Talk:Black Death/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Forms

The Black Death took 3 different forms: The bubonic plague- This was the most common seen form of the Black Death. The bubonic was found around the areas of arm pits, neck, and groins. The bubonic contain foul stanching black liquid, hence the name ‘Black Death.’ Pneumonic plague- was the 2 most common form of the Black Death. This was thought to have been less seen as the victim could have died while doing other jobs. Septicemic- this was the rarest, but possibly the most deadly. People who had it often died on the same day. (It still has no known cure) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.100.1.175 (talk) 10:21, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Internal contradiction

One section of the article says that England was relatively unscathed (20% mortality v. much higher rates elsewhere); another gives it as an example of an 'especially hard-hit area.' Which was it? -114.91.65.235 (talk) 17:05, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Another one: "The bubonic plague was the most commonly seen form during the Black Death, with a mortality rate of thirty to seventy-five percent and symptoms including fever of 38–41 °C (101–105 °F), headaches, painful aching joints, nausea and vomiting, and a general feeling of malaise. Of those who contracted the bubonic plague, 4 out of 5 died within eight day" So was the mortality rate 30-75%, or was it 4/5? Someone please fix these contradictions Johnny^California 04:32, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Another example of internal contradiction: "Once infected by the Yersinia pestis bacterium, it is estimated that victims would die off within 60-180 days". But somewhere else it says: "Of those who contracted the bubonic plague, 4 out of 5 died within eight days". Please fix this. 203.129.39.80 (talk) 02:44, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Another contradiction here, though not entirely internal : this article says that the Great Famine of 1315 did not affect Europe's population level, but inside the specific article about the Great Famine, it is said that the population levels dropped almost as severely as during the Black Death. 216.221.36.201 (talk) 16:17, 18 August 2009 (UTC) Luc D.

Cure?

So, what was the cure? Removing the rats and garbage? Simply letting it run its course? Something else? I remember, in the show Torchwood, episode 12 or 13 (I forget) time basically gets all muddled and Owen has to treat a girl with the Black Death. He mentions some chemicals that apparently treat it.. Any truth to that? - NemFX (talk) 04:48, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Cure? Fiction is fiction -- they can say anything, of course. At the time, very little available treatment seemed to impact the course of the disease. If brave people would stay and offer the patient palative care - water, food, warmth - the patient's chances were slightly improved. The more severe forms of the disease, pneumonic and septicemic plague, were almost always fatal. In the modern world, the infectious agent often responds well to familiar modern medicines, including streptomycin, chloramphenicol, and tetracycline ( see Yersinia pestis/ treatment). Resistant strains have been isolated/identified and some patients may require additional medical support, including a Medical ventilator, to treat severe symptoms. It remains a severe and dangerous desease, and many treated patients die. So, of course, prevention is paramount, and public health efforts to improve hygiene and eliminate contact with fleas are quite successful. WBardwin (talk) 07:50, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Can this information be found in a legitimate source and woven into the article somehow? 207.238.52.162 (talk) 21:01, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

When the plague first started,the mortality/fatality rate was at its highest. If a cure was not eventually figured out, the spread of this plague would still be going on today. Good hygiene, basic medical care (plenty of rest, nutritious meals, high fever recognition, etc.), prevention in general, and the development of antibiotics nearly sopped the spreading.Yogurtchips (talk) 04:15, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

* A wooden cane. The cane was used to both direct family members to move the patient, other individuals nearby, and possibly to examine the patient with directly. Its precise purpose with relation to the plague victim isn't known.

The "wooden cane" referred to in the current wiki text is likely the same as the "red rod or wand" mentioned in Daniel Defoe's "A Journal of the Plague Year" (1722):

"That precise Order be taken that the Searchers, Chirurgeons [doctors or surgeons], Keepers and Buriers are not to pass the Streets without holding a red Rod or Wand of three Foot in Length in their Hands, open and evident to be seen, and are not to go into any other House than into their own, or into that whereunto they are directed or sent for; but to forbear and abstain from Company, especially when they have been lately used in any such Business or Attendance."

I suggest that the text be edited to read:

• A wooden cane. The cane was used to both direct family members to move the patient, other individuals nearby, and possibly to examine the patient with directly.

MinesOfSpain (talk) 20:27, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Done -- Mark Chovain 23:32, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

They had many different cures that didn't work at all Girlyllamas (talk) 16:45, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Not bubonic plague? spelling correction

correct spelling of causitive - should be causative in this paragraph:

Alternative explanations

Not bubonic plague? Although Y. pestis as the causitive agent of plague is widely accepted, recent scientific and historical investigations have led some researchers to doubt the long-held belief that the Black Death was an epidemic of bubonic plague.

Cymbals (talk) 19:52, 7 August 2008 (UTC) Cymbals

== Shouldn't the identification with the Black Death be qualified? ==

Boccaccio's description of the Black Death does not match the epidemiology of bubonic plague:

"It did not take the form it had assumed in the East, where if anyone bled from the nose it was an obvious portent of certain death. On the contrary, its earliest symptom, in men and women alike, was the appearance of certain swellings in the groin or the armpit, some of which were egg-shaped whilst others were roughly the size of the common apple. Sometimes the swellings were large, sometimes not so large, and they were referred to by the populace as gavòccioli [here, the symptoms match bubonic plague, but from here on in the development differs radically - ed.]. From the two areas already mentionned, this deadly gavòcciolo would begin to spread, and within a short time it would appear at random all over the body. Later on, the symptoms of the disease changed, and many people began to find dark blotches and bruises on their arms, thighs, and other parts of the body, sometimes large and few in number, at other times tiny and closely spaced. These, to anyone unfortunate enough to contract them, were just as infallible a sign that he would die as the gavòcciolo had been earlier, and as indeed it still was." (Decameron, First Day, introduction). Moreover, he describes it as airborn, with a life expectancy of under three days.

Christopher Duncan and Susan Smith of Liverpool University developed the theory in 2001 that the Black Death is rather more closely descriptive of a haemorrhagic virus such as Marberg, Ebola or SARS. Boccaccio's description is distinctly different, there is no mention of the coughing and chicken-flesh, and although plague can develop septicaemic complications which correspond with the "tiny blotches", it rarely if ever goes as far as the large blotches mentioned. The speed of spread is much faster than that of Bubonic Plague. The reason it is identified is that haemorrhagic viri were unknown until the 1950s, with the more lethal forms appearing in the 1970s. By that time, the identity was folk wisdom and remains such.

Persecutions

I've rewritten some of this section but it's still very undereferenced. I also find this sentence problematical "In many places, attacking Jews was a way to criticize the monarchs who protected them (Jews were under the protection of the king, and often called the "royal treasure" This jumps from criticising "the monarchs who protected them" to them being "under the protection of the king". Which king is being referred to here? Richerman (talk) 12:07, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Which country Temesvár/Timişoara belonged to in the 18th century?

In the article, along with the plague of 1738, there is mentioned Timişoara as a Romanian city. Temesvár (today Timişoara) was an important Hungarian city and an integral part of then Hungary since the beginning of the Hungarian Kingdom in late 10th century. It became a part of Romania after WWI by the Treaty of Trianon in 1920. Then, according to the census of 1910, the city's inhabitants were mostly Germans (44%) and Hungarians (39%) with a Romanian minority of 10%. During the past 90 years the population has been change drastically, in 1992 82% of the city's population were Romanian, while only approx. 10% Hungarian and 4% German. However, in 1738 it was a Hungarian city, and moreover, it doesn't make too much sense to talk about Romania before 1859, the union of Moldavia and Wallachia. Apart of this, the article is comprehensive and excellent. Congratulations for the authors! Vamos (talk) 13:16, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Different mortality rates for Jews and non-Jews add citation

Hi, I cannot add the citation because the page is semiprotected, but in the section Persecutions there is a line that says: Differences in cultural and lifestyle practices also led to persecution. Because Jews had a religious 4tty5y5y5y5yew be ritually clean they did not use water from public wells and so were suspected of causing the plague by deliberately poisoning the wells. Typically, comparatively fewer Jews died from the Black Death[citation needed],. I have found a citation for this claim in Haim Beinart, Atlas of Medieval Jewish History, Simon & Schuster, New York, NY, 1992, p. 62. I have a photocopy of the book with me. Best, Fabitas 18:38, September 3, 2008 (UTC+3)

Didn't the Pope, in speaking out against the persecution of the Jews, note that they died in the same numbers as Christians and hence should not be blamed? At least that is what the History Channel's special that aired last night said. 72.220.81.40 (talk) 20:20, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Black Death/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

This article is in need of more references. Sections and paragraphs that are devoid of references include:

• "European outbreak" section
• "Middle Eastern outbreak" section
• "Anthrax and others?" section
• "A Malthusian crisis" section
• "Religion" section
• "Modern" section

Once these issues have been resolved, please respond back on this page. Gary King (talk) 17:22, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Because there has been no response in over a week, I have delisted the article. Gary King (talk) 16:55, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

what are the three forms of the black death —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.215.155.23 (talk) 23:58, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Possible Cause of Black Plague

Around this time period cats were considered to be evil creatures by the Christian authorities. Therefore their population was reduced due to the superstition. This would allow the rat population to grow out of control and increase the chances of infection from a flee bite. Cats were bread to control mouse and rat populations.

