Jump to content

Talk:Eyam

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

Untitled

[edit]

Questioned images moved here for discussion - WBardwin 02:31, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

File:Beautiful Britain eyam17.jpg
The remembrance service, 2002
File:Beautiful Britain eyam46.jpg
The Plague Cottages, many of whose residents died during the outbreak
File:Beautiful Britain eyam26.jpg
Eyam

Founded by Saxons and mined by Romans???

[edit]

This can't be true. The Romans would have left before the founding of a village by Anglo-Saxons they definitely wouldn't have returned to mine!! Possibly there was a Roman mine and small settlement in the area prior to the founding of Eyam by the later Germanic incomers? -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.108.153.194 (talk) 22:45, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The present village was founded and named by Anglo-Saxons, although lead HAD been mined in the area by the Romans. HAD means that the Roman mines were there BEFORE the Anglo-Saxons founded and named it. Adlihtam (talk) 19:42, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Source for HIV Statement

[edit]

Can we please get a source for the remark concerning AIDS immunity? Mostly it's for my own curiosity, but I'm sure others will want to know where the statement came from. --Impaciente 20:21, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • The article says: "In fact, the levels of Delta 32 found in Eyam were only matched in regions of Europe that had been affected by the plague and in Americans of European origin." This is an almost worthless statement: The rest of the UK is also in Europe and yet didn't it is implied that it didn't have the same levels of Delta 32. Furthermore if the population of all Americans of European origin have the same levels of Delta 32 then what significance is there in this? It doesn't make sense, and looks like the author is trying to say something else, but not sucessfully. Regarding the HIV immunity: there needs to be a proper distinction made between AIDS and HIV. One cannot have "immunity" from AIDS, which is a syndrome. You can be immune to a virus, in this case HIV. Furthermore, from reading the source of this claim it can be seen to be speculative at this stage. The article should therefore mention this is speculation. --Anonymous 13:35, 24 February 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know about any of the other research, but I am one of the descendants spoken of in the article, I live in Eyam and my ancestors survived the plague. We had a TV crew come and take saliva samples and they rang us up a few months later telling us that we were immune to the Plague, HIV and AIDS. They said that if one of our parents had this immunity, then we could get the plague, and we would get sick, but we would survive. Alternatively, if both our parents were immune, we could get the illness and survive it without even seeing symptoms. The program was broadcast in 2002 on BBC but I forget what it was called. It did have an explanation of the immunity, something about how the plague and HIV/AIDS attack the body in the same way, and this was the reason for the immunity, something about hijacking white blood cells if my memory serves me correctly.--Santahul 18:38, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I saw the program for a second time and the point, as I understand it, is that Eyam was a relatively ideal test case for the hypothesis that a rare genetic mutation amoung the entire European population became more prominent due to the massive die off during the Black Death. So--
  • Eyam's unique history of voluntary quarantine,
  • moderate survival rate, and

*the tendency for survivors and their descendants to stay in the village and marry other villagers,

enabled the scientists to isolate this gene mutation. Then they were able to look for the mutation in other areas of the world, and found it only in descendants of people in Europe during the appropriate plague period, in varying percentages of the population. So -- Eyam's population is not unique in its percentage of immunity, but is only unique due to the inadvertant "laboratory" conditions for the research effort. Can anyone can say this more concisely in the article? This not very concise or clear. Best........WBardwin 03:09, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just corrected my original comment. I meant to say that only one of the parents has to be immune for the child to have the immunity.--Santahul 10:07, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removed Unverifiable Information

[edit]

Just about to remove this in reference to the Plague section:

"The cloth was opened by the tailor's assistant, George."

Pursey 10:14, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Still fear that this is unverifiable, but I'm not going to remove it again, lest Start an edit war. Pursey 10:27, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is not unverifiable. In a video produced for the University of Derby as an introduction to the module: Public Health: International Perspectives which is part of the BSc Nursing Studies programme, it is very clearly stated that George Viccars, who lodged with the tailor (Alexander Hadfield), and was his assistant who unpacked the cloth. See: Historical perspective of public health practice - The story of Eyam at about 1 min:25 sec. George Viccar's death is portrayed in one of the stained glass windows of the church at Eyam. See also here and here. ServeDotty (talk) 15:26, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
But is that story verifiable? It seems to me to be a local legend, most likley an embellished retelling of the truth. EmilySarah99 (talk) 03:02, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Clarity/accuracy of dates?

[edit]

I have noticed that the introductory section states "chose to isolate itself when the plague was found in the village in August 1665" but this seems inconsistent with the statement in the Plague History section that "They introduced a number of precautions to slow the spread of the illness from May 1665". Upon re-reading this I would think (not knowing the facts myself) that it was perhaps the decision to isolate that was taken in August, with the discovery having taken place some months earlier? It might be worth re-phrasing to clarify the article on this point, perhaps adding the date of discovery if it is known.

