Talk:Great Plague of London

[Untitled]
About the great plague of London, I'm not sure, but today in English Litterature the date were 1347-1350 and here they're not the same. I'm not really sure if I got it correct

no wwhat is this all about were is the info about How the Great Plague came about to be?Think next time about what you write I'm looking for info and guess what I can't find what i need thats not helpfull is it?

=hagagaga

Lol Aimee.sanderson (talk) 15:34, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Question on Plague doctors
re recent edit: Plague doctors would traverse the streets, diagnosing victims, although many of them were unqualified physicians. Were they physicians but unqualified or were they unqualified because they were not physicians? I'll take a look at the article. WBardwin 23:47, 28 April 2006 (UTC)


 * nope -- that doesn't answer the question either? If qualified doctors left the city, who did that leave?  WBardwin 23:49, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Probably change it to "plague doctors," and note that since the qualified doctors left the city, citizens were running around in labcoats? Kiersi (talk) 00:50, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Great fire
On September 2nd and 3rd, the Great Fire of London destroyed many of the most crowded housing and business areas of the city, causing 16 deaths. Only 16 deaths? Am I reading this right? --Steerpike 16:47, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Quite possibly, the fire was said to have destroyed about 13,200 houses, to have levelled about 436 acres and to have made about 100,000 people homeless, but the loss of life was also said to have been very light. Regards, Nick. Nick 19:21, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

The Great Fire of London article itself, though, notes that the claim of the small number of deaths has recently been challenged. 81.158.109.6 18:22, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Agree with the point by the above user. This article should make reference to the disputed nature of the exact number of deaths. gringotsgoblin 11.41 30 November 2006 (GMT)

Can someone verify the point that Wren's plan for rebuilding London after the fire was adopted. It is my understanding that no plan was followed, and the city was rebuilt largely under the same street pattern. Also, is there some reference that rats were suspected in the plague. We know now that they were, but I understand that at the time this was not generally known. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Don McCahill (talk • contribs) 18:17, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Wording change
It is stated that thatched rooves are a 'splendid' place for rats to live. This is very informal wording. Could it be replaced with something along the lines of "thatched rooves provide an ideal place for rats to live"? gringotsgoblin 11.43 30 November 2006 (GMT)

This sentence doesn't seem to make much sense: "On September 2nd and 3rd, the Great Fire of London destroyed many of the most crowded housing this however did not cause the decrease of this disease the plague had already died down with only a few people with this plague ." Needs a rewrite.

Fixed: "thatched roofswere"?Rachey (talk) 18:26, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Fixed: Broken link to Shakespeare's Globe Theater reconstruction, though date link is still broken because 1997 doesn't contain exact data. --Wikispherion (talk) 14:23, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Literary Accounts - What Really Belongs Here?
Could someone explain the rationale behind the inclusion of modern novels and other modern works of fiction in the "Literary Accounts" section? I would expect it to contain eyewitness accounts, and, possibly, strictly historiographical research, and not any sort of imaginary, fictional descriptions. Hi There 05:53, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Agree. Pepys and Defoe are first hand and second hand reports. Modern novels belong in a Trivia section, if at all.--JBellis 20:02, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Dogs and Cats Killed?
At one point in Defoe's Journal he reports that the authorities ordered that all dogs and cats in London were to be killed, on the assumption that they could be plague carriers. But if the rats were actually suspects at the time, wouldn't it have made more sense to leave the dogs and cats alive so they could kill the rats? Anyone have any ideas on this? Farnsworth1968 18:04, 10 July 2007 (UTC)Farnsworth1968

This is interesting, it should be included in the article. Kiersi (talk) 00:51, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

If it was bubonic plague, fleas were the vector, not rats, the fleas lived on rats - as well as cats, dogs and other people. 24.160.241.39 (talk) 07:47, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * This of course is OR. Rich Farmbrough, 20:44, 25 April 2011 (UTC).

Aftermath?
Wondering if it'd be worth having at least a mention about the aftermath of the Great Plague. I remember bieng taught back in school that it was one of the final blows for the feudal system as reforms were required to rebuild the country after such a crisis. As I said, this is something I learnt in school. I'm not a researcher, but was just curious about whether anybody else had any more information on this. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.130.189.66 (talk) 21:10, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

You are confusing the "Black Death" of the medieval period with the outbreak in London of 1666. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Death http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consequences_of_the_Black_Death — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.183.23.86 (talk) 22:13, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * nonetheless, this plague seems to have caused a major economic recession because it completely disrupted trade.Sandpiper (talk) 23:31, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Rats
"Under the mistaken idea that rats may have caused the plague, thatched roofs (which provided an ideal place for rats to live) were forbidden within the city"