Quote from wiki about cats: There are also negative superstitions about cats in many cultures. An example would be the belief that a black cat "crossing your path" leads to bad luck, or that cats are witches' familiars used to augment a witch's powers and skills. This belief led to the widespread extermination of cats in Europe in medieval times. Killing the cats aggravated epidemics of the Black Plague in places where there were not enough cats left to keep rat populations down. The plague was spread by fleas carried by infected rats.

Reference Here —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.227.167.43 (talk) 23:35, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

ibid doesn't work in wikipedia

The term "ibid" has been used a number of times in the references for this article. This works fine in a book, as the reader just needs to look at the preceding reference, however, in a dynamic medium like wikipedia it's worse than useless, because someone can add a new reference between ibid and the reference it refers to, so that it then points to the wrong reference. Richerman (talk) 01:30, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Conflict with the smallpox article

In the Smallpox article, the same 1411 Toggenburg Bible picture is displayed in color and cited as "most likely depicting smallpox," not the Black Death. So which is it? coolbho3000 (talk) 22:56, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I removed that image from the smallpox article. Rmhermen (talk) 19:35, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Typo

The picture of Yersinia Pestis(the 3rd one on the page) has in its description that it's magnified 2000x. But in the Plague article it's written that it'S only 200x. I don't know which one is right. 213.192.6.158 (talk) 09:47, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

How can a plague have a mortality rate of "thirty to seventy-five percent" and yet have 4 out of 5 people who catch it die within days? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.46.78.172 (talk) 05:58, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Prevention?

I think this article really missed the ways that the medieval people used to stop the Black Death. Someone needs to put this in. Shorerydr10 (talk) 16:03, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

a factual error

This article states, "Because Jews had a religious obligation to be ritually clean they did not use water from public wells and so were suspected of causing the plague by deliberately poisoning the wells."

Having spent most of my life studying, deciding, and adjudicating Jewish law, I can state without qualm that no such ritual obligation exists.

Having spent even more years in the detailed study of history, I can state plainly that I have seen many accounts of Jewish life that included regular drawing of water from the town or village well or fountain. I have never seen any account that even suggested that such water sources were not used.

In short, the author is mistaken and this sentence must be removed.

Purely as a suggestion, I can recommend the following, which I offer (for the moment) on my personal authority as a Rabbinic Justice. A perusal of any standard text on medieval Jewish history will provide source citations:

"Since Jews are obligated by law to maintain a reasonable standard of personal cleanliness; and since they are specifically enjoined to wash all over in honor of the approaching Sabbath day; therefore the public bath-house was a Jewish institution even in times and places when bathing was unheard-of among the general populace. It is possible that weekly scrubbing reduced the louse and flea population among Jews sufficiently to cause a lower rate of death, which in turn would have aroused jealousy and suspicion among gentile neighbors."

However, the fact of a lower death rate among Jews needs to be established. I do not recall ever seeing this substantiated.

I do not doubt that you are correct in this, but you will have to find a secondary source for this as no original research are permitted on Wikipedia. My guess would be that this have been covered by other writers, so that it should be possible to find a source to corroborate your claim.--Saddhiyama (talk) 12:15, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

An interesting problem, for three reasons:

One, NO primary sources at all exist except in the Hebrew and Aramaic languages. For me that is no problem, but the editors would have to depend on my translation -- essentially, original work.

Two, my chief point is that no such requirement of purity exits. How does one prove a negative? This is every judge's nightmare. *I* know that there is no such requirement, after half a lifetime spent studying the primary sources; but we cannot expect such devotion from the readers.

Three, such slight and secondary source books as are available in languages other than the original Hebrew & Aramaic are almost always disgracefuly dilletantistic. I.e., they are not fit to be relied on.

Well, I have pointed up the problem, and given my daily schedule I can do no more. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.177.106.228 (talk) 20:49, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

black death

What was the black death or the great plague? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.160.245.21 (talk) 23:42, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Black death. The Great Plague is a Time POV because any major plague will be called "The Great Plague".--Ssteiner209 (talk) 14:41, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

It was actually called the Great Mortality or Big Death by contemporaries.Chiba-usako (talk) 02:00, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I was raised hearing it called "the Black Plague" here in Texas. 207.238.52.162 (talk) 21:03, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Black Death was NOT the Bubonic Plague

The best research over the past quarter century has demonstrated pretty conclusively that the Black Death could not have been the Bubonic Plague. There are (and always have been) numerous problems with the contention that the Black Death was the Bubonic Plague.

The Bubonic Plague explanation is widely accepted because most historians aren't trained in medicine and frankly aren't interested in it -- most are much more interested in the social/economic ramifications of the Plague. As a result, even historians who have studied the Plague have usually accepted what they learned in their undergraduate intro to the Medieval World class (that the BD was the Bubonic Plague) and have never really questioned it (and most don't have the medical background to investigate the issue very well anyway).

Probably the best author's for putting the nail in the coffin of the Bubonic Plague idea are Susan Scott and Christopher Duncan.

Honestly, the article ought to be substantially rewritten. If the nonsense about the Black Death possibly being the Bubonic Plague is to be retained, the article ought at least to give equal space to the far more plausible (and far more defensible, based on the evidence) explanations offered in recent years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.197.68.176 (talk) 19:57, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

It is quite hilarious you criticise the lack of knowledge of medicine and then praise two authors who don't have any, one being a social historian and the other a zoologist. I suggest you familiarize yourself with the actual evidence instead of just talking about it, and especially stop relying on monographies and check the peer-reviewed literature a bit more. --OliverH (talk) 23:59, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Just found this article, maybe it helps maybe it doesn't, http://www.pnas.org/content/97/23/12800.full —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.105.124.181 (talk) 22:36, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

It certainly is interesting, probably too cutting edge to be definitive, but I think we can fit it in as part of the open debate. Good job - thanks.--SabreBD (talk) 00:16, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Bad structure, no exposition

As Wikipedia articles go, this is one of the weakest, at least among those dealing with important historical events.

The article contains no simple description of the plague, its geographic spread over time, and its imptact. Such a straightforward expository section should start the article. Instead, the article jumps right into arcane speculation about the biological nature of the disease, and then proceeds to an equally arcane and premature discussion of the term "Black Death."