Richard 23 Dec 2008 81.174.171.147 (talk) 14:35, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]


SarahDixon:) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.242.148.34 (talk) 13:28, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

George Viccars dies on 7 September 1665, the next death occurred 15 days later. Victims of the Eyam Plague in Chronological Order ServeDotty (talk) 14:04, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Celtic Cross Photograph

[edit]

I have a photograph of this cross taken by me in 2006 while visiting Eyam and there is a small sign beside the cross which clearly states that it is from the 8th Century A.D. NolaGal (talk) 16:07, 23 February 2010 (UTC) NolaGal, 23 February 2010[reply]

please have a go at loading it... pref into commons Victuallers (talk) 16:29, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The section Anglo-Saxon cross suggests that the cross used to be "at the side of a cart track near Eyam" and a couple of sentences later "on a moor outside the village". The two aren't necessarily incompatible, but it could do with rewording by someone who knows the true situation (or clarifying, if sources differ). Dave.Dunford (talk) 15:44, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
see http://megalithix.wordpress.com/2011/06/01/eyam-cross/ -- 78.52.191.221 (talk) 21:46, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

pronunciation

[edit]

S.o. changed the pron. from "eem" to "aym". Anyone know which? — kwami (talk) 02:45, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

+ poem

[edit]

http://digital.library.villanova.edu/Cuala%20Press%20Broadside%20Collection/Broadside-00030.xml -- 92.226.210.82 (talk) 23:47, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Eyam recollections

[edit]

An excellent background to growing up in Eyam in late 19th and early 20th century is given by Doris Coates in her book "Tunes on a Penny Whistle - a Derbyshire childhood". Published by Sutton Publishing Ltd. 1993. Tony Cardy 9.12.14 103.241.57.172 (talk) 21:15, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for mentioning this. Statements made in articles need to be substantiated with a reference, however, and I cannot find one online that mentions that the book gives an account of growing up in Eyam. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 09:20, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Here you are: "This book is a personal history of a childhood in the village of Eyam – known as the Plague Village – in the Peak District of Derbyshire... " Tunes on a Penny Whistle: A Derbyshire Childhood Kindle Edition and, if you are worried about itclick on "Look Inside" and you will see references (including a sketch of a cottage) to Eyam. All you really need to do is a Google Search for the book title. ServeDotty (talk) 18:03, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Consistency/accuracy of death/mortality rates

[edit]

In the 3rd paragraph of the Plague outbreak section it says: The plague ran its course over 14 months and one account states that it killed at least 260 villagers, with only 83 surviving out of a population of 350. This figure has been challenged on a number of occasions with alternative figures of 430 survivors from a population of around 800 being given. The church in Eyam has a record of 273 individuals who were victims of the plague.

However, this does not seem to be consistent with the Great Plague of London page, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Plague_of_London.

In the last paragraph of the Height of the epidemic section, it says: the outbreak affected other areas of the country as well. Perhaps the most famous example was the village of Eyam in Derbyshire. The plague allegedly arrived with a merchant carrying a parcel of cloth sent from London, although this is a disputed point. The villagers imposed a quarantine on themselves to stop the further spread of the disease. This prevented the disease from moving into surrounding areas but the cost to the village was the death of around 80% of its inhabitants over a period of fourteen months.

Anyone know what we should do about this?

I've put this on the Great Plague of London talk page as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adlihtam (talk • contribs) 17:22, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is a detailed population of Eyam 1664-1667 available from the Eyam museum which can be read online https://www.eyam-museum.org.uk/assets/files/eyam-population-1664-1667.pdf. ServeDotty (talk) 14:14, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above link is broken, am currently working on a fix.

EmilySarah99 (talk) 11:46, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.eyam-museum.org.uk/assets/files/eyam-population-1664-1667.pdf EmilySarah99 (talk) 03:17, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Eyam. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:02, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Eyam. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:43, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Eyam. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:37, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Plague village

[edit]

A shift of emphasis regarding the village's notability has been suggested by Awien. Awien believes that Eyam is best known for the action of the villagers in isolating themselves from local communities so that the plague did not spread. However, it has been promoting itself as "the plague village" for all the decades since I first became aware of it, putting the emphasis on the fact that this was a rare outbreak locally, having been carried by chance from London, the Great Plague's centre. Awien says the phrase "plague village" does not appear on the village's website, which has changed since I last looked at it. However, a Google search for the Eyam site came up with "Eyam historic plague village" in its result, which suggests that this was formerly how it presented itself. It is also so described on such sites as Trip Advisor, where the village museum is noted as focusing on the plague itself; and on the Peak District and Derbyshire and the Peak District Information sites. The phrase also occurs in a BBC feature detailing the effect of the plague on the villagers; and is considered in a piece of academic research detailing the interaction between the place's identity as "plague village" and the tourist industry. Naturally the self-sacrifice of the villagers is an important part of the story, but it is not, as Awien wishes to make it, the principal point of interest. Sweetpool50 (talk) 12:40, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Eyam would not be famous if it hadn't been for the action of the villagers in quarantining themselves, as the very first sentence in its own website makes clear: "An outbreak of the plague was contained when the villagers decided to isolate themselves from the surrounding communities." Awien (talk) 13:41, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please address yourself to the many other instances of the phrase rather than harping on about the contents of a recently changed website. But why don't we compromise on a modification of the lede statement that used to be there from at least 2003: "The village is best known for being the "plague village" that chose to isolate itself when the plague was discovered there August 1665, rather than let the infection spread." That gives us both the main points. Sweetpool50 (talk) 14:13, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I endorse your proposed rewrite, but you would do well to modify your hectoring tone. Awien (talk) 14:40, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Sweetpool50: I agree with Awien about hectoring tone.--Geysirhead (talk) 09:41, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Plague

