus outbreak is valuable and it will be appreciated by our readers. So I propose to add the following sentence to Comparison with other pandemics section. The numbers will be updated automatically, as it does in Covid article :

The COVID-19 pandemic, as of 10 March 2023, has left more than 676 million cases, with more than 6.88 million deaths.

We could use WHO's COVID website as a source for the citation. What do you think ? Alexcalamaro (talk) 07:09, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

No opposition to my proposal, so I go ahead. Alexcalamaro (talk) 12:46, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Alexcalamaro That section seems a bit WP:OFFTOPIC and disorganised / unclear — it just isn’t about the Spanish Flu, so why are these bits here? It seems an ad hoc random pick of disease outbreaks thru history without apparent basis of selections nor reason to be here. I’d think it better to delete the section added at the end of June 2020. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 07:46, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi Markbassett. Maybe you are right and this section it is a bit WP:OFFTOPIC, so I would not strongly oppose its deletion. But when I was reading the article for the first time I found the section interesting and useful, specially to put that pandemic in perspective. Could be a good idea to gather more opinions before deleting it... Alexcalamaro (talk) 15:20, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Alexcalamaro The disorganised / unclear nature of going offtopic seems where the section is becoming a problem, it seems an incomplete and/or undefined table with random side remarks. If the intent were stated in article that might correct it, or we can just delete it as not useful to the topic. Currently many epidemics are in a table which has no lead text explaining why it’s here or what it is other than whataboutism and then a couple have now been put not in table but instead narrative place of prominence as lead text. If instead there was lead text saying ‘for comparison, here are the major flu outbreaks in history’ or ‘here are the other major diseases of the 19th and 20th century’ that would define why the table is here and what belongs. Otherwise, if this is just to compare to others and play which disease is worse ... That’s a wider topic comparison and I note many other epidemics are missing, both recent flu outbreaks and large non-flu epidemics. e.g. smallpox exterminating first nations. So ... it is mildly interesting, but seems something to remove or fix. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 12:09, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Markbassett, after thinking a little more, I must agree with you: if we keep adding other pandemics (as smallpox) the section will grow to infinite. So I think the best is keep it within the boundaries of flu diseases. I have deleted propose to delete the other pandemics and left only the flu related, with a brief introductory phrase. Alexcalamaro (talk) 07:35, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

"it attacked the socioeconomic status of people"

I find this sentence a bit confusing: "The influenza did not discriminate who was infected, indeed it attacked the socioeconomic status of people." Should it say e.g. "discriminate in who was infected"? What does it mean "it attacked the socioeconomic status of people"? It's also not great that two sentences in that section start with "But, [...]", it being suboptimal to start a sentence with a conjunction and weirder to then add a comma. (However, changing "but" to "however" would resolve that.) -sche (talk) 05:27, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

It's a rather woolly and unencyclopedic phrase sourced here. The whole Newfoundland section is based on this source. The standard of the prose throughout this section isn't very good and needs tidying up.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:47, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

• By the way, full access to this source about Newfoundland has a WP:PAYWALL, so it requires at least $16 to read it in full. This isn't ideal, as I wanted to read the cite to check for accuracy, but can't as I'm not paying for it.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:50, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 April 2021

The estimate death toll is shown as ~500 million, whereas in the given source they state those numbers to be ~50 million. 87.196.72.203 (talk) 23:35, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

The infobox says that there were 500 cases, not 500 fatalities, and that matches what the source says. RudolfRed (talk) 01:50, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 April 2021

Hi, today we are living in a crusade against racism of any kind. BlackLivesMatter and StopAsianHate are common words of those of us that do defend everyone as equal and discrimination because of skin colour, religion, look or nationality or country of origin isn´t accepted in today´s world. The pandemic COVID-19 showed that even racism can get into a virus by some bigoted people like the ex-president Trump and many others calling this virus "Chinese virus". It creates a seed of hate for no reason, it is racist and discriminatory and simply unacceptable. It stigmatizes a population with the name of the country by associating it to the virus. On that same token, I have to say that as a European, a citizen of Spain; the Spanish flu creates the same unacceptable racist sentiment with even a worse identification. The nationals of that country "Spanish" in the name of something as bad as a virus. Not only it didn't originate in Spain but in the US and was discovered in Europe prior in countries like the UK and France, but because Spain never participated in any of the WW, by virtue of being neutral; when the King of Spain got the Influenza and made it to the papers all countries miserably jumped to name that pandemic after the nationals of Spain. The fact that Wikipedia article explains that "kind-of" very deep in the article (which not everyone gets that far to find the truth) doesn't make it right to continue to name Influenza "The Spanish Flu".

Instead, I propose "Influenza Pandemic 1918" and in parenthesis (aka The Spanish Flu). This will make the search of the article be more targeted to the virus itself without having to put the nationality of a country together with the name of a virus. Right now the way it is, is derogatory. I do know that a lot of sources and books written (we don´t know if they can be called -in-good-faith) still call this wrongly but If movements BlackLivesMatter and StopAsianHate are here to change things for the better any other racism or probability of using it against certain collective also needs to be corrected. Racism is wrong, including in the case of people from Spain. I am sure Wikipedia shares these values as well.

