Talk:Great Plague of London

I completed a significant rewrite of the article today. Comments welcome. WBardwin 05:07, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Why is there absolutely nothing about the great fire of London here?

139.133.7.37 - Please see last paragraph where the great fire is discussed and a link to that article is available. WBardwin 17:31, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

jack and jesse rok

Article Name Change

Great Plague of Vienna Hey WBardwin, I just created this article, and I was hoping you could help me out with it in any way you can, especially because of your work with Great Plague of London. I can't really find any more info on it from just the books I have with me, or the Internet. Also, it could probably use some word choice help (it was late, I was tired). I guess Great Plague of Milan will have to come next, now that I think about it... :) Well, thanks for any help. --Dmcdevit 08:21, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I dug out a little more information on this outbreak in Vienna and added it to your new article. If we want to do something about Milan in 1629, it might be better to rename it the "Italian Plague of 1629-1631." Many of the Italian cities (Venice, Florence, Bologna, and throughout Lombardy) were hit just as hard as Milan but, because of its trading empire, its outbreak is better known. Hope the info helps. WBardwin 00:57, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for that. Also, I'm curious about Great Plague of London's redirect to Great Plague. Shouldn't it be the other way around? But now, especially with this new article, maybe "Great Plague" should just be a disambig. Thanks for your help. --Dmcdevit 05:05, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The "Great Plague" redirect set up was around when I arrived. A disamig page should be just fine, since there are other "Great Plagues" as well. These are the ones that I know about. There are probably others.

Great Plague of Athens (430-427 BC)

causal agent: bubonic plague/smallpox/measles/typhus??

Great Plague of England (1348-1350)

causal agent: bubonic plague

Great Plague of Iceland (1402-1404)

causal agent: bubonic plague

Great Plague of Ireland (1348-1351)

causal agent: bubonic plague

Great Plague of London (1664-1665)

causal agent: bubonic plague

Great Plague of Milan (1629-1631)

aka Italian Plague of 1629-1631.

causal agent: bubonic plague

Great Plague of Scotland (1348-1350)

causal agent: bubonic plague

Great Plague of Vienna (1679-1680's)

causal agent: bubonic plague

WBardwin 19:32, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, good one. Here's some more I can think of offhand: the Plague of Justinian, 541, is known as the Great Plague (possibly just the Great Plague of Constantinople); The Black Death is often called the Great Plague (of Europe) as well; theres the Tolkien fictional Great Plague (Middle-earth); the yellow fever plague in Philadelphia in 1793 has been called the Great Plague; the bubonic plague outbreak in Marseilles in 1722; and I believe it is also a biblical reference, but I can't remember where from (Moses' plagues on Egypt?); one of Nostradamus' oft-touted predictions has to do with a cryptically pronounced "Great Plague"; and the term has also apocryphally been applied (in book titles and things) to the 1918 influenza epidemic, AIDS today, and the SARS outbreak (and probably others). --Dmcdevit 20:37, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so I've created [[Plague (disambiguation), leaving Plague as a redirect that can now be employed to give some general information and guide readers to the Main articles..." of each outbreak, perhaps even including redlinks to some of the plagues listed above. WBardwin, you're the one to come up with some starter text. Just re-edit Plague and substitute! --Wetman 21:40, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion seemed to favor having "Great Plague" be a redirect and this article moved to "Great Plague of London". I'm doing that now. --Mr. Billion 00:52, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)

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)

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]