Talk:Antonine Plague

message: What is the ancient source of this information? Kazuba 11 May 2005
:Galen and Marcus Aurilius among others.  See new information in the article.  WBardwin 18:38, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: The Source

message: I have started a separate article for the Plague of Cyprian as the latter is clearly a distinct outbreak from the Antonine pandemic. I have transferred the relevant section from this article to the new article. I propose that the same section should now be deleted from this article. Any objections? EraNavigator (talk) 02:36, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plague of Cyprian 

message: Thanks Uruiamme for communicating. I have replaced your wikilink, which was:
[Marcus Aurelius]
with a version piped from the original of the quotation, thus:
M. Aurelius 
It seems to me that this is better in that it preserves the original form of the quotation, while resolving the possible ambiguity you mention. I hope this helps. Richard Keatinge (talk) 09:49, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Marcus Aurelius 

message: I feel the total amount of deaths and the amount of deaths per day mentioned in the article are misleading. While it is true that Dio Cassius mentions 2,000 deaths a day, historians actually concerned with researching this topic heavily disagree on the issue (and, for that matter, on the proposed long-term devastating effects of the plague itself). The estimates vary between 1% of the total population of the empire, to significantly more than 10%. However, since opinions also vary on the total population of the empire, there is no easy estimate to give. Therefore, I also feel the reference for five million deaths to a BBC article that is not stating any further source is inadequate. Furthermore, several historians note that it is often the case that plagues are described to be 'the worst in history' in primary sources, and that the amount of deaths can be majorly overstated. For example: R.P. Duncan-Jones, 'The Impact of the Antonine Plague', Journal of Roman Archaeology 9 (1996) 108-136 for a slightly older but still authoritative article on the matter, although most of its other points (again concerning the seriousness and long term effect of the plague) have been disputed by other historians at some point. Exonimus 15:32, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok - so then what would you propose?  Not picking specifically at you, but I've been on too many Talk pages where someone comes in, fires off a "this page sucks because of X, Y, Z" comment, offers no constructive changes besides this, and then gets pissed off because "no one is listening to him".  I agree that some of the figures seem to be high and are unsourced.  What can we do about it? Ckruschke (talk) 22:41, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

text: Sounds cool.  It will especially work well if you can offer specific edits rather than ideas that someone else would then have to reinterprete into an edit to the text.  So maybe when you find time, you can offer sections or paragraphs along with edits and those of us who check this talk page can review it and give thumbs up/down and comments.  Thanks for your help. Ckruschke (talk) 01:04, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

text: No hurry - we all have real lives. Ckruschke (talk) 20:10, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scope and scale of plague 

message: The article was assessed as Start-class, due to lack of in-line citations and supporting materials.Boneyard90 (talk) 09:31, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  WP:Death Assessment Commentary 

message: Please keep the neutral era tag "BCE" and "CE". I would prefer it in this form. Lupus Bellator (talk) 18:04, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see WP:ERA, and don't change an established era style. Cynwolfe (talk) 19:20, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Era style