It's like the article assumes that the reader already knows all of the important historical facts about the plague, and has come here solely for erudite discussion of finer points and of controversies. In other words, it's like an encyclopedia entry where the first half or even two-thirds have mysteriously disappeared. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.108.67.153 (talk) 20:31, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree with the main thrust of this point. And its better than it was.--Sabrebd (talk) 22:28, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I have tried to solve some of these problems in the lead, as no-one else had acted, but there is still more to do.--Sabrebd (talk) 22:45, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Map

Why are the current borders drawn on the map instead of the borders from that period? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.9.27.212 (talk) 17:21, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Simply put, there would be two reasons: 1) A modern individual (especially one who lives in or has visited Europe) can use the modern borders as reference points. 2) Since the Hundred Years War (the war that forged England and France into the first two nations in the modern sense) had just started in 1337, bounderies of those days would be meaningless to a modern person (unless he's a historian of that period). Also, bounderies would be in flux. Furthermore, if this article was about a war or other political phenomenon, a map depicting 1348 borders would be appropriate; since the Black Death was actually a natural phenomenon (that only had ancillary social-political effects) a map with modern borders (or no borders for that matter) would suffice.--Bayowolf (talk) 03:23, 4 September 2009 (UTC)Bayowolf

Symptoms

Normally this sickness carries along a fever and you get red bumps with rings around them, all over your body. You also sweat quite a lot. Since you would sweat you started to get b.o. so they carried posies in their pocket to get rid of the smell. The very well known nursery rhyme "ring around the Rosie" was created about the bubonic plague with the ring as red as roses, they put posies in their pocket, the ashes part was originally tissue for the sneezing, and we all fall down is when they died. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.93.27.21 (talk) 14:11, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

There simply is no evidence to support this common myth.--Sabrebd (talk) 15:38, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Edits marked as minor

A new user has been adding unreferenced material and marking it as minor, and removing referenced material without discussion. When I've reverted the edits they have been put back in. Please keep an eye open for this. Richerman (talk) 01:35, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Malthusian crisis

This section of the article says: some unnamed historians theorize that a world wide plague was caused by the over-population of Europe. Unless someone comes up reliable sources with names of those who believe population caused the plague and where they wrote this the whole section should go. Malthus said people increase geometrically and food arithmetically therefore people will outgrow the possible food. And as a result the usually state of most men is poverty at near starvation levels (this is how economics got named the dismal science). Nitpyck (talk) 16:19, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

The deadliest pandemic in history?

The article has a small mistake as it starts off with The Black Death was one of the deadliest pandemics in human history why one of the deadliest while it was THE deadliest and caused the most deaths. I suggest we change the intro into The Black Death was the deadliest pandemics in human history. Neftchi (talk) 23:07, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

We simply don't know the impact of every pandemic.--Sabrebd (talk) 16:50, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Some claims make the Justinian plague worse, if they are to be believed. Rmhermen (talk) 21:26, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

World map badly needed

File:Bubonic plague-en.svg does a decent job for Europe, but we badly need a map showing how the plague has spread through the word. Here are some maps that could be used as a source: [1] [2], [3]. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 23:15, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Naming

http://www.fullbooks.com/The-Black-Death-and-The-Dancing-Mania1.html, "it was called in Germany and in the northern kingdoms of Europe the Black Death, and in Italy, la mortalega grande, the Great Mortality", suggests the name was used at the time, and was not introduced later. HarryAlffa (talk) 15:04, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

That book does seem to suggest it, and it is not the only place one can find such claims. But my own understanding is in line with the article, that after serious research of contemporary accounts, "black death" was not a name used at the time. --Saforrest (talk) 05:08, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

CCR5-delta 32 immunity

Research has suggested that having a certain mutation in the CCR5-delta 32 gene provides immunity. It's said to eliminate a cell receptor site that it uses for infection. Lab tests show that cells without the mutation take up Y. Pestis much faster. Fusion inhibitor therapies based on this also aid in HIV/AIDS treatment.

Some research has suggested a viral cause (as opposed to bacterial with Y. Pestis) based on CCR5. The research for both sides shows mixed results.

This article provides a good summary: http://www.thetech.org/genetics/ask.php?id=10

- njyoder 174.207.5.0 (talk) 04:16, 10 November 2009 (UTC)yeah this is right info people

Reference Disparity?

The first reference [1] refers to the sentence "Once infected by the Yersinia pestis bacterium, it is estimated that victims would die within 60–180 days.[1]" 60-180 days is not only way beyond any other relevant number on WP, but it it doesn't even match the referenced source as far as I can tell. The source says 3-4 days, which matches most everything on WP, except in "Causes of the black Death" where it says something about a 30-day incubation period. I wasn't really sure what to do with it in case the author had some intention for it. SaaHc2B (talk) 11:19, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

It may just be vandalism we have missed. I will try to find time to check past versions.--SabreBD (talk) 14:42, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

It first appeared at 21:06, 23 July 2009 as edited by 69.225.195.234 version ID 303811945. SaaHc2B (talk) 03:13, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Confusion

Rates given for death rates appear to cause confusion. Please note the following from within the article:

The bubonic plague was the most commonly seen form during the Black Death, with a mortality rate of thirty to seventy-five percent... Of those who contracted the bubonic plague, 4 out of 5 died within eight days.[36]

If 4 out of 5 died within eight days, then that would be an 80% mortality rate within that time. Why does it state a 30 to 75% rate above? This appears to be at odds. Also, the popular contention is that all of those who caught the plague died. If some did not and recovered, then this should be explained in more detail. 72.220.81.40 (talk) 20:24, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Plague free areas?

Why did present day southern Poland and Italy's Milan and parts of the French-Spanish border region suffer only minor outbreaks? Where there some causes that the Black Death didn't get there? Milan and to a smaller extent Polish cities like Warsaw and Cracow where urban centers not different from others, how did they survive unscratched? Any info on this (except the fact itself shown on the map)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.205.240.19 (talk) 00:31, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Areas spared

Does anyone have verifiable material on why some areas were spared? On the map there are green patches indicating uninfected areas in Milan, a part of Belgium, Poland and south-west France. -Chumchum7 (talk) 19:29, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Rats

If the Black Death was spread by fleas and other such insects from infected rats should've there have been lots of dead rats around? Is there any mention of somebody noticing more than the usual number of dead rats around any urban area? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.93.199.154 (talk) 09:34, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

It is more complex than that. Partly explained at Yersinia pestis#In reservoir hosts. Rmhermen (talk) 14:29, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Iceland not on the European map

I wanted to note that on the map that shows the spread of the Black death, Iceland is left out! It hit Iceland just as badly as any other European countries, and I think it would look right to have it on the map to for historical accuracy. Einsiol (talk) 06:06, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

If you have a copyright free map of the same phenomenon that shows Iceland then you should certainly post it.--SabreBD (talk) 12:39, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Cats

Regarding this part of the article:

"The persecution of cats in Europe is often overlooked as a contributing factor in the spread of plague. In years prior to the outbreak, cats had been vilified and slain en masse, due to their growing popular association with Satan and witches. The mass slaughter of cats preceding the arrival of infected rats greatly reduced a potential predator of the rat, allowing rat populations to flourish unnaturally."

I would like to question this. Cats are surely just as good at spreading the disease as rats (perhaps better, if they are allowed to inhabit human homes more openly and regularly than rats). The source used here is also a webpage that doesn't appear particularly credible (no author listed for one thing). Does anyone have any sources to either support or refute this part of the article? Kombucha (talk) 00:25, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

After reviewing the text and its (sole) source, I have to agree with the assessment of "not particularly credible". I suspect that the entire paragraph is an addition of dubious quality and would be happy to see it removed. Doc Tropics 00:35, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

After waiting a couple of days for any additional thoughts I've gone ahead and removed the paragraph in question. Kombucha (talk) 17:03, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Its the right move - given the dubious nature of the source.--SabreBD (talk) 20:46, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Sockeyemoon, 22 July 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} Picture on front of article is of SMALL POX. Black death is Plague (Yersinia Pestis).

Sockeyemoon (talk) 15:28, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Are you sure? The name of the image contains the word smallpox, but the image description says "This image is generally interpreted as a depiction of plague. the Black Death." Dabomb87 (talk) 20:17, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Not done for now: pending response. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:21, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Black Death

Dear All,

The contributor to this (otherwise excellent) article begins by saying:

"The Black Death was one of the deadliest pandemics in human history, peaking in Europe between 1348 and 1350. It is widely thought to have been an outbreak of bubonic plague caused by the bacterium Yersinia pestis, but this view has recently been challenged."

The view that the Black Death (bubonic plague) was not as a result of Y.pestis is not one that i have heard of and I would expect that such a comments would demand a reference to support it. I would like to see any evidence to back up such a comment.

