Talk:Bubonic plague/Archive 1

Archive 1

More than one plague

There is a bit of a problem with the bubonic plague page as it is recognized here as the only version of the plague, and all other versions are redirected here. The pnuemonic plague, for example, does not carry the same symptoms and is transfered through coughs and sneezes, like the common cold, not through flea bites. It would really help if someone would make note of that fact and perhaps create pages for these different types of plague. (material submitted 17:19, 15 January 2008 168.18.81.59 (talk)

Please see existing related articles: Plague, Pneumonic plague and Septicemic plague and well as the history based Plague of Justinian, Black Death, and Third Pandemic. WBardwin (talk) 00:15, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Merger with Y. pestis

I would not agree that this should be merged with Y. pestis Jsmith86 (talk) 23:17, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Impossible, there are currently four articles for the disease and its manifestations, not including Y. pestis or the numerous outbreak articles. They need to be kept separate so they can develop, and to prevent the formation of a poorly organised, extremely long article. cyclosarin (talk) 08:37, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

We started off, several years ago with one fairly comprehensive Bubonic plague article with a slight history based flavor. Then more medically oriented people had the bright idea to separate out the three variations, based on symptoms. An editor then asserted that the word "plague" could only be used in the medical sense, i.e. for the disease caused by Y. pestis. And so the use of the word "plague" became more complicated in other history of disease articles. As a historian rather than medic, it appears to me that the separate articles are excessive. I would think one larger 'medical' Y. pestis article might be better, with a basic explanation of the various symptoms. The three symptomatic diseases could remain as stubs. The historic incidents and impact of the disease could be addressed in yet another article. WBardwin (talk) 22:50, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the best way to resolve this would be to let Plague (disease) continue from the old "Bubonic plague" article (as it has), let Y. pestis discuss the microbiology and the sub-pages (bubonic, pneumonic...) discuss the clinical symptoms etc. As the main (plague - disease) article becomes more comprehensive it ought to combine general historical significance as well as some medical details. The most important part is to have one "main article" for the disease itself, which even in a medical context is associated with the term 'plague' not the name of the organism causing it. cyclosarin (talk) 18:26, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

It can be "spread by human crap"!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.23.217.20 (talk) 20:36, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I personally think that the article should stay as is(by that I mean not be merged).WackoJackO 14:54, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Addition of "Signs and Symptoms" picture

On the Black Death pages, Signs and symptoms has a pretty good picture of a human body and organs targeted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonthecheet (talk • contribs) 20:39, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

That sounds like a great idea. That picture would definitely help illustrate the symptoms of bubonic plague(on this article). Are you going to add it? I will if you don't.WackoJackO 00:07, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I actually have no idea how to add it, so go ahead. Plus I just wanted feedback on my idea.--Jonthecheet (talk) 19:51, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

On an article, go to the top right a little left of search, and click "New section." That's how you add a new section. 74.38.74.190 (talk) 23:47, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

nasty

this is gross —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.242.56.8 (talk) 18:43, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

How is it gross? It was a very dangerous disease that still has the capability to kill billions if it reemerged. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.233.175.49 (talk) 18:53, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

.... how is that NOT gross? o_0 71.233.119.221 (talk) 06:16, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

it is a bit gross but true its a disiase

Natural Immunity?

I saw a program on TV about an English researcher who claimed to have found a genetic variant in some people that conferred natural immunity to Bubonic Plague. Does anyone out there know about this? If true or even speculative, it should be mentioned in the article. Virgil H. Soule (talk) 05:39, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I heard about this too, in Genetics. I can't cite any sources, but apparently there were individuals (during the original Plague outbreaks) who had a genetic mutation that enabled them to ward off the plague better than other people could. My professor said this mutation was in Eastern and Central European populations, and has been passed on to their descendents. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.53.42.0 (talk) 04:50, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Please see Eyam for reference to one study included in a documentary on T.V. WBardwin (talk) 23:22, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

The third pandemic in India

The third pandemic in India is an important event in the history of plague, as the deleted text says the political violence which resulted from the plague was the most serious in the world, as much notable as the Japanese bombing the Chinese with plague. I wish to bring the deleted text back leaving a talkback message for the deleter. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 16:37, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