[edit]

Plague survivorship might have been caused by gene delta32: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WfRJEm96Lgo. 67.209.130.179 (talk) 05:46, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting but inappropriate for the following reasons: the way this is worded, it's only speculation so far; the source is a subscription only channel, which is inadmissable per WP:SOURCE; this article is about Eyam, not the plague, so the speculation is WP:OFFTOPIC. Sweetpool50 (talk) 06:42, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lead revert

[edit]

Restructuring the lead got reverted as "illogical" with the request to discuss on the talk page. I should have given a clearer edit summary, really, but the main point was putting the summarised history of the village (foundation, lead mining, loss of industry in 20th century, 17th century plague) into chronological order, rather than throwing in the plague at the end. 2011 population also seemed like too minor a detail for the lead, but I guess it does help set the context of what size of village it is. --Lord Belbury (talk) 11:43, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for coming back on this, Lord Belbury. I do see your point. I suppose the prominence given Eyam's reputation was the result of the discussion with Awien above. I agree too that the present day population figure belongs at the end of the History section and I'll move it there once we agree on the wording of the lede summary: Will this do?

Eyam ( /ˈiːm/)[1] is an English village and civil parish in the Derbyshire Dales that lies within the Peak District National Park. There is evidence of occupation by Ancient Britons on the surrounding moors and lead was mined in the area by the Romans.[2] A settlement was founded on the present site by Anglo-Saxons, when mining continued and other industries later developed. However, Eyam gained prominence after bubonic plague was discovered there in 1665 and the villagers chose to go into isolation so as to prevent the infection spreading.[3]

In the later 20th century the village’s sources of livelihood largely disappeared. The local economy now relies on the tourist trade, with Eyam being promoted as "the plague village", although its story had been kept alive by a growing number of literary works since the early 19th century.'

In addition, I've just come across an academic article claiming that the Eyam story is largely a literary myth. I may factor that into the article and, if it's sufficiently convincing, might mention it in the lede as well. Sweetpool50 (talk) 23:50, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
New lead structure looks good. Although how true is it to say that "Eyam gained prominence after bubonic plague was discovered there in 1665" - did the story of the village become widespread immediately, or (and perhaps your myth source has more to say about this) much later? --Lord Belbury (talk) 15:51, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, Lord Belbury, the article I mentioned made that clear and I'll change the wording to "Eyam's main claim to fame is the story of how the village chose to go into isolation so as to prevent infection spreading after bubonic plague was discovered there in 1665." That can be expanded on in a planned final section to the main article on criticism of "the legend". Sweetpool50 (talk) 16:16, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Eyam in brief". eyamvillage.org. Retrieved 16 May 2014.
  2. ^ "Living with the plague". Local Legends. BBC. Retrieved 12 April 2007.
  3. ^ Skipalis, Brandi. "Construction of Heritage and Identity in the Plague Village: Examining the Intersections of Local Identity, Heritage Tourism, and Local Heritage Museum in Eyam" (PDF). University of Manchester. Retrieved 30 April 2020.

Facts and history, or just legend

[edit]

Hello sweetpool50. I understand your point "if all facts are true, how can they be questioned?" The OED says a fact is "a thing that is known or proved to be true." Also, is there such a thing as a false fact? (Let's leave former American presidents out of the discussion.) Plus, wasn't there a film called TRUE LIES? One can tie oneself in a logical knot over two words! That is always a signal to me that the sentence needs to be reworded rather than a single word. What do you think of: "Although THE legend has been kept alive by a growing number of literary works since the early 19th century, IT HAS BEEN QUESTIONED RECENTLY." We must then ask whether there is a reference for it being questioned. The article has enough discussion of that, but it is at the end. At the moment the supposed events are called history rather than legend, and the exception is immediately followed by Places of Interest. I have reached the point of wondering if anyone really cares, so I will let your revert stand unless you want to stir things up further. Humphrey Tribble (talk) 17:10, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for returning to this matter, Humphrey Tribble. I found the wording of the summary a bit abrupt, and there was a careless space left in the edit, so I reverted. I appreciated your point, however, although I was too lazy to think about a more precise wording at the time. Since a lead's purpose is to sum up what is said in the article, I don't see the need to provide a reference in anticipation of what is said in the final section. Hopefully, it will encourage readers to distrust the tourist hype at the centre of the article. If we substitute 'story' for the word 'legend' which troubles you, then perhaps we can agree on concluding with although the story has been kept alive by a growing number of literary works since the early 19th century, its truth has been questioned recently to express what both of us want to say. Sweetpool50 (talk) 19:19, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's good. I appreciated working in cooperation, something that sadly has seemed rare since I began editing Wikipedia. Humphrey Tribble (talk) 21:01, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Eyam&oldid=1207162854"