Talk:History of cholera

Section: Recent outbreaks
Why is this in reverse chronological order? It doesn't follow the format of the rest of the article, and is confusing because later entries refer to earlier occurrences. I'm going to put it in chronological order.Parkwells (talk) 21:39, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Struck in Gran Canaria
This is the citation, page 2, the source is official, the Canarian Institute of Statistics http://www.canariasantelacrisisenergetica.org/wp-content/uploads/2006/11/Evolucion%20Poblacion%20Canaria%20ISTAC.pdf --Bentaguayre (talk) 22:52, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Second Pandemic: France 1832
The stats for France have 20,000 deaths in Paris and 7,000 total in France. This makes no sense. 118.15.99.168 (talk) 13:54, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Second Pandemic: England
Cholera reached the north-east of England in 1831 and subsequently reached London in 1832. The entry currently implies arrival in 1832 for the whole of the country. http://www.mongenes.org.uk/Epidemics%20%26%20Sanitation/cholera.html CastWider (talk) 10:39, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed
Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: here, here,  here, and elsewhere. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and according to fair use may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Diannaa (talk) 23:02, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Cholera outbreaks and pandemics. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050420083132/http://www.doh.gov.ph/sphh/1900.htm to http://www.doh.gov.ph/sphh/1900.htm

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 00:20, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cholera outbreaks and pandemics. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110716181215/http://www.worldwaterday.org/wwday/2001/disease/cholera.html to http://www.worldwaterday.org/wwday/2001/disease/cholera.html
 * Added tag to http://www.wral.com/lifestyles/healthteam/story/9020742/

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:08, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Merge?
Would it be appropriate to merge "Timeline of Cholera" with this article? The timeline contains similar information, but not as detailed as this page.

Please state your opinion. Thanks. Potatornado (talk) 22:13, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Cholera outbreaks and pandemics. 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Congress/2807/irishfamine.html
 * Added tag to http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/World-News/Congo-Cholera-Outbreak-Doctors-Battle-Disease-In-War-Torn-African-Country/Article/200811215148166
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101205062821/http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38852637/ns/health/ to http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38852637/ns/health/
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20140912060439/http://www.dailyguideghana.com/cholera-death-toll-rises-to-100/ to http://www.dailyguideghana.com/cholera-death-toll-rises-to-100/

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:39, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Changing time ranges to match research by UCLA
I've been doing some cleanup of the cholera outbreak articles (particularly the second cholera pandemic and the third cholera pandemic), and the timing of events seemed off to me. By the current article naming, the second cholera pandemic occurred between 1829 and 1851, and the third cholera pandemic is 1852 to 1860. The current time ranges seem to be loosely based on a 2008 CBC article. However, a lot of the citations seem to suggest that the "1829-1851" pandemic died down in the 1830s, and then was at it's worst from 1847 through 1851 (e.g. when over 1 million people in Russia died between 1847 and 1851).

In looking for alternative ranges, I found UCLA's Epidemiology Department has a wonderful resource about John Snow which suggests a different timeline. In particular, their timeline suggests that the second pandemic was between 1826 and 1837, and that the third pandemic was between 1846 and 1863. The UCLA timeline seems to line up better with many of the articles here on Wikipedia (many of which are well cited). To recap:

Based on the research I've done, and the material I've seen on this wiki, and the apparently quality (and accessibility) of the UCLA citation, I think it makes sense to align our timeline with UCLA's timeline. Objections? -- RobLa (talk) 22:56, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I've added a column to the table above to highlight the current and proposed naming, and added the fourth cholera pandemic for context. It's not a perfect alignment with UCLA, but mainly focuses on aligning the break between the second and third pandemics. RobLa (talk) 23:26, 25 July 2018 (UTC)


 * The UCLA link on Dr. Snow above is now https  ---  https://www.ph.ucla.edu/epi/snow.html
 * Claverhouse (talk) 02:54, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 26 July 2018

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: MOVED. RobLa (talk) 18:24, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

