Talk:1889–1890 pandemic

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on 1889–90 flu pandemic. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/04/1889-russian-flu-pandemic/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 00:09, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:2009 flu pandemic which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 16:33, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Expansion
Could we expand this article, including which measures people and societies took in order to mitigate this virus's spread? 173.88.246.138 (talk) 04:14, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Caused by a coronavirus?
Hello. Found this: What four coronaviruses from history can tell us about covid-19, on: New Scientist as of 29 April 2020. Is a specific one of the 4 coronaviruses NL64, HKU1, OC43 and 229E suspected? Does anyone know more? Kind regards, --Ernsts (talk) 12:21, 2 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Between 20-60% of the world population in the early 1890s was exposed to the 1889-90 flu pandemic, coronaviruses can infect up to 60% when first adapts humans after a spillover event from a zoonotic source. The 1918-19 flu pandemic infected upward to 1/3 of the world's then 1.5 billion people, not typical for a coronavirus, it's a bona fide discovered influenza strain. The 1889-90 flu strain was thought to be caused by earlier forms of influenza present in the world in the 19th century, but this is not officially discovered. 2605:E000:100D:C571:A8BB:CE5:5FFF:7B6A (talk) 05:00, 24 July 2020 (UTC)


 * An uncommon cold — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.223.167.1 (talk) 06:37, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

OC43 - the hypothesis was reinforced (if not confirmed) by the similarity of the symptoms to COVID-19 but originated when genetic sequencing indicated that it diverged from bovine coronavirus in the late 1880s. Article has already been updated to reflect this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.34.229.2 (talk) 16:30, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 13 August 2020

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Moved as proposed. There is a clear consensus that this article should be moved from its current title, and within that a clear consensus favoring the title proposed by the nominator. Other suggestions that have been made have not gained comparable support. BD2412 T 16:42, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

1889–1890 flu pandemic → 1889–1890 pandemic – We should consider whether it is appropriate to have "flu" in the title, as it have been suggested that the pandemic was caused not by influenza, but by a coronavirus. The strongest evidence in favor of this hypothesis is the 2005 article from Vijgen et. al., while the newer Danish results should be given very little weight, as it has yet to be published. See also these news articles on the topic:. For me, the critical question is what the larger scientific community's stand is on this. Do they consider it established that this was an influenza pandemic, with the Vijgen et al. article a challenger to the established claim? Or do they consider the question unresolved, with some things pointing in the direction of an influenza (the historical position), and some newer results in the direction of a coronavirus? I think others are better to assess this than me. ― Hebsen (talk) 10:15, 13 August 2020 (UTC) —Relisting. Jerm (talk) 17:40, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. Looking over the sources cited in the article, most refer to it as a "flu" pandemic. We name articles based on the common English name used in reliable sources. Whether or not the pandemic was caused by an influenza virus or something else is irrelevant to our naming of the article. Rreagan007 (talk) 15:54, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Move to Asiatic flu per WP:COMMONNAME. "Russian flu" appears to be the most common name based on the Google Ngrams, but that name is apparently a disambiguation page. So the next most common name, "Asiatic flu", should be used for the article title. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:11, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , be aware that there also is an Asian flu. I believe neither the "Asiatic flu" nor "Russian flu" in you diagram refers to the 1889 pandemic (look at when they spiked). ― Hebsen (talk) 01:36, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 * You're probably right that the large spike in the 1960s was for the Asian flu. But I'm not sure that the more recent references aren't referring to this pandemic. Several of the references that this article uses do use the term "Asiatic flu". Rreagan007 (talk) 02:37, 5 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Support I suppose the word "flu" was used for a general epidemic disease in the airways of unknown etiology. I presume the word "flu" was later associated with the influenza family of vira, once scientific methodology was establish to examine the vira. As such the word "flu" in the title could be defendable. There does not seem to me to be much research on the 1889 pandemic, see https://scholia.toolforge.org/topic/Q10658304, which would allow us to conclude that it was or was not a influenza virus family disease. While Common name is a good guide it should not be used if is confuses the origin of the disease. &mdash; fnielsen (talk) 13:54, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Strong support for concision if nothing else. Red   Slash  03:08, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Move to 1889–90 pandemic. The move rationale seems reasonable, but I would like the recent undiscussed move from the shorter date-range form to be reversed. MOS:DATERANGE explicitly allows the second of two consecutive years to be rendered as two digits, and I find that form more usual and readable, such that it should have been discussed before moving. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 10:54, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * While true that format is allowed for consecutive years, it is generally discouraged unless it is a recurring event, such as athletic seasons that routinely fall on 2 consecutive years. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:00, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Strong support The word "flu" was used in a general sense back than. Newer research say it could be an other disease (for example a Sars-Cov-Virus) (User fegwikia) 13:03, 03 September 2020 (ECTS) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fegwikia (talk • contribs)
 * Oppose. WP:COMMONNAME says we should stick with the current name. Even if it is proved that it wasn't a caused by a flu virus (which is far from proved as far as I can tell), it will take time for the name change to be reflected in reliable sources. Vpab15 (talk) 12:49, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Strong support Older sources refer to this as flu pandemic, because until recently, it was believed to have been an influenza. Since this is now uncertain, it only makes sense to rename the article to something uncontroversial. Mzungukali (talk) 09:26, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Support. While it has a hint of revisionism, the term influenza at the time was descriptive, derived from “influence of the cold”, which we would not call "respiratory disease", with influenza having become associated with a specific virus family of negative-sense RNA viruses. This means the old name is now wrong, as there is no good evidence that it was influenza.  This is a problem with the changing of the language, and of technical meanings hijacking old terms, as has happened here, irreversibly I think.  A cold does not worsen to become flu, in modern English, unlike back then.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:04, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The current title is what it is commonly called. What we think it should be called is not relevant. Andrewa (talk) 11:19, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Survivors
Was (as claimed) Emperor William I a survivor of the 1889-1890 pandemic? He died in 1888. Typographical error for William II perhaps? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.140.220.163 (talk • contribs)
 * Good question! Pinging who added William I with  and, presumably, have access to the source.  ― Hebsen (talk) 20:32, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The source confirms it but since the dates obviously don't line up I've removed it. Keepcalmandchill (talk) 03:19, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Two thirds of Bukhara
It seems implausible that "up to 2/3rds" of the population of Bukhara died from this disease, both given the way other flu viruses and coronaviruses behave and on the much lower mortality rates reported in other places. Can someone with access check the given sources for this extraordinary claim?2A01:E35:242B:7230:81A2:9CF3:DB2E:9A96 (talk) 14:46, 5 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Good call. It is in one of the sources, The 1889-1890 Flu Pandemic: The History of the 19th Century’s Last Major Global Outbreak, but that helpfully provides a citation of its own, to George C. Kohn, Encyclopedia of Plague and Pestilence: From Ancient Times to the Present, and it turns out that this source says two thirds of the population "was affected", and perhaps five percent died.  I've removed the claim.  Regards, Dan Bloch (talk) 23:40, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Danish preprint
Should we be using a preprint that hasn't been published? Espresso Addict (talk) 00:55, 26 February 2021 (UTC)