Because remember that if we accept that the virus wasn´t Chinese, there cannot be something called Spanish flu. Jonbra (talk) 16:29, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Please get consensus for an edit before you request it. We name articles based on the WP:CommonName. Thanks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:38, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Please read WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. We are not here to correct great wrongs. Wikipedia reports on the current status; it doesn't attempt to change the status. Wikipedia will not change the name of the flu until the reliable sources do so. Binksternet (talk) 16:41, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

This has been discussed various times, see the talk page archive and Talk:Spanish_flu#Rename_Spanish_Flu_back_to_1918-1920_H1N1_Flu_to_prevent_racism_for_the_sake_of_Spanish_speaking_people_and_Hispanics above.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:25, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

I think that this will evolve over time. Although Spanish flu is the WP:COMMONNAME, that policy also states Editors should also consider all five of the criteria for article titles ... These criteria are recognizability, naturalness, precision, conciseness, & consistency. I would argue that the current article title is inconsistent with naming conventions. For instance, German measles redirects to Rubella, Spanish pox redirects to Syphilis, & Chinese coronavirus redirects to a disambiguation page that links to the more medically accurate article names. Yes, one can cite multiple geographic eponyms, but as of 2015, the World Health Organization issued guidelines discouraging the naming of diseases after "geographic locations", "people’s names", "species/class of animal or food", "cultural, population, industry or occupational references" or "terms that incite undue fear".

I think that it is high time that evaluate medical article titles using the guidelines at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles#Article titles (shortcut WP:MEDTITLE). It is clear that common name is not the only criteria to used for diseases. For example, heart attack redirects to myocardial infarction. There is no need to sacrifice precision & consistency for problematic recognizability when redirects are cheap. Peaceray (talk) 19:50, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

References

Logical inconsistency, self contradictory sentence

Under the #9 heading - 'Gender mortality gap' the last sentence of the first paragraph is logically inconsistent ie) it makes no sense. Spyglasses (talk) 19:42, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be a contradiction."Life expectancy dropped in males during the pandemic but then increased two years after the pandemic" is totally self-consistant. Life expectancy fluctuates sometimes. It is entirely possible for the life expectancy (the average age of death) to decrease during a time of disease and war and then increase in subsequent years. I don't see how it doesn't make sense. JMM12345 (talk) 15:32, 12 July 2021 (UTC)JMM12345

JMM12345, the last sentence of the first paragraph reads: "The death rate of tuberculosis in females increased significantly and would continue to decline until post-pandemic." It is indeed unclear what information that sentence is supposed to convey.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 16:49, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 21 July 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Article titles are decided according to the Wikipedia:Article titles policy and its associated guidelines. To summarise arguments:

• In support of the move, editors linked to authoritative sources (WHO, CDC, NIH, Britannica) and based their argument on the name used by those sources. They also said the name was used in academic sources, without evidence but the claim was not disputed by opposers. Some supporters also argued it was a more clear/descriptive/accurate title.
• The opposes centred around WP:COMMONNAME. Very few opposers cited any evidence. Those that did later in the discussion were Robert Brockway (linking to Google Trends) and Amakuru (linking to Google Ngrams) showing a preference for "Spanish flu". A lot of editors cited "the reasons in the last RM" as their rationale. That seems to be this discussion, although it's not immediately clear to me what evidence that refers to.

Overall, with ~65 editors participating, 70% opposed to the move, and the opposes growing in proportion to supports, there is clearly strong numerical opposition against the move. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:18, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

---

Spanish flu → 1918 flu pandemic – The current name may have been more popular in the past, but it is now obsolete slang. If you do a web search on "Spanish Flu" the current WP:RS results largely come back as 1918 flu, or some variation thereof. The U.S. CDC, NIH, and National Archives have all standardized on this form, as has Britannica. There was nothing Spanish about the flu, except that Spain was more transparent about their observations, while combatants in WW-I were withholding info for military reasons, so Spanish flu is not a truly descriptive title. The article is mostly about the pandemic, not the flu virus per se. The date is even more relevant context now with the passage of more than a century's time. So it's time for Wikipedia to move on too. Dhaluza (talk) 03:37, 21 July 2021 (UTC) —Relisting. Jack Frost (talk) 12:17, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

• Support – The reasons given above are excellent. HiLo48 (talk) 03:50, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

• Support: I am tempted to support this, despite saying on numerous occasions in the past that Spanish flu is the WP:COMMONNAME in news media articles (which it is). The opening sentence could say "The 1918 flu pandemic, also known as Spanish flu".--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:09, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

  Yes, but I think WP:NPOVNAME point 2: "Colloquialisms where far more encyclopedic alternatives are obvious" is particularly applicable in this case, e.g. https://www.britannica.com/event/influenza-pandemic-of-1918-1919 (but we should use the more concise version "1918 flu pandemic" per WP:CRITERIA) Dhaluza (talk) 10:01, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

• Support for reasons already given (and the current name is not even accurate, as explained in the article). I too have changed my mind on this one. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 09:19, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose There is nothing unencyclopedic about "Spanish flu", as the title reflects the historical name of the illness, even if it probably did not originate in Spain. It should not be changed to a less common name in an attempt to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. An explanation of why it recieved the name within the article is good enough._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 10:28, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

  Note that per WP:COMMONNAME we use the common name in an encyclopedic register. Yes, "Spanish flu" may be the most common historical name, but in current usage it's obsolete and becoming archaic, like the Vapours (mental condition). It's not about righting past wrongs, it's about reflecting the evolving consensus. Dhaluza (talk) 11:46, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

  I should clarify, that I am referring to current usage in authoritative sources that know what they are talking about, e.g. WHO CDC NIH. Sources that are not authoritative and just churning historical content do still commonly use "Spanish," but we are not stuck following their lead for historical purposes. Dhaluza (talk) 13:51, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