Regards

Pauljmckeown (talk) 00:04, 28 July 2010 (UTC) Paul McKeown

The lead is a summary of the article and the debate is references lower down, so that is where it is referenced. Points that reflect the article in a lead do not have to be referenced. See WP:Lead.--SabreBD (talk) 00:38, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

"...but this view has recently been challenged." By Whome, When and Where? In introduction there should be avoided such unsupstianted general statements. Hrvatistan (talk) 19:10, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Looking over the section on causes, I think this needs to be rewritten to take into account recent scholarship and debates about the identity of the plague. I will do this if no-one else wants the job, however, summing this all up concisely is a tough task, so it may take me a little time.--SabreBD (talk) 08:19, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

This now done. It also necessitated some changes elsewhere so that the language was neutral over what was the cause.--SabreBD (talk) 23:04, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Looks like it was conclusively caused by the bacterium Yersinia pestis according the to latest research, see http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/10/black-death-plague-cause 202.154.135.96 (talk) 06:56, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out. I will will look at the full study and see how we can incorporate it. However, I thought it was conclusive the last time they found the Y.Pestis in medieval graves, but significant doubt was thrown on the findings by those who disagreed. I guess we will have to wait and see what they say about this (large and apparently controlled) sample, before we know if the debate is over.--SabreBD (talk) 08:18, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

"Invitation to edit" trial

It has been proposed at Wikipedia talk:Invitation to edit that, because of the relatively high number of IP editors attracted to Black Death, it form part of a one month trial of a strategy aimed at improving the quality of new editors' contributions to health-related articles. It would involve placing this:

You can edit this page. Click here to find out how.

at the top of the article, linking to this mini-tutorial about MEDRS sourcing, citing and content, as well as basic procedures, and links to help pages. Your comments regarding the strategy are invited at the project talk page, and comments here, regarding the appropriateness of trialling it on this article, would be appreciated. The trial is planned to start on 15 September. Anthony (talk) 11:47, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

SabreBD has pointed out on the project talk page that a lot of this article's IP edits are vandalism, and, coupled with the fact this is more history than medicine, I think it should be excluded from the trial. Anthony (talk) 12:54, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for taking my comments onboard. I had also forgotten that the page is semi-protected at the moment, so it really isn't a good candidate for this project, as IP users won't be able to edit it.--SabreBD (talk) 08:25, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

No worries. I had assumed the protection was expiring on the 9th (or was it 15th?) Anyway, you made a good point. Best we avoid high-vandalism articles for this study.

"Resulting in more deaths" style query

In this well-written article, the following sentence (in the 2nd par.) lowers the standard a little:

The plague returned at various times, resulting in a larger number of deaths, until it left Europe in the 19th century.

The phrase "a larger number of deaths" is ambiguous since it can mean mean killing a number of people greater than the number already killed" or simply "killing yet more people". I suppose that it is the latter meaning that is intended. I will change it accordingly to "killing more people", which also does away with the unnecessary invocation of "resulting". Myles325a (talk) 07:27, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Rats--> Fleas ----> People

The Rats Started the black death. The Fleas travel on the Rats and Travel to the towns and Spread the Black death.

Correct?

• • dmh> —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.202.42.99 (talk) 14:15, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Something to watch out for

• Just published New York Times article: Wade, Nicholas (October 31, 2010). "Europe's Plagues Came From China, Study Finds". New York Times. Retrieved October 31, 2010.
• Relevant PLoS Pathogens articleL Haensch, S.; Bianucci, R.; Signoli, M.; Rajerison, M.; Schultz, M.; Kacki, S.; Vermunt, M.; Weston, D. A.; Hurst, D.; Achtman, M.; Carniel, E.; Bramanti, B. (2010). Besansky, Nora J (ed.). "Distinct Clones of Yersinia pestis Caused the Black Death". PLoS Pathogens. 6 (10): e1001134. doi:10.1371/journal.ppat.1001134. PMC 2951374. PMID 20949072.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)

Also, it is only just now that Y. pestis is being confirmed as the cause of the Black Death? I'm surprised. But regardless, I would expect more people coming to this article in the next few days, as this bounces around the news-sphere, even though it is a few days after publication. NW (Talk) 22:20, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Identifying who "thinks" what

My addition of the {{by whom}} was reverted. Does a consensus of people editing this article support the consistent absence of who is making the factual claims in the article by use of passive voice: "it is thought" and "thought" and "estimated", and vagueness: i.e. "scholars". Also, the conclusion of the plague's origin is cited to The Book of General Ignorance. What's the reliability of that particular source? And is that the best source for the claim? patsw (talk) 01:52, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this here. It is a different problem in the lead from the text and I am not sure if you are referring to both areas. The statements that were tagged in the lead are reliably sourced and the authors clearly indicated lower down in the Causes section. So there is no need to have all the details or citations there as well - as per WP:Lead. I only see two instances where "thought" is used outside of those areas and in both cases a reliable source is given, so readers can look these points up. I cannot see any problem with the use of "estimated", since these are used for demography and it is useful and accurate to remind the reader that medieval demography can only be estimated. Again these points are reliably sourced in the text. I only see two uses of "scholars" outside of the lead, one is referring back to those named before and is reliably sourced, the other one in the Malthusian crisis section doesn't have a citation, it isn't really a very controversial point, but I think that paragraph could use a reference, so I will tag that one as a reminder. On the separate point about The Book of General Ignorance: no that is not a reliable source and it should be replaced. Overall, I do not think there is a major problem with the way these terms are used, but there are a couple of instances highlighted by this discussion that need improvement.--SabreBD (talk) 09:18, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I am not the subject matter expert here, only an editor who winces at anything in the passive voice where the reader rightly wonders who or by whom. The recommendation I have for a knowledgeable editor is to indicate if non-yersinia pestis origin is more than fringe theory, and if the most recent evidence found supports the long-held theory of its origin. patsw (talk) 13:31, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 195.34.84.141, 18 November 2010

{{edit semi-protected}}

The math regarding the number of deaths don't add up. 375 surviving out of 450 is equivalent to roughly 17% deceased, and 60% dead is equivalent to 180 million surviving. May I suggest: "The Black Death is estimated to have killed 15% – 60% of Europe's population, reducing the world's population from an estimated 450 million to between 180 and 375 million in 1400..."

195.34.84.141 (talk) 08:13, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Not done:There is no disparity here since one figure is for European population and one for the World's. It takes a bigger proportion of population from Europe. This seems pretty clear.--SabreBD (talk) 09:00, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

The Black Death

There was both a TV programme and a recent publication which suggested that there were two types of "bubonic" plague. One was viral and spread via lung infection. The other was the more traditional baterial infection spread by fleas.

Does anybody have any more details about this?AT Kunene (talk) 09:28, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

The theories of bubonic, pneumonic and septicemic infection are set out in the Epidemiology subsection.--SabreBD (talk) 15:18, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

==Inconsistency==: the map depicting the spreading and the text

The text says that the source of the epidemic was China. The map animation (Spreading 1346 - 1351) shows something else: origin is in central Asia, and spread from there to both Europe and to China. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.143.165.49 (talk) 04:01, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Funerary Rituals

{{Edit semi-protected}} So I wanted to add more information to this page that I feel could provide more information for the common user.

Subtitle: Funerary Rituals

During the Black Death, the ringing of the funerary church bells lessened by a considerable degree. In Pistoia, which is located in the Tuscany region of Italy, the government issued an ordinance that prohibited the ringing of the bells:

“So that the sounds of bells does not trouble or frighten the sick, the keepers of the campanile of the cathedral of Pistoia shall not allow any of the bells to be rung during funerals”

The government prohibited the ringing of the bells as they hoped to prevent further panic. Relatives would abandon one another in the hopes to avoid coming down with the plague. Plague victims would die in their homes, and it wouldn’t be known until the stench permeated to their neighbors, and sometimes if found, they would be placed in a shroud and sent for burial. Priests with pallbearers would be sent to fetch the body, but often time they would end up bringing back several bodies, and they would be buried without any ceremony or any company. Boccacio describes this in his Decameron:

When two Priests went with one Crosse to fetch the body; there would follow (behind) three or foure bearers with their Bieres, and when the Priests intended the buriall but of one body, sixe or eight more have made up the advantage, and yet none of them being attended by any seemly company, lights, teares, or the very least decencie, but it plainly appeared, that the very like account was then made of Men or Women, as if they had bene Dogges or Swine.