– Based on the research I've done, and the material I've seen on this wiki, and the apparently quality (and accessibility) of the UCLA citation, I think it makes sense to align our timeline more closely with UCLA's timeline (second: 1826-1837, third: 1846-1863). It would appear that the last page move in 2016 had lukewarm support given the quality of this set of articles at the time. Much of the 1840s and 1850s material from the second pandemic article would need to be moved into the third pandemic article, which would be part of the move. See more in my 2018-07-25 comment. RobLa (talk) 21:12, 26 July 2018 (UTC) --Relisting. Dekimasu よ! 00:29, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Cholera outbreaks and pandemics → (edit content to match renamed "1826–1837" and "1846–1860" articles)
 * 1829–51 cholera pandemic → 1826–1837 cholera pandemic (instead of "1826–37", per MOS:DATERANGE)
 * 1852–60 cholera pandemic → 1846–1860 cholera pandemic
 * Neutral, but the date ranges should show THE FULL YEAR no matter what happens with the move, per MOS:DATERANGE. Paintspot Infez (talk) 21:39, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Works for me. I've updated the summary above to incorporate your date range guidance. -- RobLa (talk) 22:13, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm going to go ahead and complete the move. There doesn't appear to be any controversy over it, and I edited the affected articles to reflect the new naming. -- RobLa (talk) 17:52, 4 August 2018 (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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Really?
"In France doctors believed cholera was associated with the poverty of certain communities or poor environment. Russians believed the disease was contagious, although doctors did not understand how it spread. The United States believed that cholera was brought by recent immigrants, specifically the Irish, and epidemiologists understand they were carrying disease from British ports. Lastly, some British thought the disease might rise from divine intervention.[2]" There were doctors and thinkers in ALL of these countries who believed ALL of the above. You really think that Britain as a homogenous whole believed that it was divine intervention, while there were no people in France, America or Russia that believed in this? ONLY French people believed it was contagious, and only Americans "thought immigration brought the disease"? Doesn't that in itself suggest that it must be contagious after a fashion, therefore proving that France was not the only people thinking this? This is typical use of generalizing speech, assigning wide thought patterns to huge, loosely defined populations of people. There were those in France who believed it was contagious, yes. There were also people in Britain, the USA, and Russia who thought so. There were "some" people who lived in EVERY nation or region which knew cholera existed who thought God or gods were involved. "The United States" was absolutely correct in thinking that immigrants brought it from Europe...but a great many Americans believed the disease came from toxins in the ground, and was caused by unsanitary conditions and hard alcohol. The opposing school believed it was caused by miasmas in the air. But all these lines of thought were spread quite evenly through the population. You may be refering to what was percieved as a dominant school of thought in each country, or perhaps an offical theory adopted by the government, but that is not what it says. -- Idumea47b (talk) 04:56, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
 * you're right, that does seem like a pretty dubious assertion. I would fully support rewording it, though I don't have the time to make the edits personally.  Here's the cited source:
 * The ideal way of resolving this would be for an editor with access to the source material to check whether the source indeed says that, and then possibly find independent sources that better characterize the early 19th century thinking by region, and then reword the paragraph taking your feedback into account. A slightly more realistic option is if user who added this (with access to the source) could comment.  I used WikiBlame to discover that it was  who added it in 2011 (see Curranne's contributions).  Since this user hasn't contributed since 2011, it seems unlikely that we'll see a response, but maybe?  The quickest way to resolve this would be to delete that paragraph, which I'm kinda tempted to do. , how should we fix this? -- RobLa (talk) 19:28, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The ideal way of resolving this would be for an editor with access to the source material to check whether the source indeed says that, and then possibly find independent sources that better characterize the early 19th century thinking by region, and then reword the paragraph taking your feedback into account. A slightly more realistic option is if user who added this (with access to the source) could comment.  I used WikiBlame to discover that it was  who added it in 2011 (see Curranne's contributions).  Since this user hasn't contributed since 2011, it seems unlikely that we'll see a response, but maybe?  The quickest way to resolve this would be to delete that paragraph, which I'm kinda tempted to do. , how should we fix this? -- RobLa (talk) 19:28, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Timeline of cholera merge
I'm refreshing a proposal that was made in August 2017 to merge the Timeline of cholera article into this one. The previous merge proposal had some problems (e.g. the merge template pointed to Cholera and its talk page, but the only discussion was on Talk:Timeline of cholera). It was also proposed while we were in the middle of the page moves associated with the second cholera pandemic and the third cholera pandemic. Now seems like a more sensible time to make a merge. Would the Timeline of cholera table be a helpful addition this article? -- RobLa (talk) 18:50, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Opppose pure on the grounds that Cholera is long enough and a merge would take the article size to over 100k which is WP:TOOBIG. Klbrain (talk) 10:48, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Article issues and classification

 * The article is rated as B-class with an abundance of references but has several issues. A "clarification needed" tag from April 2016, "citation needed" tags from December 2010, June 2021 (5), May 2022 (2), October 2022, and March 2023 (2).
 * There are separated paragraphs that appear to use the same source but lacking inline citations. This could be the cause of some of the tags. I did not reassess the article until the issues are looked at. --  Otr500 (talk) 14:21, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Article reassessment
Article was reassessed following no discussion in the above "Article issues and classification" section. -- Otr500 (talk) 06:45, 3 June 2024 (UTC)