This article is within the scope of WikiProject Viruses, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
viruses on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.VirusesWikipedia:WikiProject VirusesTemplate:WikiProject Virusesvirus articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of
History on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Disaster management on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Disaster managementWikipedia:WikiProject Disaster managementTemplate:WikiProject Disaster managementDisaster management articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Death on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Globalization, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Globalization on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the
project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.GlobalizationWikipedia:WikiProject GlobalizationTemplate:WikiProject GlobalizationGlobalization articles
This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the
project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
I have just added archive links to one external link on
1889–90 flu pandemic. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}).
YAn editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
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.
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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.
BD2412T 16:42, 17 September 2020 (UTC)reply
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:
[1][2]. 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)reply
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)reply
Move to
Asiatic flu per
WP:COMMONNAME. "
Russian flu" appears to be the most common name based on the Google Ngrams,
[3] 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)reply
Rreagan007, 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)reply
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)reply
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. —
fnielsen (
talk) 13:54, 17 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Strong support for concision if nothing else.
RedSlash 03:08, 20 August 2020 (UTC)reply
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. —
Amakuru (
talk) 10:54, 21 August 2020 (UTC)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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
Keepcalmandchill who added William I with this edit and, presumably, have access to the source. ―
Hebsen (
talk) 20:32, 30 August 2020 (UTC)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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)reply
Danish preprint
Should we be using a preprint that hasn't been published?
Espresso Addict (
talk) 00:55, 26 February 2021 (UTC)reply