NOTE: I do have primary source documents to support what I have written:

“Ordinances against the Spread of plague, Pistoia, 1348”. ”. In The Black Death, edited by Rosemary Horrox, 194-203. New York: Manchester University Press, 1994.

Stefani, Marchione di Coppo. “Rubric 643: Concerning a Mortality in the City of Florence in Which Many People Died.” The Florentine Chronicle. Ed. Niccolo Rodolico. 1370-1380.

Boccacio, Giovanni. The Decameron. Florence, 1350. Available From: http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/decameron.txt.

I hope this can be published!

Wu00fly (talk) 02:21, 11 February 2011 (UTC)wu00fly

You didn't say why you want to add it. What does it add to the article and where does it go? You also do not cite any reliable secondary sources, so please check the guidelines on original research.--SabreBD (talk) 07:39, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

-- I think it goes here, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Death_in_medieval_culture. Ninito159 (talk) 22:12, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Ddrouin, 13 February 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} In the Epidemiology section there's a grammatical error: In addition to arguing that the rat population was insufficient to account to allow a bubonic plague pandemic

Perhaps this should instead be written as: In addition to arguing that the rat population was insufficient to account for a bubonic plague pandemic Ddrouin (talk) 22:42, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Done. Thanks. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 13:01, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

the source from NY Times is biased

--Linzhaozhang (talk) 20:57, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

The Animation used in the page "Spread of the Black Death from 1346 to 1351"show the the plagues spread trends,first started from center asia, at the 1346 mongal's siege of Caffa.That plague was transmitted to Europeans by the hurling of diseased cadavers into the besieged city of Caffa and that Italians fleeing from Caffa brought it to the Mediterranean ports.

you can find some very useful source from CDC of USA

source:Biological Warfare at the 1346 Siege of Caffa,Mark Wheelis,University of California, Davis, California USA URL:http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/eid/vol8no9/01-0536.htm

some people quote NY times’s article"Europe’s Plagues Came From China, Study Finds" as sources

source:Europe’s Plagues Came From China,NICHOLAS WADE,October 31, 2010,NY times URL:http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/01/health/01plague.html

may be they haven't seen the orginal article which NY times mention of all the time I found it in the journal PLoS Pathogens's website, the headline is totally different,

Distinct Clones of Yersinia pestis Caused the Black Death,Haensch, S., Bianucci, R., Signoli, M., Rajerison, M., Schultz, M., et al. (2010),PLoS Pathog 6(10): e1001134 source URL:http://www.plospathogens.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.ppat.1001134

In the original one,I found the word "china" is metioned of twice! First in the Introduction section,line 6, paragraph 1 here I quote the whole sentence ... "A third plague pandemic began in the Yunnan region of China in the mid-19th century, and spread globally via shipping from Hong Kong in 1894"

and the second one appear in Discussion section,line 4, paragraph 5,the sentence which I quote below. The ancient genotype from Bergen op Zoom described here differs from all known modern populations from three continents [30], and might now be extinct. The strains from France or England may still exist because the SNPs that have currently been tested match the genotype of isolates from China that have recently been assigned to a new branch, designated branch 3...

according to the article, back to the NY times's article,the author come to the conclusion "The great waves of plague that twice devastated Europe and changed the course of history had their origins in China" and he emphasize it's reported by "a team of medical geneticists".

well,compare to the original one,it seems those genius in NY times goes even further. And also I'm worried about the attitude the article carry out.I smell something behind the paper,something frenzied,something dangerous

"I smell something" is not enough reason for changing an article. You looked at the wrong study. The NYTimes article mentions two studies, one about the China origin and another study ("And in separate research...") that confirms the Yersinia pestis link. Here's another article about the China origin theory with a map: [4]. Here's the original study for the China theory: Nature Genetics vol 42 p1140-1143 (2010). It says right in the summary: "Our phylogenetic analysis suggests that Y. pestis evolved in or near China and spread through multiple radiations to Europe, South America, Africa and Southeast Asia, leading to country-specific lineages that can be traced by lineage-specific SNPs." Find a scientific source that challenges the China theory and it can be included.--88.74.194.50 (talk) 10:40, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

The article now says "in or near China" which allows for the Lake Issyk-Koul theory (1338). There was a plague in Hubei in 1331 which most commentators believe was something different - maybe smallpox. China had its own problems at the time caused by the Mongols, which had similar effects to the problems in Europe actually. The bubonic plague appears to have been around in the 1340s in China, though evidence is hard to find, and peaked in the 1350s and may have killed up to 30% of the population. The NYT article simply repeats the conventional wisdom that the plague spread along the Silk Road whereas the Nature Genetics article prefers a ship-born route. I don't think anyone has much idea at the moment Chris55 (talk) 09:21, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Crisis of the Late Middle Ages

This article seems to be confused with another issue: the whole downturn in the European economy that started well before the Black Death. There was a lot of scholarly discussion some years back about whether the "plague was less the cause than an accelerator of social change" (Colin Pratt). In fact the conclusion of these arguments seem to have reinstated the Black Death as the primary event, as the Herlihy book shows.

I therefore propose moving most of the sections "Populations in Crisis" and "Malthusian limits" to the Crisis of the Late Middle Ages article which needs some boosting. We still need a small section to set the scene but that's all. Chris55 (talk) 09:57, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Map in Infection and Migration section

The map showing the supposed spread of the plague is very pretty but it gives an entirely different picture to the text. The text says that about 25 million people were killed in China in the 15 years before it spread to Constantinople. Yet the map shows it starting near there and progressing eastward to China.

What information is this map based on? Should it be there? Chris55 (talk) 22:15, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

The map animation doesn't appear to work in Internet Explorer 9 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.153.188.41 (talk) 14:42, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Consequences of the Black Death epidemics in Europe

A medical advance was made as a consequence of the Black Death epidemics in Europe and I thought it would be worth mentioning: It is the practice of quarantine. In 1374, the Venetian Republic excuded ships that had sick people on board. In 1377, Ragusa (Dubrovnik, Croatia) isolated apparently healthy travelers for 30 days after arrival to prevent disease transmission by those in the preclinical phase of a transmissible disease. This period was later increased to 40 days (aurante giorni). This is the origin of the word quarantine. (Tsimonso (talk) 01:01, 25 March 2011 (UTC))

Go ahead, this is widely recognised and an important consequence of the epidemic. It's enlarged in the quarantine article Chris55 (talk) 13:39, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

So what stopped the Black Death?

This article says nothing about the end of the Black Death in the 14th and 15th centuries. Sure there were occasional outbreaks that would pop up here and again, but I feel there needs to be a section explaining what causes/practices/hypotheses ended the epidemic? Darwin's Bulldog (talk) 19:38, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Why don't you create a draft and post on the Talk page for review. Ckruschke (talk) 12:10, 10 May 2011 (UTC)Ckruschke

Actually the outbreaks continued into the 17th century, including the Great Plague of London. There were several hundred "mini" plagues - not all necessarily of the same cause. It's easy to explain this in terms of Y. pestis, but not for the many other explanations currently on offer in the article. Chris55 (talk) 13:21, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

The article currently states that there were subsequent outbreaks following the 15th century, but something obviously worked in stopping it, or at least slowing it down from its original chaos. I'm not educated enough on the subject to contribute, that's why I brought it up here. Darwin's Bulldog (talk) 22:11, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Immunity.--SabreBD (talk) 22:22, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

No, the bacteria killed off the hosts: humans, rats and even fleas. Chris55 (talk) 22:39, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Nope, not everybody who gets it dies, about half survive. After a generation there is no immunity in the human population.--SabreBD (talk) 23:21, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

