SashiRolls (talk | contribs) |
|||
(3 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 55: | Line 55: | ||
:You do it in the edit sunmary, like I did in the edit summary you saw - see [[WP:PATT]]. It is fine to tweak but please keep it aligned with the other per [[WP:SYNC]]/[[WP:SUMMARY]]. Meta-editing this way is important.[[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog|talk]]) 00:33, 10 November 2018 (UTC) |
:You do it in the edit sunmary, like I did in the edit summary you saw - see [[WP:PATT]]. It is fine to tweak but please keep it aligned with the other per [[WP:SYNC]]/[[WP:SUMMARY]]. Meta-editing this way is important.[[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog|talk]]) 00:33, 10 November 2018 (UTC) |
||
:[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tuskegee_syphilis_experiment&type=revision&diff=868106018&oldid=868103569 this] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Syphilis&diff=prev&oldid=868106244 this] were transparently tendentious. Over at the other article please explain why that bit should be in the first paragraph. [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog|talk]]) 02:15, 10 November 2018 (UTC) |
:[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tuskegee_syphilis_experiment&type=revision&diff=868106018&oldid=868103569 this] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Syphilis&diff=prev&oldid=868106244 this] were transparently tendentious. Over at the other article please explain why that bit should be in the first paragraph. [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog|talk]]) 02:15, 10 November 2018 (UTC) |
||
== Allan M. Brandt study == |
|||
I recently added an article by [[Allan M. Brandt]] to this article because Brandt is a respected historian of medicine, employed in the department of the History of Science at Harvard University. Google scholar shows that the article I added is cited 596 times as a stand-alone article & 286 times as the first essay in Susan Reverby's book. (see [https://books.google.fr/books?hl=en&lr=&id=f3q0CgAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PP1&dq=Allan+M.+Brandt+tuskegee&ots=yOCaKBzMv9&sig=rKqyaJX9vsXchjOIUkhMp_0CWu0#v=onepage&q=Allan%20M.%20Brandt%20tuskegee&f=false TOC], pages 15-33). The article by RM White ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Syphilis&type=revision&diff=868095191&oldid=868094983 restored here] after a copy/paste from another page ) responds directly to Brandt's work, though it does not respond to the historical evidence mentioned in Brandt's study, taking a revisionist approach towards the established scholarship on the subject. It does not seem to have anywhere near the number of citations at google scholar (114 times). The citation ratio of 882-114 would suggest that Brandt's study merits inclusion at least as much as White's. Personally, I think both could be in the article. |
|||
Regarding my (very small) part of the deleted text, I believe in a "show don't tell" method of writing. Rather than using adjectives like "unethical" and "malicious" to *assert* that experimenters engaged in misrepresenting diagnostic tests as therapy, it seems appropriate to use a reliable source to give en.wp readers the *historical facts* which led to the established academic consensus on the question: |
|||
<blockquote>The '''Tuskegee Study of Untreated Syphilis in the Negro Male''' was an infamous [[clinical trial|clinical study]] conducted between 1932 and 1972 by the [[U.S. Public Health Service]]. The final stage of the original 1932 experiment involved giving subjects a diagnostic spinal tap to "determine the incidence of neurosyphilis" without providing any treatment. Facing insufficient participation, the Macon County Health Department wrote to subjects to offer them a "last chance to to get a special ''treatment'', if it is believed you are in a condition to stand it".<ref>{{cite journal | author = [[Allan M. Brandt]] | title = Racism and Research: The Case of the Tuskegee Syphilis Study | date = December 1978| journal = The Hastings Center Report | volume = 8 | issue = 6 | page = 23-24 | url=https://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/3372911/brandt_racism.pdf?sequence=1 | doi= 10.2307/3561468 | pmid = 721302 | accessdate = November 10, 2018 | quote = Macon County Health Department, "Letter to Subjects," n.d., NA-WNRC}}</ref></blockquote> |
|||
{{Reflist-talk}} |
|||
en.WP rules suggest that long-standing content should not be deleted, that reliable sources should be used, that secondary sources should be used to indicate the importance of primary documents (such as the Macon County Health Department's letter), and (parenthetically) that productive edits to en.wp should not be disrupted. We are meant to speak only about content, not contributors. If you could avoid ad hominem edit summaries such as [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Syphilis&type=revision&diff=868109607&oldid=868109391 this one], jytdog, I would appreciate it. I do not believe an authoritarian replacement of the entire (somewhat poorly written) section of a GA with the (less well sourced & somewhat poorly written) lead of a non-GA is wise. ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Syphilis&diff=next&oldid=868089550 major revision here]). Instead, I believe discussion is warranted. Thanks for taking the time to read this. |
|||
— 🍣 [[User:SashiRolls|SashiRolls]] ([[User talk:SashiRolls|talk]]) 18:02, 10 November 2018 (UTC) |
Revision as of 18:14, 10 November 2018
![]() | Syphilis has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||
|
![]() | This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Syphilis. 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/20141024093624/http://m.cdc.gov/en/HealthSafetyTopics/DiseasesConditions/STDs/syphilisMSM_FS to http://m.cdc.gov/en/HealthSafetyTopics/DiseasesConditions/STDs/syphilisMSM_FS
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
- 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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:53, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