  Although official, scientific, birth, original, or trademarked names are often used for article titles, the term or name most typically used in reliable sources is generally preferred. Other encyclopedias are among the sources that may be helpful in deciding what titles are in an encyclopedic register, as well as what names are most frequently used. All it says is that encylopedias are among the sources used, not that encyclopedias are the gold standard for article titles.  Bait30  ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 03:36, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

  OK, can you cite a current conflicting source using Spanish flu in encyclopedic register? Dhaluza (talk) 12:35, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

• Comment: WP:GOOGLE shows that "Spanish flu" is still used widely, but what it doesn't show is that most modern medical textbooks and academic works prefer "1918 flu pandemic". This is why I've changed my mind.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:42, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. It is utterly untrue that Spanish flu is "now obsolete slang" or "obsolete and becoming archaic". Accurate or not, it is still the WP:COMMONNAME for the pandemic. Comparing it to the vapours is frankly laughable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:42, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
• Support there's been a clear shift in the last year—blindlynx (talk) 13:57, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
• Strong oppose. We went through this a year ago and the result was to not move. My opinion stays the same. (We could move it to 1918 Spanish flu pandemic or similar to make it clear this page is about the pandemic, but "Spanish flu" in some form remains the common name.) O.N.R. ^(talk) 14:43, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose, per common name, most familiar name, and discussion. Randy Kryn (talk) 20:43, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

• Now agree that 1918-1920 Spanish flu pandemic works as well. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:46, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

• Support. Though Spanish flu has some historical momentum and still outnumbers 1918 flu on my Google search results (only by 2-to-1), the latter is gaining ground for substantive and social reasons. Including the year in the title is also more objectively correct, which helps to trump the progressively weakening WP:Common argument. Separately, I support having the word pandemic in the title as being more descriptive of what's in the article. —RCraig09 (talk) 21:48, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

—Supplemental: Use of the year in the name by WHO, CDC, and NIH as linked above, is additionally convincing. It's time to change. —RCraig09 (talk) 21:56, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

• Support 1918 flu pandemic or 1918 Spanish flu pandemic. The article is about the pandemic itself, not the illness, so it should follow the same convention as Swine influenza/2009 swine flu pandemic and COVID-19/COVID-19 pandemic. Rublov (talk) 00:27, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
• Support per nom. The word "pandemic" should 100% be added to the title (as the article's about the pandemic, not the disease), and it seems academic works now prefer "1918 flu pandemic" then the increasingly archaic "Spanish flu [pandemic]". Paintspot Infez (talk) 00:36, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
• Alternate proposal: 1918-1920 Spanish flu pandemic, the years consistent with entries at Category:Cholera pandemics and many other such pages as 1957–1958 influenza pandemic. Start and end years seem to be the Wikipedia style (written or unwritten?) and the present Covid pandemic will likely be renamed at some point for consistency. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:57, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

  I think that title is unnecessarily specific. The problem with the current "Spanish flu" title is that it's insufficiently specific. What would a child or naïve reader who has never heard of this expect to find under this title? Adding 1918 tells a lot, i.e. this is about an early 20th century historical event. Adding pandemic makes it clear this is about the worldwide spread of the disease, and that flu refers to influenza disease, not the virus per se. Adding -1920 doesn't add much, because we know pandemics generally last a few years. And Britanica calls it the Influenza pandemic of 1918–19 so the end year is not definitive. I would also argue that in the alternative "1918 Spanish flu pandemic" the adjective "Spanish" adds more confusion than clarity. Yes, if you have heard of "Spanish flu" it will be familiar, but if you have not heard of it, it doesn't help. Dhaluza (talk) 12:57, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

  Full years and duration for similar page consistency across the site, 1918-1920 per sources and language used on the page (see the article's second sentence and Spanish flu#Fourth wave of 1920), and 'Spanish' for the common name. A combo which will put Britannica to shame and cause them to fill their page with more pop-up ads. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:47, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

• Comment: if you search "Spanish flu definition" there is no clear consensus in dictionary definitions whether it primarily refers to the virus or the pandemic. So I have created the Spanish flu (disambiguation) page. I believe Spanish flu should redirect there. Dhaluza (talk) 10:53, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME and ONR. This is becoming repetitive now. The current name is the correct one.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:09, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Is "Chinese Flu" the correct name for the current pandemic? HiLo48 (talk) 01:55, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

No, because it's not the common name. The common name is Coronavirus or COVID-19. PaintTrash (talk) 11:36, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose - I originally nominated this page to be moved, but my opinion has changed since then. I think that most reliable sources will continue to use the current name per WP:COMMONNAME. However, if reliable sources call it by that name in the future, I'd be willing to support it in the future. Interstellarity (talk) 12:36, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

  I think the most reliable current sources are using some variation of "1918 flu pandemic" in the present. Here again are the links cited above: WHO CDC NIH Britannica Dhaluza (talk) 13:08, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

• Support. In the past, I would have opposed this. But the opposition above has shown close to zero evidence that the current title is the common name at this point in time. Also, as pointed out above by Rublov, this article is primarily about the pandemic and not the actual flu virus involved. Perhaps if there was a separate article on the virus it would be more appropriate to use the name "Spanish flu" for it, but the pandemic article is different. -- Calidum 13:55, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