The ones who don't die aren't hosts or manage to eliminate the bacteria. I didn't mention that some bacteria somewhere usually survive. In Asia there are species (e.g. marmots) to whom the bacteria are not fatal. But they can also survive for considerable periods in, say, a grain sack in a warm storehouse. This is probably how they got transported to Europe in the first place. Immunity is not a big factor. This is all in the Yersinia pestis article. I was only trying to give a simple explanation. Chris55 (talk) 10:23, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Isn't the CCR5-Δ32 gene hypothesized to have been selected for during the black plague? If so, only about 10-18% of people of European decent have that particular allele. That small percentage would indicate that immunity wasn't the major contributor to stopping the black plague. Darwin's Bulldog (talk) 21:07, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Can someone draft something sourced by the Y pestis article? I might need to state that it only works for that explanation.--SabreBD (talk) 22:17, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Anthrax

Yes, forgot to explain: the only person to suggest that Anthrax might be a cause was Graham Twigg, in 1984. He has been followed by almost no-one in this and at most this paragraph should appear in the article "Theories of the Black Death". Happy if I move it there? This is referred to as the "main article Causes of the Black Death" and really that whole Causes section needs a thorough reworking. The DNA confirmation has really shown up those who doubted the plague explanation. The problem is that there's a lot of basic information missing from the article: e.g. till recently it said only that bubonic plague was the cause - and certain recent authors such as Samuel Cohn Jr. don't seem to have understood either that the more virulent pneumonic plague was probably important. I've now read most of the stuff from Twigg onwards and am not overly impressed by the "plague deniers". Chris55 (talk) 13:20, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I have no problem with this section being moved to the Theories article. It is going to be extremely difficult to maintain a NPOV here. I agree that Bubonic plague explanation is not only the most likely but also the most widely accepted. On the other hand it is reasonable to mention that others have put forward alternatives, even if they are less prevelant than they once were.--SabreBD (talk) 13:58, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

The real problem is that most of these alternatives are WP:PRIMARY - mostly historians doing original research - and it shows why that policy is needed. The only book I've found which surveys them all and is neutral is Byrne (2004) and I'll add one or two comments from him. Chris55 (talk) 23:15, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Sources needed for Beak doctor costume article

A vigorous discussion is currently under way at Talk:Beak doctor costume about the historical use of the phrase 'beak doctor', and whether said costume was worn before the seventeenth century. I've not been able to find any reliable sources which show that the costume was worn before 1619, and therefore thought I'd ask here if anyone knew of any. Any other contributions, either to the discussion or the article, would be welcome. NotFromUtrecht (talk) 23:52, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Eric567, 23 June 2011

Please replace the spreading of the Black Death in Europe ( File:Spread-Of-The-Black-Death.gif inaccurate) with Image:Spread-Of-The-Black-Death.gif (and change the caption that's about the Black Death in Eurasia.)

Eric567 (talk) 21:05, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Not done: It's the same image. —C.Fred (talk) 21:12, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I think he's probably wanting File:Blackdeath2.gif replaced. The problem with the proposed replacement is that it gets the spread outside of Europe totally wrong. It almost certainly arrived in the Black Sea area from the Central Asian/Chinese border regions not the other way round, probably carried by Mongol traffic. The recent DNA evidence points strongly in this direction. Chris55 (talk) 07:46, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Deaths in Helsinki

Is there any reason for mentioning Helsinki in section Consequenses/Recurrence? It states that "The plague killed two-thirds of the inhabitants of Helsinki", which according to the cited reference corresponds to 1185 deaths. In fact, Helsinki was in the early 18th century nothing more than an ordinary small town, even the fortress of Sveaborg was yet to be built. Therefore it is unobvious why Helsinki is mentioned right next to the Swedish capital Stockholm. --86.50.72.148 (talk) 13:51, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Deaths in Iceland

It's not clear that the black death didn't reach Iceland. The claim that it didn't rests on there not being any rats to spread the plague in Iceland until the 1600's. However, there were plague outbreaks in the 14th century that killed half of the population. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0304418196000176 The recent evidence from the London digs also appear to indicate that rats were not involved. Mischling (talk) 21:31, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 12 October 2011

'genitical' is not a word. it should read 'genetic'.

146.203.130.11 (talk) 19:32, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Done Some dictionaries accept it as a word, others don't, but as the sources use genetic, and the article already uses genetic elsewhere, I have made the change. Monty₈₄₅ 16:02, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 12 October 2011

please change "but has been supported by genetical studies published since 2010." to "but has been supported by genetic studies published since 2010." 146.203.130.11 (talk) 19:33, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Done Some dictionaries accept it as a word, others don't, but as the sources use genetic, and the article already uses genetic elsewhere, I have made the change. Monty₈₄₅ 16:02, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Unaffected spots

I was wondering if anybody had suitable explanation as to why the map shows that what looks like Poland and some random other pockets were not affected by the plague — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.0.34.154 (talk) 03:22, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

The first human skeleton found that shown the proof for the back death been named Mr.Gorsage — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iamgnart (talk • contribs) 03:33, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Causes other than bubonic plague

Economist has a non-scholarly article referencing an article which apparently confirms the cause of black plague as bubonic plague. The link. I don't trust non-scholarly science reporting so if there's anyone who has more expertise on the matter it might be time for some updating... (EDIT) This is the Nature article referenced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bradshawz (talk • contribs) 11:22, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

The Nature reference is robust. BCameron54 10:41, 27 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bcameron54 (talk • contribs)

Edit request from , 17 November 2011

Please add following paragraph {Further Black Death research must focus on the vector, not only for the academic understanding of past epidemics, but also for proper management of plague in countries with populations still living in the presence of the body louse and Y. pestis.} after the reference 26.

Bulle22 (talk) 12:43, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Note: User:Richerman replied to this request below. --Ella Plantagenet (talk) 03:49, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 17 November 2011

Please, could you add the paragraphe{Further Black Death research must focus on the vector, not only for the academic understanding of past epidemics, but also for proper management of plague in countries with populations still living in the presence of the body louse and Y. pestis} at the end of the section Alternative explanationsBulle22 (talk) 13:01, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Bulle22 (talk) 13:01, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry but that would be totally inappropriate. First of all it is a point of view (see wp:NPOV), secondly it's not verifiable (see wp:verifiability), but most of all, wikipedia is an encyclopaedia - not a manual and we don't give advice (see wp:NOTMANUAL) Richerman (talk) 23:34, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Not done: per User:Richerman excellent answer above. --Ella Plantagenet (talk) 03:51, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 18 November 2011

Please add the following paragraphe to the section DNA evidence after the seconde paragraphe The text to be added: Schuenemann et al. recently sequenced the Yersinia pestis pPCP1 plasmid recovered from London Black Death victims. The Black Death etiology was resolved more than thirteen years ago, and Y. pestis was further detected in 27 ancient plague sites in France, Great Britain, Germany, Italy and the Netherlands. Replicating pioneering dental pulp extraction technique, Schuenemann et al. observed a higher amplifiable Y. pestis DNA concentration in teeth (37%) than in bones (5.7%). These data validated our postulate that dental pulp, not bone, should be used to trace ancient blood-borne pathogens lacking specific bone involvement. The data of Schuenemann et al. leave few places for the Black Death Y. pestis strain to differ from an Orientalis-like biotype, which agrees with previous findings. High-throughput sequencing further revealed that broken DNA explained a previous failure to amplify 130-bp Y. pestis DNA from the same London collection. These published negative results call the initial works into question and the Black Death's etiology remained controversial despite the presented clear-cut evidences. The controversy should have been resolved after we proposed the blind replication of these experiments and noted limits in the previous results. Because of this one flawed publication and inconsistencies between Black Death and modern plague epidemics, popular sources of information still publish unproven and false theories regarding the etiology of the Black Death that may be repeated in non-peer-reviewed publications. Bulle22 (talk) 14:13, 18 November 2011 (UTC) Bulle22 (talk) 14:13, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Where does this come from? I don't think you wrote it. Johnbod (talk) 14:25, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Or to put that another way - please read wp:verifiability and cite your source. Richerman (talk) 14:48, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Gangrene Photo Caption

In this article, there is a photograph of a hand that is infected with gangrene. Under this photograph, the caption states that the black necrotized tissue caused by a gangrene, a symptom of the bubonic plague, is the origin of the term "Black Death." In truth, the term "Black Death" originates from the fact that the Black Death was a dark, or unhappy time.

