Talk:Encephalitis lethargica

Merge from Encephalitis lethargica epidemic of 1918-1930
Section Encephalitis_lethargica describes exactly same event, but as I see there is a confusion as to the name (epidemic/pandemic) and the time range. There are some other lesser discrepancies as well. Loew Galitz (talk) 17:21, 19 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose The main article about the disease can focus on the medical aspects. The article about the outbreak in the early 20th century will provide more space to cover the historical context and consequences.  For example, in Encephalitis Lethargica During and After the Epidemic, we see plausible suggestions that both Woodrow Wilson and Adolf Hitler were affected so that there was a significant effect on the world wars. Andrew🐉(talk) 21:11, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Favor Having separate articles about a disease and the various episodic occurrences of the disease makes sense where the disease is something like influenza, with a number of epidemic episodes spread over many decades, but it makes no sense for a disease like encephalitis lethargica where there was essentially only one sustained outbreak. I'm very much in favor of merging the articles. John (talk) 23:22, 8 Sep 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I think the epidemic, as per Andrew Davidson, is an independently notable event that deserves its own article, as (in my opinion) do most very large epidemics which are usually historically, socially and culturally significant in their own right. I don't think a merge is justified just because of content discrepancies. Tom (LT) (talk) 04:15, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. The article on the epidemic is small enough, despite the rather large amount of potential sources, that it could be considered a stub. Merging the articles would solve this problem. Additionally, there's really not much of a reason to keep them apart; the term "encephalitis lethargica" is mostly used to refer to this exact outbreak, and nothing else. If there was another outbreak of encephalitis lethargica, or if it was a disease that appeared with some regularity outside this single outbreak, there'd be a pretty good argument for keeping them seperate. However, this disease has almost never appeared again, and of the few cases that did happen after the 1918 epidemic, it's unclear if they even had the same cause as the epidemic or involve the same condition as the epidemic. Apcynan (talk) 16:16, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. Reading this article, almost everything known goes back to that unusual epidemic/pandemic. I agree with Tom (LT) that the epidemic is independently notable but that doesn't mandate a separate article. Curious readers would be better served by a cohesive, comprehensive article than by separate articles (which so easily become inconsistent). Historical impacts of the epidemic (per the source Andrew mentions) can certainly be addressed in this article. I don't think there's any harm in having separate articles, I just think that combining them makes a better experience for readers. Schazjmd   (talk)  20:59, 22 November 2022 (UTC)


 * ✅ Klbrain (talk) 10:45, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Caused by recreational drugs?
Since this disease no longer happens that means that it was probably caused by a chemeical that was in consumable products like drugs or food. 50.45.60.167 (talk) 16:14, 9 April 2023 (UTC)