• Okay. Could we note that fact in summary (the plague outbreak resulted in serious violence) without going into specifics? The original text had a lot of detail with no clear relevance to the article topic. --Kenji Yamada (talk) 21:33, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Do you like what I have written. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 11:08, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I have added a sub-section with the title Political impact in colonial India, i.e. the political impact of the plague in colonial India. Rand and Ayerst were the only Europeans to have been killed in Maharashtra in 40 years since 1857 for political reasons. Their shooting and Tilak's arrest for his writings in Kesari, his subsequent release before his term was complete, and the public outrage, the acts of British troops engaged in plague control and pressure from the population which caused their being taken off were a turning point, the British decided to leave the Indians to their fate, withdrawing all the coercive measures. it was an indication that the British were not infallible and were amenable to pressure. It was an important impact of the plague. Where else can we not have it than in the article on plague? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 11:37, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Please see related articles, 22 June 1897, Chapekar brothers, Bal Gangadhar Tilak. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 11:44, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

• This seems like far too much detail to figure for an article about Bubonic Plague, not to mention suspiciously partisan. A one-sentence summary of the supposed political effects, followed by a link to the actual incidents should suffice, and help prevent a good article from being smothered with irrelevant pontificating. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.164.181.218 (talk) 15:58, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

One definition of pontification is To express opinions or judgments in a dogmatic way, which I assume the above entry alleges and I protest as unfair. I have merely quoted the above source, additionally this and other sources add that the said incident brought back memories of 1857 to the colonial rulers, because of which they decided to leave Indians alone, unless it was directly against their interests, a momentous moment in British-Indian relations, it is said. Not my opinion but what reliable sources have commented on the plague control measures and the resultant reaction (shooting). Certainly an event of global and timeless importance relating to the plague. If the matter can be presented in a more concise manner without sacrificing the content I have no argument. Also please it would be appreciated if the comment is not anonymous. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 07:39, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Please consider adding your history oriented information to Third Pandemic, a modest existing article dealing with the world wide distribution of plague. WBardwin (talk) 02:51, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Do you suggest taking it off from here and then adding it there or it being carried by both the articles? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 15:51, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

My preference would be a brief summary on this disease oriented article and a full treatment on the history article. You might look at the Black Death article for historic context of a plague outbreak. At present Third Pandemic is largely a list of outbreak locations, with a brief discussion of the initial outbreaks in China and the dispersion mechanism. Additional information could aid the reader to understand the pattern and impact of this instance of disease globalization. I copied the section 'Political impact in colonial India' to Third Pandemic as a start. It looks good there. Best......WBardwin (talk) 02:31, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Ideally there should be a seperate article perhaps titled Political impact of the Third Pandemic in colonial India. As I have written above the plague's handling by the colonial government provoked Indians to fight the British. The Chapekar brothers and their execution provided inspiration to individuals like Sawarkar, the shooting of another colonial officer Collector Jackson in Nashik can be seen as a part of the chain of events set in motion by the Third Pandemic. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 04:53, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Is the following brief enough?

“ In the closing years of the 19th century, Indian cities like Pune were severely affected during the Third Pandemic. The British colonial government responded with military repression and tyranny. Nationalists publicly berated the government. On 22 June 1897, Chapekar brothers,young brahmins, shot and killed Rand, the Pune Special Plague Committee chairman, and his military escort, Lt. Ayerst, this has been considered as the worst violence against political authority seen anywhere in the world during the third plague pandemic ”

Yogesh Khandke (talk) 05:31, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if Rand and Ayerst's names are all that important in this context, but I think that is about the right length. --although someone else will come along and compress it a little more. I've been fussing with the Third Pandemic section, copy editing and stretching it out. Please feel free to make changes. I don't want to intrude on your efforts here. I would agree that the political implications of the plague, including this incident, would make a good separate article, tied both to disease and to the Indian independence movement. Best..........WBardwin (talk) 06:11, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Better?