Bibliophile365 (talk) 01:02, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

The OED calls the origin "uncertain", and the issue is already addressed at Black_Death#Naming. I've removed the reference in the caption. Hairhorn (talk) 01:53, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Just to endorse that deletion from the caption. It is a good catch.--SabreBD (talk) 07:46, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I guess the "OED" is a more credible reference on the history of infectious disease then the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. I mean like what do they know, stupid CDC. This guy from the University of South Carolina School of Medicine repeated the same information.[5].

"Right hand of a plague patient displaying acral gangrene.

Gangrene is one of the manifestations of plague, and is the origin of the term "Black Death" given to plague throughout the ages."[6]

But the truth is:

"The name, Black Death, was never used in the Middle Ages. Apparently the first to coin the term were Danish and Swedish chroniclers of the sixteenth century".[7]

So mea culpa, I wrote the original caption.7mike5000 (talk) 15:03, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit request from 10 April, 2012

The word "persecution" in section 5.2 is misspelled. Also, I would like to clean up the first paragraph of section six, as I believe that doesn't sound professional. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nightsd01 (talk • contribs) 00:09, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I corrected the spelling. Do you have a suggestion for a rewrite of the 1st para in Section 6? Ckruschke (talk) 17:24, 11 April 2012 (UTC)Ckruschke

Eurocentrism?

"In 1330s a high frequency of natural disasters and plagues led to widespread famine starting in 1331, with a deadly plague arriving soon after.[18] The population dropped from approximately 120 to 60 million.[19] The 14th-century plague killed an estimated 25 million Chinese and other Asians during the 15 years before it entered Constantinople in 1347.[20]"

Our article portrays this as something that originated in China and then the big story is all about Europe. But if China lost half of it's population in the 1330s, and another 25 million later (hard to explain the sentences above as they seem to partly contradict!) then... it's a pretty big China story too. But we hardly discuss that at all. Interestingly the Google translation of the Chinese article suggests that they treat this in the same way.

I have zero expertise here and zero ability to fix this or even know for sure that it needs fixing. I just raise this in the hopes that someone with more knowledge can offer an opinion!--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:00, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi Jimbo. I think you have pinpointed a difficult issue here and a definite weakness in the article. Reputable studies state categorically the high figures for losses from the plague in China and other parts of Asia, but it seems that there is next to no written evidence of the epidemic in China, and in fact it is mainly notable for its absence from list of other epidemics and disasters. There is some archaeological evidence, but that is very isolated and difficult to evaluate. I am guessing that the confident 25 million figure is based on an assumption that the population loss would have been similar to that for which we have much better evidence in the West. It is also possible that there is a bit of orientalism going on in the historiography here, with storms always coming from the East. At least one book (Ole Jørgen Benedictow, The Black Death, 1346-1353: the complete history, 2004) argues that the China origin is probably false and certainly unsafe. It is possible that the rapidly progressing DNA evidence might throw some light on this and that it is probably an area worth investigating. I would need to research this a bit more (of course someone else may be an actual expert on China and I am not), but it looks as if it will be impossible to outline the situation in China in the same detail as we have for Western Europe. That being so we should certainly reflect the debates and doubts about this, rather than just repeating the largely baseless figure.--SabreBD (talk) 15:27, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

The article states (right before the lines quoted by the OP) that geneticists place the beginning of the outbreak to Yunnan, China. Rmhermen (talk) 16:49, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I've noticed this as well. The article is also lacking discussion of the economic impact of the Black Death. My university course on European history focused primarily on the economic impact. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 16:55, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

The "see also" article Crisis of the Late Middle Ages touches on that - but is in much worse shape than this article. Rmhermen (talk) 19:39, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree on the Eurocentrism charge. One of the problems is the lack of a good copyright-free graphic for the spread of the disease in the 1300s which covers more than Europe. There was one but it was so inaccurate as to be misleading and the recent DNA studies have altered the picture. Also in China there is the problem of distinguishing plague from a number of similar epidemics which occurred at that time, together with the fact that during the 1300s the country was ruled by the Mongols and the normal census system had broken down. The 25m Asia estimate was a report to the Pope at the time if I remember rightly - not the zenith of scientific accuracy! Chris55 (talk) 21:51, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Having checked my notes, I'd point out two other problems: the decline in the Chinese population was aided by Genghiz Khan! Who knows in what proportion - but it certainly wasn't just disease. Also I looked hard for Indian records and could find nothing. There were probably massive deaths, but afaik nothing to improve on the report to Pope Clement. Chris55 (talk) 23:48, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Pax Mongolica

"In China, the 13th century Mongol conquest caused a decline in farming and trading."

I rememeber my History teacher in 7th grade telling us that the Mongol conquest of China actually brought on a period of increased trade, which would be later named as the Pax Mongolica period (or Mongol Ascendency, whatever you would like to call it). If my teacher was incorrect, may someone please enlighten me as to why the Mongol conquest caused a decline in trading and farming in China?

Prof Nom Nom (talk) 22:47, 5 February 2012 (UTC) Prof. Nom Nom

That claim in the article should be changed. Historians debate some effects of the Mongols on agriculture but I doubt reliable sources claim they damaged it overall. And no one doubts the Mongols greatly promoted trade. The article itself says increased trade under the Mongols may explain how the disease arrived in Europe. Colin McLarty (talk) 21:09, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 2 June 2012

at the end of the 2nd paragraph , "plague" is misspelled: The plaugue occasionally reoccurred in Europe until 19th century

80.134.55.12 (talk) 16:32, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:36, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 5 August 2012

At the end of the second paragraph, see "The plague occasionally reoccurred in Europe until the 19th century." change the nonword reoccurred to the correct recurred.

Clcarver (talk) 19:56, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

 Not done

Reoccurred is a word: the simple past and past participle of reoccur. Generally, when something recurs it happened at regular intervals. To say something reoccurs suggests it happened several times, but irregularly. The outbreaks of plague reoccurred irregularly, so this is correct.--SabreBD (talk) 20:08, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit request: citations

Hi. In the paragraph Black_Death#Major_outbreaks it says: "[it] resulted in widespread persecution of minorities[why?] such as Jews, foreigners, beggars, and lepers.[citation needed]". Citations ARE given, in paragraph Black_Death#Persecutions. Maybe we should refer to that paragraph in Major Outbreaks? I am sorry, I wouldn't really know how that should be done according to the Wikipedia Style Guide ;) 83.160.103.76 (talk) 16:23, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Immunity?

I'm wondering if their is any information on human immunity to the plague. It would seem very odd that with all of the exposure and all of the survivors (certainly the majority of people) of that exposure in the past 1,500 yrs, that we would not have developed such an immunity. 4.246.166.63 (talk) 20:18, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Good question. One useful discussion starts "Its pretty amazing that we still don’t have a vaccine against the plague." But part of the reason is that plague kills most people who come in contact with it before they have a chance to develop immunity. In fact it's so effective that the disease usually blows itself out when there are no more victims available. That article points out that using weakened F1 antigen as a vaccine as is done in China works for less than 10 years. An article in Nature points out that 10% of Europeans have a genetic mutation that protects against the plague - whereas in 1350 only 1 in 20,000 had it (how they know isn't explained). That may well be due to the plague and may also protect people from HIV but the issue is controversial. And there's so much inaccurate information around that it's not easy to be sure. Chris55 (talk) 21:34, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

There's also some discussion about immunity here. Richerman (talk) 23:43, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Cohn is a historian not a scientist and personally I wouldn't give much credence to his theories. He's backtracking a little but still talks almost exclusively about bubonic plague whereas clearly pneumonic plague was very important in the black death. Chris55 (talk) 23:58, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

It's my understanding that most people of European ancestry who are alive today are immune to the disease since we are the descendents of people who either were immune themselves or who got the disease but recovered.Risssa (talk) 00:12, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Your understanding is false, or at least unproven. It's certainly not true that all survivors were immune. The CCR5 delta 32 mutation confers immunity to HIV and Ebola and it's been speculated that it confers resistance to plague based on an initial estimate that it originated in Europe 700 years ago, but I understand that estimate's since been changed so its relationship to plague is unclear. As for "people who got the disease but recovered", well so many Europeans had the plague that it's almost certain that anyone today of European descent has some ancestor who had it, but the plague never managed to infect the entire population. There were certainly some people who made it through unscathed, and others who survived by chance (whether or not due to some helpful mutation). --Saforrest (talk) 04:47, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

people dont know how the disease have became what it is to this day it can be curve and yet most people die from it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.77.20.158 (talk) 17:04, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

How spread so quickly?More Qs then As!