Although rats did not directly cause the plague it is likely that they were some sort of carrier, so shouldn't this sentence be re-worded? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamie Kitson (talk • contribs) 12:31, 17 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The introduction states that rats were the vector. It makes perfect sense to remove rats if they are the plague's vector, yet that passage seems to claim that rats had nothing to do with the plague, and measures against them were useless against the plague. I put a contradiction tag on the article. --84.48.51.32 23:35, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I believe it's been proven since that rats were in fact carriers of the Plague, yet it was mistakenly believed that dogs and cats were carriers leading to their widespread extermination. However my source is a documentary [], not sure if this is considered a reliable source for an encyclopedia article. Rachey (talk) 18:30, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

According to the wikipedia entry on the Black Death, Y. pestis was almost certainly carried by rats and the decline of plague is pretty much to do with the large decrease in the rat population. 194.45.150.17 (talk) 21:37, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The problem with this is that the article says they aren't sure if it was actually the Black Death. Kiersi (talk) 00:55, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

It's also been theorised that the reason the epidemic lasted as long as it did, is because many people killed cats and dogs under the mistaken belief that they carried the plague, when in fact dogs and cats were invaluable in killing the rats which spread the bacteria.Rachey (talk) 19:30, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Read the wikipedia article on Black Death and Bubonic Plague. The vector is fleas (transmitted by flea bites) which can live on most warm-blooded animals, including human beings. Rats are the reservoir of the disease (the bacteria can live in the blood of rats without causing the disease). Bubonic plague also mutates into an airborne form, Pneumonic plague. 24.160.241.39 (talk) 07:54, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * However, fleas typically tend to be specific to one host species and not swap unless desperate.Sandpiper (talk) 23:35, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Plague and Poetry
I have deleted this section as it clearly does not refer to the Great Plague. Shakespeare had by this point been dead for half a century. It may be refering to the plague of 1603, however. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.150.30.183 (talk) 17:49, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

image
Theres a nice image for this article here Parrot of Doom (talk) 23:25, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Great Plague of where?
It is rather bizzare that this is called the Great Plague of London and then talks about England. I have only ever heard the term Great Plague (of 1665). Is this because the Black Death has also oddly been labled the Great Plague?--Sabrebd (talk) 09:01, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok I need to find out now how the Great Plague came to be because it's my homework. Can enybody help me —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.182.106.13 (talk) 11:32, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It is generally assumed that Rattus rattus (the brown rat) carried it ashore from ships in the port of London. Whether this is current scholarship I can't say. (But see also now deprecated theories that the Rattus norvegicus, the black rat, by driving out he brown rat, reduced the prevalence of the bubonic plague.) Rich Farmbrough, 20:46, 25 April 2011 (UTC).

Death toll
The article fails to note that seemingly no two historians actually agree on how many were killed. I've seen figures as low as 40,000 and as high as 120,000. 184.77.159.253 (talk) 04:53, 14 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Its a common problem on Wikipedia articles that the original author takes an estimate from the first book they work from and then it stays there because it is sourced. If you have the details of books with different estimates feel free to put them in and relfect the debate.--''' SabreBD  (talk ) 08:31, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Extensive bills of mortality survive. Clearly there are problems of interpretation. Rich Farmbrough, 20:55, 25 April 2011 (UTC).

observation on the article.
In the section 'recording of death' the article says ' The credulous blamed emanations from the earth'.... My question would be what did the questioning and reasoning believe? Seems to me from what I have read of the time, they believed exactly the same. No one understood the true explanation, so it is misleading to suggest only the 'credulous' believed these things.Sandpiper (talk) 10:20, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, everyone may have been credulous! What do you suppose Pepys thought about it? Whatever he believed, he took the precaution of sending his wife out of London. I guess rat fleas don't normally bite humans but because this strain of the disease was particularly virulent it may have killed most of the rats and the fleas were forced to turn to other sources of blood. The way in which the disease struck some and not others must have seemed very mysterious. Anyway, change the wording of the article if you want. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:16, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I think I rather like Pepys. Something I read today discussed him, and said Pepys had remarked when he was sharing a bed with someone, the someone got bitten by fleas and he didnt. The author relating this suggested that maybe this was why Pepys survived. Might have been a wiki article somewhere, there seem to be quite a few generally about plague, but I havnt found anything yet such as a genetic study tracking this particular strain to England in 1665. Reading Bell's book suggest that maybe plague was enedemic in Britain, but a new strain might have arrived from the continent.Sandpiper (talk) 00:00, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

not much about places other than London, or 1666
Someone above comments on the 'great plague of where'? This title question didnt really get addressed and there is an issue. Presumably this article is intended to be about the entire outbreak in England, and while London was 20x bigger than any other city so the largest number of all deaths were in London, it did break out as severely in other places and over an extensive area of the south and east of the country and in other major cities. Other areas are not really mentioned in the article.