  Yes, many assertions of WP:COMMONNAME without evidence, ignoring the subsequent section WP:POVTITLE which creates an additional burden of proof for using "Non-neutral but common names," i.e. to show "the subject of an article is referred to mainly by a single common name, as evidenced through usage in a significant majority of English-language sources." No one has provided evidence of this. As pointed out, RS use both "Spanish flu/influenza" and "1918 flu/pandemic" in common names. Another common name is The Great Influenza, after The Great War, the former name for WW-I before WW-II. I don't see that a single type of name is used in a significant majority of English-language sources, or even in just the cited sources in the article. What I do see is that more serious recent sources appear to be moving to use the more neutral "1918" in lieu of the historical artifact "Spanish" to distinguish the flu, and so we should move now too. Dhaluza (talk) 22:51, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

  There are millions of text-books, newspaper articles ect that will call it The Spanish Flu and such - and this will forever be in their index pages - until books become uncommon that's not going away 217.45.105.241 (talk) 18:49, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. Peter Ormond 💬 05:29, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
• Tentative support with caveats - provided it is made VERY clear that "this is known to popular culture as "The Spanish Flu pandemic" in the header, and a redirect naturally set up - I don't see a problem. However much written material and also people alive know it as "Spanish Flu", the only reason to oppose that I see is that names for things are often easier - "Spanish Flu" is easier than the 1918 Flu epidemic or pandemic (or whatever) even if it is just a name.
  • It is always silly to use a different name for the sake of it - however there is significant traction on "1918 flu" - but this will never replace the massive body of newspapers in archives that use "Spanish Flu" or other materials.

  217.45.105.241 (talk) 18:37, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

  • I also might slightly oppose it, I can see why, the thrust of the argument (which is hopefully true) is that other respected information sources use the 1918 name - if they didn't I'd strongly oppose

    217.45.105.241 (talk) 18:39, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

  • I hate to add to this but I'm right on the fence, I have a question to those that oppose (seriously):
    • If not now, when?

  But the colloquial name must still be present front and centre, bolded as "(archaically known as The Spanish Flu)" or something; unfortunately as with anything this on the fence, there'll be no consensus, good luck!

  • 217.45.105.241 (talk) 18:47, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

  To use a non-neutral name like this, it is not enough that the name is in common use, it must be commonly used by a significant majority of sources pert WP:NPOVNAME. I don't see evidence that it is commonly used by a significant majority of current sources. No doubt there are a ton of historical sources, but since this subject lies somewhere on the intersection between social science and medical science, and science is subject to change as new knowledge is developed, current sources should be given more weight. We would not keep an obsolete hypothesis in current context after it has been disproven, just because there are more historical references for it. Dhaluza (talk) 22:59, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. We don't need to rename everything retrospectively just for the sake of contemporary political correctness. Also, it's literally "Spanish flu" in almost every language. --Oppashi ^Talk 20:27, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
• Comment: It's nothing to do with political correctness. There has been a shift on this issue in the last twelve months, and the preferred academic and medical term is 1918 flu pandemic. If the mainstream media hasn't caught up with this, it should.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 21:27, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose Nobody I know personally refers to it as the 1918 flu pandemic. It's also more convenient to refer to this epidemic as the Spanish flu and I strongly disagree that the term Spanish flu is "obsolete slang." 71.172.3.145 (talk) 23:38, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

  I believe it is obsolete in that current sources are not favoring "Spanish flu" over alternatives, in fact they tend to use it in depreciated context as a historical artifact or relic. And it is clearly slang, because serious authors have avoided using it as well. As the article lays out, it is clearly a misnomer as well. Dhaluza (talk) 22:51, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

• Support: I think 1918 flu pandemic is the suitable title for this article, see also: 1957–1958 influenza pandemic and 2009 swine flu pandemic for similar cases. Dede2008 (talk) 14:28, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose per COMMONNAME --In actu (Guerillero) ^{Parlez Moi} 14:40, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

  Saying it doesn't make it so. I could not find evidence that "Spanish flu" is still used as the common name by a significant majority of current sources. Dhaluza (talk) 00:10, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

  Let me help you then: [3]  — Amakuru (talk) 14:35, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

• Support: as Dhaluza has pointed out, reliable sources (e.g., the WHO, CDC, etc.) use 1918 flu pandemic or 1918 influenza pandemic rather than Spanish flu. To add, the fact that archived newspapers used the term Spanish flu is not relevant to whether it is the contemporary favored term, and it is straightforward to state in the opening sentence that the outbreak had historically been known by that name. A compromise such as 1918 Spanish flu pandemic would create needless confusion—as stated, the term Spanish flu is declining, so adding the year to the existing title does not actually fix what is wrong with it. --Delta1989 (talk) (contributions) 18:02, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
• Comment: For those who have indicated they are on the fence, here is another WP:RS published just the other day: “Spanish Flu”: When Infectious Disease Names Blur Origins and Stigmatize Those Infected. By Trevor Hoppe Jul 26, 2021 (physiciansweekly.com). This is typical of current sources only using the term "Spanish flu" in depreciated context, i.e. in "scare quotes", e.g.: “Spanish flu”-a name that reflects a tendency in public health history to associate new infectious diseases with foreign nationals and foreign countries. Dhaluza (talk) 22:44, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

  Sorry, upon further examination, it turns out this is a republication of a 2018 NIH paper Dhaluza (talk) 05:48, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

• Strong support for the move as proposed. "1918 flu pandemic" will far more clearly identify the scope of the topic for a substantial number of readers. BD2412 T 00:17, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
• Comment Pinging all participants of the previous RM (apologies for those who already participated): (Note: This new tool/template may produce an error). Regards  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 00:47, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