Not to be confused with
@Quercus solaris: if we added Not to be confused with nonvenereal endemic syphilis then it would also be appropriate to add neurosyphilis, congenital syphilis and late congenital syphilis to the list. Or am I missing the point in the sense that my additions are venereal and nonvenereal endemic syphilis is just that nonvenereal. I think I just answered my own question though, but your response would be appreciated as I feel I still don't quite get it. Thanks! -- Waddie96 (talk) 09:59, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
- I have described nonvenereal endemic syphilis in the lead. Do not think we need the "confused with" in the first sentence. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:17, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
- @Waddie96: Hi! I'm OK with Doc James's edit, so no objections. But FYI, no, regarding the question ("if we added [...] then it would also be appropriate to add")—that (confusingly) is not a valid analogy and actually supports the purpose that I mentioned in my edit summary. Explanation: Whereas neurosyphilis, congenital syphilis, and late congenital syphilis are "forms of the same disease that this article is about", in contrast, endemic syphilis is "a different disease with a name that confuses people into thinking that it follows that same pattern" (which the question actually proves with another instance). In other words, the first group involve "adjective modifying the name of this same disease" whereas the second is "a misnomer that seems like it belongs to that group but does not." So you can see that the confusability is real! Doc James's solution works too—the important takeaway is that if someone hears "something-something syphilis", and they google "syphilis", we want to make it clear to them, up front, that endemic syphilis is not syphilis, and it is not an STD. Thanks. Quercus solaris (talk) 21:59, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
Pinta
Have adjusted the wording. Pinta is still a type of Treponema. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:53, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
Tuskegee Institute Study Copy
@Jytdog: I saw that you copied text from one wiki page to another. Could you show me how you give the authors credit in the talk page header, please? I've restored the Brandt reference and will copyedit the new text a bit. It's true this text is better overall IMO, since it talks about informed consent.SashiRolls (talk) 00:28, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
- You do it in the edit sunmary, like I did in the edit summary you saw - see WP:PATT. It is fine to tweak but please keep it aligned with the other per WP:SYNC/WP:SUMMARY. Meta-editing this way is important.Jytdog (talk) 00:33, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
- this and this were transparently tendentious. Over at the other article please explain why that bit should be in the first paragraph. Jytdog (talk) 02:15, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
Allan M. Brandt study
I recently added an article by Allan M. Brandt to this article because Brandt is a respected historian of medicine, employed in the department of the History of Science at Harvard University. Google scholar shows that the article I added is cited 596 times as a stand-alone article & 286 times as the first essay in Susan Reverby's book. (see TOC, pages 15-33). The article by RM White (restored here after a copy/paste from another page ) responds directly to Brandt's work, though it does not respond to the historical evidence mentioned in Brandt's study, taking a revisionist approach towards the established scholarship on the subject. It does not seem to have anywhere near the number of citations at google scholar (114 times). The citation ratio of 882-114 would suggest that Brandt's study merits inclusion at least as much as White's. Personally, I think both could be in the article.
Regarding my (very small) part of the deleted text, I believe in a "show don't tell" method of writing. Rather than using adjectives like "unethical" and "malicious" to *assert* that experimenters engaged in misrepresenting diagnostic tests as therapy, it seems appropriate to use a reliable source to give en.wp readers the *historical facts* which led to the established academic consensus on the question:
The Tuskegee Study of Untreated Syphilis in the Negro Male was an infamous clinical study conducted between 1932 and 1972 by the U.S. Public Health Service. The final stage of the original 1932 experiment involved giving subjects a diagnostic spinal tap to "determine the incidence of neurosyphilis" without providing any treatment. Facing insufficient participation, the Macon County Health Department wrote to subjects to offer them a "last chance to to get a special treatment, if it is believed you are in a condition to stand it".[1]
References
- ^ Allan M. Brandt (December 1978). "Racism and Research: The Case of the Tuskegee Syphilis Study" (PDF). The Hastings Center Report. 8 (6): 23-24. doi:10.2307/3561468. PMID 721302. Retrieved November 10, 2018.
Macon County Health Department, "Letter to Subjects," n.d., NA-WNRC
en.WP rules suggest that long-standing content should not be deleted, that reliable sources should be used, that secondary sources should be used to indicate the importance of primary documents (such as the Macon County Health Department's letter), and (parenthetically) that productive edits to en.wp should not be disrupted. We are meant to speak only about content, not contributors. If you could avoid ad hominem edit summaries such as this one, jytdog, I would appreciate it. I do not believe an authoritarian replacement of the entire (somewhat poorly written) section of a GA with the (less well sourced & somewhat poorly written) lead of a non-GA is wise. (major revision here). Instead, I believe discussion is warranted. Thanks for taking the time to read this.
— 🍣 SashiRolls (talk) 18:02, 10 November 2018 (UTC)