Also, the introduction describes it as the plague of 64-66, which seems correct. Significant deaths (at least on a normal standard) occurred in London in 1666, and outbreaks in other places tended to spread from London so reached their worst later. I suspect the article has been expanded from an original short article which took into account the time spread of the epidemic, but expansion has concentrated on London and 1665. Sandpiper (talk) 09:28, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

originating point
Article says "The dock areas outside London and the parish of St Giles in the Fields, where poor workers were crowded into ill-kept structures, are believed to be the first areas to be struck." Reading up on this I see St Giles in the fields seems to be on the landward side of London and the books I have read so far do not really link it to any docks. This seems a bit anomalous.Sandpiper (talk) 09:37, 14 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Well, I expanded the article from a much smaller one in March 2013, as you can see from the "history" of the article. My expansion was restricted to London because that is what the book I was using as a principal source was discussing. I acknowledge that there were connected outbreaks in other parts of the country, but this article is about London. The statement "The dock areas outside London and the parish of St Giles in the Fields, where poor workers were crowded into ill-kept structures, are believed to be the first areas to be struck." does not state that there are dock areas in the parish of St Giles in the Fields, but I will reword the article. (I no longer have the book as I took it to a charity shop!) Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:54, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I suspected it was really the limit of the source. Typical problem, one author writes about what interests them. I dont know that the docks/ st giles thing is wrong, I just dont know its right. Ive got the porter and Bell books and didnt really get this link from what they say. Some of the books seem to be first person accounts, which maybe limits their scope. Dont know, havnt read them. Bell subtitles his book the great plague in London, but porter talks more about the rest of the country. This article is titled 'great plague in London', but it seems to be wikis only article about the 1665 England plague, and as such needs to  explain it didnt just happen in London. I dont know if historically this outbreak is described as the ...of London, or whether this is just because some authors have concentrated on describing London events.  The cause of plague generally seems to be that it spread from Holland, but it isnt clear to me either it was proven to de-ship in London, or whether some book  aserts that it did. Porter in particular talks about other places  and at least left me with the impression it could have arrived in the UK through a different port. All trade seems to have passed through London one way or another, so people might have brought it from some place where the ourbreak started earlier, and it seems to have been active elsewhere in England even in 64.Sandpiper (talk) 23:13, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * This article exists with London in its title. Why don't you create a new article on the wider outbreak? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:00, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I dont see that there is sufficient material for more than one article about one outbreak (not yet, anyway!). It is an artificial limitation to just write about London. I havn't seen a similar detailed source about the plague in Portsmouth, the plague in Great Yarmouth, the plague in... and wiki would not want one article on each place for every outbreak. Porter's book, for example, has 45 pages specifically about London and 35 about other places. 60 about general issues which apply nationwide and 30 about consequences of this outbreak, again national in scope.Sandpiper (talk) 08:18, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Another point, you have added an image of the black rat with a lengthy, unreferenced caption. The article nowhere mentions the species of rat nor some of the other facts in the caption. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:59, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Thats true. This article overlaps others on wiki which go into plague generally, but the basic facts of fleas and rats would appear to be the same in each outbreak. Needs to be explained for completeness. With more text the article will need more images, and the rat is an obvious one. So far in what I have read, the precise causes are a little vague. Ok, rats and fleas, but did people transmit it from place to place by personal contact, fleas on old clothing, rats in ships? I just added a piece about quarrantine, but I wonder whether even on a quarrantined ships their might still be infected animals. The appearance of a centuries long outbreak, and then its disappearance would still seem to be a bit of a mystery. Something changed which stopped the spread of plague such that this was the last 'great' outbreak. 23:13, 14 February 2014 (UTC)Sandpiper (talk)
 * Interestingly Porter suggests one reason for the stop of outbreaks might be that all the rats had died, thus plague declined in London in the 1666 season although it was plainly still present, or the remaining rats developed immunity. He suggests rat fleas only abandon their host if it dies, so the state of epidemic in the rats might be defining the length of  the human epidemic. Mortality in London had not been so high as in other places, so there were still people available to catch it.08:33, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Fire of London
I'm a great inclusionist, but I dont really see what the fire and rebuilding afterwards had to do with the plague. The part of the city least affected by plague was probably that within the walls, which was the part which burnt, and in fact some of the slummiest parts where plague was greatest even within the walls, survived. So it apparently didnt contribute to safer living conditions or the disappearance of plague in the future.Sandpiper (talk) 18:02, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Eyam
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.

However, this does not seem to be consistent with the Eyam page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eyam).

Here 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.

Anyone know what we should do about this?

I'm putting this on the Eyam talk page as well.

Adlihtam (talk) 17:09, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Great Plague of London. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.avma.org/public_health/biosecurity/plague_bgnd.asp

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 17:13, 29 March 2016 (UTC)