  I guess I will have to ping manually all previous participants of the previous RM (apologies for those who already participated; split into multiple parts due to template limitations):

  @Deacon Vorbis, Interstellarity, Aréat, Mkcmkc, OckRaz, Schazjmd, Zxcvbnm, Rjensen, Tbhotch, Errantius, Narayansg, Doc James, Ozzie10aaaa, Ckfasdf, Renata3, PlanetStar, Netoholic, Mystichumwipe, Awkwafaba, Phediuk, Bluerasberry, Vermont, Michael E Nolan, Whispyhistory, Ɱ, Peaceray, Ortizesp, and Ikuzaf: Regards  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 14:58, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

  @Fernsong, Deisenbe, Kelly, Blythwood, Dennis Osmosis, Master of Time, HLFH, PatentlyObtuse, Standardorder, SharabSalam, Iazyges, David Fuchs, Bomb319, Havsjö, Zacwill, WhiteAndNerdly, Wikimandia, TXAggie, Jonathan A Jones, FunkyDuffy, Amakuru, The Invisible Hand, NyetGoetk, Edwardjones76, Geographyinitiative, TheDarkMaster2, Agmartin, Dmoore5556, Old Naval Rooftops, and Periander6: Regards  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 15:00, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

  @Roman Spinner, RopeTricks, IagoQnsi, Beetstra, Benlisquare, Averell23, Lizzie Harrison, Bobsearch, Frederick Nathan Glass, FritzYCat, Cagliost, Robert Brockway, Jack Upland, Super Goku V, Uranium grenade, Grue, NyetGoatk, Neozoen, TheAnayalator, Agent00x, Lordevi, Proofbygazing, QueerFilmNerd, Czello, JGabbard, Maximajorian Viridio, Xavexgoem, and Nizolan: Regards  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 15:00, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

  @Upsidedown Keyboard, Symphony Regalia, CaptainEek, PalmerTheGolfer, Sharpfang, Bruce Campbell, TocMan, Kosboot, Mattamsn, Torchiest, Del-Domi-ponte, Lowellian, Zojj, Super Goku V, Argyriou, EvergreenFir, JeffreyAlexanderMartin, Kettleonwater, ICTaylor, Jaydavidmartin, Veverve, Aaronmhamilton, Wing gundam, Dahn, Yaksha Prashna, SQB, and Night: Regards  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 15:01, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

  @Gyr, Fordm48, VARNAMi, TonyBallioni, Binksternet, Miniapolis, Bodding, Jdcomix, Blueboar, Neozoen, WriteIncunabula, Yungeditor, FuzzyCuteness, EntropyTV, Huckfinne, PompeyTheGreat, Jhw57, BirdValiant, Sir Joseph, Jarrod Baniqued, Vir4030, and Mrniceguy101: Regards  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 15:02, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

  @Yungeditor, Juno, Axver, Mikeduke324, Display name 99, Wallachia Wallonia, Dyork1939, SarekOfVulcan, HauntingStomper, EatingFudge, Snickers2686, MaximumIdeas, Coffee, Tedkaczynski69, Gaianauta, Vsmith9, Slatersteven, Draperp, Solarra, Chrisisreed, Blythwood, Die Pillen in mir, Draperp, and Jasonstru: Regards  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 15:03, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

  @Dvaderv2, Gaianauta, Spangineer, StAnselm, Miraculouschaos, Nerd271, Saxones288, Dale Arnett, Leijurv, The C of E, Cody.TV.Weber, EPicmAx4, CkRaz, Tmangray, Jujutsuan, Chaosdruid, Someone Not Awful, TropicAces, Shellwood, Biglulu, WulfTheSaxon, Embram, Et0048, Caltraser55, Ianmacm, Twospoonfuls, General534, Starnovi, Tataral, Sphilbrick, AyaK, Andrada00, Metropolitan90, XavierItzm, Objective3000, DoubleCross, Embram, GreenC, AlexanderMackle, and Wikibojopayne: Regards  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 15:04, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

• Support per nomination. A once-frequently-referenced name form but, in 2021, it has become severely outdated and is well past its original inaccurate use. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 07:32, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose per all the reasons laid out last time WP:COMMONNAME applies, not evidence for significant shift in name usage.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 13:25, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
• Strongly Oppose The pandemic is widely known as the Spanish Flu, changing will lead to confusion.Chrisisreed (talk) 14:37, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Really? Among whom? I won't be confused. HiLo48 (talk) 04:28, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