I have read that recent studies have shown that rats were only common in London and that most of Britain had a low rat population. How did this disease spread so quickly? If there were no rats how did the fleas get around? (assuming they were the carrier?)It seems there was person to person infection judging by the known spread pattern from village records. People in England had the desease for 2.5weeks before they died. The ones who died next were always neighbours or relatives. The disease spread so quickly that it was gone from a village within a month leaving 50-60% death rate. If so few had natural immunity and the disease was so contagious why were there not more deaths? The black rat that has been blamed prefers subtropical climates and does not cross large rural areas.Questions! Questions! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.237.36.191 (talk) 10:59, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

The fleas jumped from rats to other animals, including humans, who then spread it to other people. All you would need is a few itinerant peddlers, scribes or priests to carry the fleas on their persons or on their dogs to spread the disease far and wide. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Risssa (talk • contribs) 00:31, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Is it possible that the Black Death was really two pandemic together? One spread it with contagious symptoms and the other develop deadly symptoms to kill faster? 68.147.208.126 (talk) 00:22, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

The normal view is that it was 3 or possibly more. The bacteria involved was almost certainly Yersinia pestis but rats are not the only way it is spread. See Bubonic plague, Pneumonic plague, Septicemic plague. The latter two were much rarer by the 19th century when epidemiology took off and so were largely ignored. In the 14th century there was no medical knowledge of these things and it's quite possible that outbreaks of typhus, smallpox or other scourges happened in some places at the same time. I see the plague (disease) link has been removed again from the lead. I'll replace it. Chris55 (talk) 14:16, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Unaffected "islands"

This article and the article "Black death migration" both mention that some places were unaffected: "Poland and isolated parts of Belgium and the Netherlands", as well as, judging from the maps shown, the Milan area and the Andorra area. But there's no explanation or theories mentioned about why that was the case. What was the reason for this? How was it possible? This feels like a glaring omission of noteworthy information.Adrigon (talk) 23:45, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 21 August 2013

the song ring around the possies is about the black plague

Jt21477 (talk) 14:17, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

No it isn't - that's an urban legend, see: Ring a Ring o' Roses. Richerman (talk) 16:12, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Error: Naming of the Black Death

In the "Naming" section of this article, it is stated that:

The German physician and medical writer Justus Hecker suggested that a mistranslation of the Latin atra mors (terrible, or black, death) had occurred in Scandinavia when he described the catastrophe in 1832[18] in his publication "Der schwarze Tod im vierzehnten Jahrhundert".

I have examined the original 1832 edition of Hecker's book on the Black Death. Nowhere in that book does the phrase "atra mors" occur. On page 1, there is a footnote in which Hecker mentions finding the phrase "den sorte Dod" (the black Death, in Danish) in a Danish book published in 1631 — see: J.F.C. Hecker, Der schwarze Tod im vierzehnten Jahrhundert (Berlin, (Germany): Friedr. Aug. Herbig, 1832), page 3. However, Hecker doesn't attribute this name to any mistranslation.

Joseph Byrne states that the name "atra mors" (terrible / black death) originated among Scandinavian authors who wrote in Latin during the 16th and 17th century. At the time of the great medieval epidemic, only one writer — Simon de Covinus in 1350 — described the disease as the "mors nigra" (the black death). See: Joseph Patrick Byrne, The Black Death (Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press, 2004), page 1.

See also:

• Philip Ziegler, The Black Death (London, England: Faber & Faber, 2008), pages 1313-1314.
• Stephen d'Irsay (May 1926) "Notes to the origin of the expression: atra mors," Isis, 8 (2) : 328-332.

Cwkmail (talk) 12:44, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Article needs revision

A friend quoted this page in a discussion, prompting me to check it out. I noticed some issues with the figures quoted in the first paragraph, and following the links to the references raised further questions about it.

The article quotes a death toll in the range 75-200 million for Europe, and provides three references to support this. However, in reviewing those references it is clear that they have been misused and do not in fact support the claims being made. The lower estimate of 75 million is an extreme estimate for the total deaths in Europe alone, yet is quoted here as being at the lower end. The referenced article itself makes it clear that this figure addresses the full range of affected territories, with European deaths included in this figure (at a correspondingly lower level).

The upper estimate of 200 million is given in the article as the upper limit for European deaths, but again this conflicts with the information in the referenced sources. The sources clearly assign this figure to the casualties for the full range of affected territories, not just Europe alone as implied in the Wikipedia page.

The article needs to be amended so that the opening paragraph either more clearly links the presently quoted numbers to the full range of affected territories, or else corrects the numbers to those applicable to Europe itself. The European population at the time was only around 75 million to start with, and the Black Death killed between one third and one half of that number. For even the lower end of the currently quoted Wikipedia range to be correct, the entire population would have been wiped out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Damienleer (talk • contribs) 02:05, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Feel free to Be Bold and make your suggested changes. Ckruschke (talk) 16:50, 22 May 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke

I think you'll find the article is LOCKED. I don't know why an article on the black death would be locked (it's not a Justin Bieber article, for example) but it is. Ergo, any changes one seeks to make must first be brought to this page for... dunno what this achieves, but it's the only option available to us. For, I was also intent on adding notes relating to the problems inherent in the Yersinia pestis theory from Mr Cohn's 2008 article here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2630035/ Alas, I am unable for the aforementioned reason. Just sayin'. 2001:44B8:41CD:3800:CC99:4508:C9F6:F6C8 (talk) 03:15, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Anon editor: First - please note you are replying to a thread that is 9 months old. Second - the page is locked due to persistent vandalism and has nothing to do with the unversal popularity of the subject.

That being said, if you'd like to make an edit, please paste the entire exact text of the edit you are requesting be made (puls ref's) into a new thread titled "Edit Request" and either I or one of the other editors watching the page will review it and make the changes as necessary. Ckruschke (talk) 19:15, 27 February 2014 (UTC)Ckruschke

First paragraph

I found it very confusing that the first paragraph doesn't mention bubonic plague by name but instead delves into a discussion of how the Black Death has been traced via DNA to Yersinia pestis bacterium. Then, in the Overview section, bubonic plague itself is introduced. Is the Black Death the same thing as bubonic plague? Also, I think the part about DNA analysis in the first paragraph should go somewhere else, under Section 4 -- Causes.Risssa (talk) 00:25, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

You make a couple of good points here. I added bubonic plague to relevant section the lead and hope that is now clearer. I also take the point about where the etiology occurs here, but it is fair to say that the lead really needs recasting to reflect a changed article and to fit with WP:LEAD. I will try to get back and do this if no-one gets there before me.--SabreBD (talk) 07:06, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

I've adjusted this to the more general term Plague. There's been a historical tendency in this article to assume that Bubonic plague was the only cause of the Black Death and this gave rise to much of the furious discussion in the early 2000s about whether there was some other cause altogether (which was reflected in the article). The confusion arose largely because by the 19th century the more viralent forms had ceased to have any effect and therefore the epidemiological work concentrated on the bubonic variety. But there's a notable lack of incidence of rats in 1348/9. Chris55 (talk) 10:51, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

First paragraph: "The plague -reoccurred- occasionally in Europe until the 19th century." Fix to recurred? 71.180.244.67 (talk)

Thanks, yes, done. Ian Spackman (talk) 16:04, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Black Death was not a bubonic plague?

If this latest news is correct this article may need a lot of changes http://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/mar/29/black-death-not-spread-rat-fleas-london-plague --Skintigh (talk) 17:36, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Not really - this is primary research which someone has already added, probably prematurely. But similar thinking has been around for years and is already covered in the article. Johnbod (talk) 18:20, 30 March 2014 (UTC)