“ In 1897, Pune in British India, was severely affected during the Third Pandemic. The government responded with a Committee that perpetrated military repression and tyranny. Nationalists publicly berated the government. On 22 June 1897, Chapekar brothers,young brahmins, shot and killed two British officers the Committee chairman and his military escort. This has been considered as the worst violence against political authority seen anywhere in the world during the third plague pandemic, and a landmark event in India's freedom struggle ”

Yogesh Khandke Yogesh Khandke (talk) 07:06, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Looks good / but I never can resist tweeking. How 'bout? WBardwin (talk) 22:11, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

“ In 1897, Pune in British India, was severely affected during the Third Pandemic. The government responded to the plague outbreak with a Committee that perpetrated military repression and tyranny. Nationalists publicly berated the government. On 22 June 1897, two young brahmins, the Chapekar brothers, shot and killed two British officers, the Committee chairman and his military escort. This act has been considered a landmark event in India's struggle for freedom as well as the worst violence against political authority seen in the world during the third plague pandemic. ”

A little fine tuning.

“ In 1897, Pune in British India, was severely affected during the Third Pandemic. The government responded to the plague outbreak with a Committee that used the military to perpetrate repression and tyranny as it tackled the pandemic. Nationalists publicly berated the government. On 22 June 1897, two young brahmins, the Chapekar brothers, shot and killed two British officers, the Committee chairman and his military escort. This act has been considered a landmark event in India's struggle for freedom as well as the worst violence against political authority seen in the world during the third plague pandemic. ”

Yogesh Khandke (talk) 13:08, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I nestled the above paragraph into the article, and tweeked a little. OK? WBardwin (talk) 02:34, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Will this give a little balance?

“ ... The government responded with a committee. Though the committee had expressed instructions to work for the pepople and not against them , for respect of caste and religious practices and the privacy esp. of women from the governor of Bombay state, it allgedly used the military ... ”

Yogesh Khandke (talk) 03:55, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.241.167.209 (talk) 22:47, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Ring_Around_the_Rosy

Wikipedia's own page on Ring_Around_the_Rosy states that the link to the Bubonic Plague is considered baseless by folklorists. I'm editing and linking.71.103.12.74 (talk)

"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 Bubonic plague, 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. Anthony (talk) 11:52, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

A better quality picture would be helpful. :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.53.72.196 (talk) 23:06, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

The list of articles for the trial is being reconsidered, in light of feedback from editors, and should be ready in a day or two. If you have any thoughts about the Invitation to edit proposal, they would be very welcome at the project talk page. Anthony (talk) 14:38, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Google Health File?

Was wondering what the point of inserting the teeny tiny barely legible (even when after you click on the actual file) Google Health pdf. This is the only health-related page I watch so maybe this is standard, but I don't think this adds to the page. Wouldn't it just be easier to condense the pertinent info and write it into the page? Ckruschke (talk) 13:37, 7 March 2011 (UTC)Ckruschke

Last part of "Laboratory Testing" section doesn't make sense.

Laboratory testing

Laboratory testing is required, in order to diagnose and confirm plague. Ideally, confirmation is through the identification of Y. pestis culture from a patient sample. Confirmation of infection can be done by examining serum taken during the early and late stages of infection. To quickly screen for the Y. pestis antigen in patients, rapid dipstick tests have been developed for field use.[6] Treatments: Put warm water, Honey, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.146.233.54 (talk) 07:38, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Google Health File?

Was wondering what the point of inserting the teeny tiny barely legible (even when after you click on the actual file) Google Health pdf. This is the only health-related page I watch so maybe this is standard, but I don't think this adds to the page. Wouldn't it just be easier to condense the pertinent info and write it into the page? Ckruschke (talk) 13:37, 7 March 2011 (UTC)Ckruschke

Last part of "Laboratory Testing" section doesn't make sense.

Laboratory testing

Laboratory testing is required, in order to diagnose and confirm plague. Ideally, confirmation is through the identification of Y. pestis culture from a patient sample. Confirmation of infection can be done by examining serum taken during the early and late stages of infection. To quickly screen for the Y. pestis antigen in patients, rapid dipstick tests have been developed for field use.[6] Treatments: Put warm water, Honey, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.146.233.54 (talk) 07:38, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

More evidence that the bubonic plague was not the Black Death

http://www.thestar.com/news/world/article/1041401--don-t-blame-rats-for-the-black-death-new-book-argues

24.222.210.143 (talk) 13:41, 19 August 2011 (UTC)Rachel

Or, as this article shows, it is Bubonic Plague that caused the Black death, but there are genetic differences between bubonic now and bubonic then. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44318988/ns/health-infectious_diseases/

Eterntychanges0210 (talk) 16:33, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Archive 1