• Comment Note that the Spanish language Wikipedia title is es:Pandemia de gripe de 1918 (Influenza pandemic of 1918), but the German and French pages use Spanish flu: de:Spanische Grippe & fr:Grippe espagnole. An interesting side note is that while the English page says the origin is indeterminate, the Spanish, German and French pages all conclusively point to a U.S. origin, as do the Spanish, German and French language sources. Dhaluza (talk) 12:20, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose for the same reason I did last time. This is the common name in use in English. Robert Brockway (talk) 15:07, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose Spanish flu was and is its common name.Slatersteven (talk) 15:12, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
• Comment Google Trends suggests that Spanish Flu is dominant as can be seen here. Robert Brockway (talk) 15:13, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose, per common name, most familiar name, and discussion. We shouldn’t use modern-day PC logic to counteract or revision a historically-accepted name. TropicAces (talk) 15:16, 31 July 2021 (UTC)tropicAces
• (edit conflict) Support per WP:COMMONNAME "Common names" can (and often do) change; the proposed name has become prevalent in RS, and does not shame the country of origin. Miniapolis 15:17, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose per common name. Diseases are often named after a place like Ebola river and we use those names if they are the most common. Wikipedia follows convention not lead with new conventions. The best way to handle this is a detailed etymological history in the article. -- GreenC 15:18, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose per last year's arguments. Not much has changed since then. StAnselm (talk) 15:30, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose Simple WP:COMMONNAME applies here, just as if the current pandemic became popularly known as the "China Virus" (It came from China!). As mentioned above, this is a historically accepted name and in keeping with naming it after the place where it originated from. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 15:33, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
  • @The C of E:, you wrote in keeping with naming it after the place where it originated from: so are you proposing that we change the name to Kansas Flu, then? -John Maynard Friedman (talk) 15:43, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

I think you'll find that the practice was where the first cases are discovered, rather than where it originated. Chaosdruid (talk) 18:49, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

@Chaosdruid: Not quite, especially as the first cases were discovered in Kansas, then France, then Germany and England; it spread to Spain quite late in the day. No, the actual practice was to use the name where the first open public health records were made which, given that there was a war on and it was strategically significant to the war effort, could only ever have happened in a neutral country. It is for precisely this reason that the WHO deprecates that naming practice, because they recognise that it creates a serious risk that reporting and thus counter-measures will be delayed to avoid the bad publicity (in the hope that some other sucker will create the first record). --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 23:10, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

I seem to remember the French called it "The American flu" for a while until they conceded it was probably best to remain friends with the USA lol --- I guess we will never know, but here were reports from the UK for a couple of years prior to the US and Spanish cases, but determining if it was indeed the same virus is impossible. Chaosdruid (talk) 08:49, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

• Strongly Oppose. Same opinion as last year per WP:COMMONNAME and general historical consensus on the name. Kettleonwater (talk) 15:39, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
• Strong oppose per Necrothesp, ZXCVBNM, Slatersteven, and others directly above. This feels like a "righting great wrongs" thing. — Czello 15:40, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose per all concurring points above. - JGabbard (talk) 15:43, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose it is obviously still the common name. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:53, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
• Support...'1918 influenza pandemic' is common enough and appears in CDC &WHO. John M. Barry calls it The Great Influenza and '1918 influenza pandemic'. IMO... a good explanation of why not to call it 'Spanish Flu' is given by Laura Spinney here“One of the few certainties we have about the Spanish Flu Pandemic is that it didn’t start in Spain. We actually don’t know where it did start – but we know it didn’t start in Spain. The Spanish felt, and to a very great degree were, stigmatised by this....In 2015, the World Health Organisation (WHO) put out guidelines for how to name a disease. WHO say it should be avoided: "Terms that should be avoided in disease names include geographic locations (e.g. .. Spanish Flu)" Whispyhistory (talk) 15:54, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
• Support per Whispyhistory's rationale. Veverve (talk) 16:05, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose per others above, I don't see what's actually changed since the last time this RM discussion was had. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 16:12, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose I do not see that anything has changed since the previous RM. The current title is still the COMMONNAME, and thus still the most recognizable. Blueboar (talk) 16:20, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose-Per WP:Common name and the fact that only a little more than a year ago we already had an RfC on this issue. Display name 99 (talk) 16:22, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose-Per WP:Common name as before. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 16:37, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose-Per WP:Common name as settled in the previous RfC--Havsjö (talk) 16:47, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose-Per WP:Common name as settled in the previous RfCTwospoonfuls (εἰπέ) 16:53, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose-Per WP:Common name. RopeTricks (talk) 17:04, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose It's still the common name and the fact that academic sources frequently use '1918 flu' doesn't override that fact TocMan (talk) 17:43, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose per, as much as I realize Wikipedia's strong transience and constant changes, I still feel that it's revisionist, and that medical nomenclature should not be the strongest force in naming. For example, Charles Arthur Salvador is called by his most common name on his article, as opposed to how he is known currently. As far as I know, nothing else on this website is in the process of saving things known by common names into their newer variations. Wikipedia should anyway be a fundamentally human project, oriented towards readers and not faceless bodies and consensuses. Ted (talk)
• Support - the old title was better. Moving this page to "Spanish Flu" was always a mistake, it's inaccurate and not used by the best sources. Blythwood (talk) 19:21, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
• Weak Support but stong support for 1918 "Spanish" influenza pandemic ... Last year I vehemently opposed the suggested change. My reasons were WP:commonname, WP:recentism (political pandering and revisionism). Commonname was especially troubling, as this very article is used as an example of when the common name should be applied "Spanish flu (not: 1918 influenza pandemic)". I am having to rethink that now, as a google search for "Spanish flu" has decidedly reduced numbers. The results ratio is still 6.5 to 1, Spanish to flu. The first 15 results have very much surprised me in that of the first 15 sites: 7 of them are NOT titled "Spanish Flu", but titled "1918 flu" and have it as "known as 'Spanish flu' ... " in the body of text; of the remaining 8, Wikipedia is the first, so that leaves an even split.

The weight of those results leaves me slightly leaning towards a rename as per the OP; however, I would prefer to call it the 1918 "Spanish flu" epidemic - simply because putting it in quotes means we are suggesting it is the name given by others. Jumping to page 10 of the search results and it is still a 6/4 split Spanish/1918. I cannot, in good conscience, use google anymore to differentiate which name is most common. We also know that in reference and medical books and journals, "1918" is more commonplace, so commonname is currently moot.

Pandering is not an issue now, as it is definitely not going to be recentism. An established and clear move to calling it "1918 flu" is well underway since the early 1990s, and looks as if it will be adopted as the norm.

Similarly, revisionism is unlikely to be an issue for the same reasons - even though I can see one person commenting on "China flu" and desperately wanting the "Spanish" to be left so they can justify their naming convention. It cannot be said to be a political move to change it from Spanish, it is more the world correcting the previously century old incorrect name. Hence, I very slowly fall off the fence on the side of renaming. I would still prefer to have both in the title, at least until there is a clear cut commonname falling towards one or the other. Chaosdruid (talk) 19:42, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose I'm afraid my position has not changed since last time. I have searched again today, and the WP:Common Name still appears to be either Spanish Flu, or 1918 Spanish Flu, but not 1918 flu pandemic, and it's not close. Agent00x (talk) 20:06, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose for the same reasons I've raised in the earlier move request. I do not believe circumstances have adequately changed since then. --benlisquare_T•C•E 20:11, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:Common Name. I should note that even if the article was successfully renamed you'd probably have to say something in the lede about the pandemic being commonly referred to as the Spanish flu anyway.Dvaderv2 (talk) 20:17, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:Common Name and previous RfC. This pandemic has been named Spanish flu for a century. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 20:40, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose-Per WP:Common name as settled in the previous RfC. Maximajorian Viridio (talk) 21:18, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
• Support. When this discussion came up back in March of last year, I was opposed to this move per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:RECENTISM, and also because the discussion thread had degenerated into partisan name calling. But sixteen months later, now that this no no longer a political football, we can look at this objectively and move along with the current consensus away from the then-popular "Spanish flu" designation, which (of course) was always inaccurate. -- AyaK (talk) 21:31, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. Spanish flu is the COMMONNAME and far more recognisable. --Tataral (talk) 22:34, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. There is still not enough sourcing in the OP to support the change. Thus, I continue to oppose it. Jdcomix (talk) 23:01, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. Whether the name "Spanish flu" is accurate or not is irrelevant; either way, it is the COMMONNAME. Guinea pigs aren't from Guinea and turkeys aren't from Turkey, but that doesn't stop us from using those names as article titles. Zacwill (talk) 23:31, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose, the Spanish flu is the common name of this historic event, even if it's not accurate. The Battle of Tannenberg wasn't fought at or even near Tannenberg either. Neozoen (talk) 00:07, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. —Lowellian (reply) 03:23, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. Common names are what they are, accurate or not (cf. Battle of Bunker Hill). Dmoore5556 (talk) 03:56, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
• Strongly Oppose – per WP:COMMONNAME. The most commonly-used name for this pandemic is "Spanish Flu pandemic". I see nothing wrong with the name, nor do I see any reason to go against a site-wide policy. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 04:40, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
• Support "1918 flu pandemic" is clear, accurate, and what is used by the majority of high quality sources. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:19, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose for the same reason I did last time. This is the common name in use in English. Et0048 (talk) 05:42, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose – I don't see what has changed since last time that makes the common name argument any less compelling. Master of Time (talk) 06:14, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
• Support as 1918 flu pandemic is the name used in academia. Lede should mention its common name as well, though. SQB (talk) 12:39, 1 August 2021 (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.

Unfortunately this discussion was closed by ProcrastinatingReader based in large part on a comment by Amakuru made only a day ago without an opportunity to respond. His search [4] is somewhat misleading because of the synonyms 'flu' and 'influenza' with the latter preferred by more formal sources using 1918. If you expand the search to cover both, the result is very different [5]. Dhaluza (talk) 11:27, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps, but for some reason you removed the present title "Spanish flu" from the search. It reads very differently with it back in: [6]  — Amakuru (talk) 11:31, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I was trying to get an apples-to-apples comparison with 3-word search terms. Obviously the shorter 2-word term gets more hits. But even a simple Google Books search with all terms: [7] doesn't show a clear preference for Spanish over 1918. Dhaluza (talk) 12:21, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

I should have ORed the other terms as well, and included great. Use this one instead: [8] Dhaluza (talk) 12:35, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

The problem with including Spanish flu is that many authors mention it in depreciated form but don't use it meaningfully. If you do a wildcard search in title case the trend is clearer: [9] Dhaluza (talk) 11:09, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

It is a bit disappointing that I missed this discussion, but I would say that the true problem was the mass pinging as it did not take into account that the March 2020 RM had brigading involved. Granted, it is a near impossible situation to deal with (except not pinging any blocked users and maybe not pinging those whose last edit was said RM). --Super Goku V (talk) 07:26, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

I don't have a horse in this race, and this is exactly my impression as an outside observer as well. Ain92 (talk) 20:44, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Also my assessment. The mass pinging was unnecessary and it's telling that the initial discussion was split initially but seemed to be overwhelmingly oppose after the pings... —Locke Cole • t • c 01:06, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

It seems the closer ProcrastinatingReader paid little attention to the trend and quality of usage of the terms ("1918" vs. "Spanish"), and more attention to the trend of invited, late-arriving editors rendering opinions here. In my view, that is the wrong emphasis, and, taken with the fact that WP:COMMONNAME is only one factor to consider, this decision was rendered wrongly. —RCraig09 (talk) 21:03, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

NPOV on "Spanish flu" name

I've been digging through dozens of RS, and have not found any that actually endorse the name "Spanish flu". Many avoid using it, and those that do typically put it in depreciated context right up front. The closest thing I have found to an explicit endorsement is a quote in this Snopes article attributed to AP:

"The Associated Press has ruled similarly. 'The name Spanish flu is entrenched both in the popular mind and among epidemiologists and has been in use for more than a century, including by the AP,' the wire service said in a March 2020 statement. 'In our view, any stigma that would attach to Spain or to the Spanish people has long ceased to be relevant'".

But I can't find the original primary source or any other secondary source citing it. I would reference this in the article for WP:Balance, but it's too controversial for a single source. I've searched quoted text and the AP site directly. I'd be interested if anyone else can find better sourcing for this claim, or any other WP:RS with an opposing viewpoint to WHO. Dhaluza (talk) 09:23, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Stated, not supported?

The line "Spanish flu is a misnomer rooted in historical othering of infectious disease origin, which is now avoided.[6]" is merely a restatement of its reference; I thought the reference should contain some support/an explanation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.201.42.151 (talk • contribs) 16:47, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

I've removed that sentence from the article. The recent RM did not result in a consensus that Spanish flu is no longer the English common name, which means it can't be a "misnomer". We can discuss the naming issues in an appropriate issue, with appropriate quotes to reliable sources, but clearly we don't say that in Wikipedia's voice.  — Amakuru (talk) 18:13, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

I think it's clearly a misnomer, by the definition of being incorrectly named, regardless of its common name. I think it's extremely helpful to readers to have that section there so they know it was not named Spanish flu because it originated or had a outsized presence in Spain. It was in fact a misnomer. I strongly recommend it be reincluded. I would love to hear other thoughts, though. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 18:18, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

It's not a misnomer if it's the common name. That's an oxymoron, as the English language doesn't have an official definition. You can point out that the disease didn't originate in Spain, sure, but you can't say that the majority of the people are wrong.  — Amakuru (talk) 18:29, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but that's not correct. Here's from the Wiki article on misnomers: a number of misnomers remain in common usage — which is to say that a word being a misnomer does not necessarily make usage of the word incorrect. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 18:33, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

It is self-evident that it is a misnomer, since Spain was well down the infection chain. But can we just get an RS that states the obvious and end this silliness? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 20:21, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

The last version had an RS that stated such. It should just be reverted back to that. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 20:33, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Naming viruses after geographic regions is now discouraged by medical and academic sources. Think "China virus" and Donald Trump. This doesn't alter the fact that "Spanish flu" is still in common use.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:50, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

No argument there. This isn't about what to name the article or call the epidemic. It's about including the fact that it's a misnomer in the article. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 20:56, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Quote added to existing cite, and cited again after "misnomer" in lede. Dhaluza (talk) 23:10, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

It's a concision of the text quoted in the reference, which in turn is a concision of the text further down in the article which is supported by multiple references (and plenty more not specifically cited). There is consensus in virtually all RS that Spanish flu is a misnomer, in that it was literally mis-named in a flawed naming process, and most authors using that name take care to point that out. Dhaluza (talk) 22:53, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

I undid the removal and the misnomer statement is back in. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 22:58, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Note: I hope that the irony is not lost that we call the article Spanish flu because that's the common name, but some editors object to calling that name a misnomer, which is the common name for what the common name is! Dhaluza (talk) 23:48, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

That's deep. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 00:10, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Citation problems

The citation of "Porras-Gallo & Davis 2014" [48] doesn't link to that source, can anyone else fix it? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 10:21, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Davis was misspelled as David. Dhaluza (talk) 13:36, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Drat! I never thought of looking for the obvious. :-( --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 15:25, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Unreliable sources

1. I deleted [64] Ferrandino V, Iacobaccio M, Sgro V (May–August 2020), European Journal of Marketing and Economics as a predatory journal but Dhaluza reinstated saying that it is no longer on the predatory list. Please recheck: I have the widget from Wikipedia:Unreliable/Predatory Source Detector and it is still flagging it as predatory.
2. The History.com citations are being flagged as "generally unreliable" (xref [114] Roos D (3 March 2020), [180] History.com; [184] Little, B).

I assume that all the recent work is to achieve GA: these will have to be resolved first. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 15:25, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

I went to the source and noted that they list a diverse editorial team and claim to be double-blind-peer-reviewed, so assuming they are not faking it, that would not fit the parameters of a Predatory publisher. If you read that article, the whole concept is problematic, and accusing a publisher of being predatory is an extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary evidence. That evidence may exist. But just because an individual researcher put the publisher on a list of publications that didn't do peer review, a list that itself was not peer reviewed and is no longer maintained, isn't good enough if the publisher claims legitimacy. The tool is problematic as well since it identifies the source as "predatory" even though the original list only identified it as "potentially predatory". Dhaluza (talk) 19:51, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Doubtless you noticed that I didn't repeat the deletion. I'm just flagging up the issue because I can see it being a showstopper for GA, which I think the article deserves. Its presence doesn't seem essential to the article, being one of four citations for the same statement. If you really want to keep it then I can only suggest that you request a review of its reliability as a source.

I was surprised to see history.com on the naughty list too. Solution is not so obvious.

--John Maynard Friedman (talk) 22:10, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

I've posted a follow-up question on the template talk page. User_talk:Headbomb/unreliable Dhaluza (talk) 01:28, 16 August 2021 (UTC)