Talk:Tuskegee Syphilis Study

This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Alabama This article is part of WikiProject Alabama, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Alabama on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.AlabamaWikipedia:WikiProject AlabamaTemplate:WikiProject AlabamaAlabama articles History of Science High‑importance This article is part of the History of Science WikiProject, an attempt to improve and organize the history of science content 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/or contribute to the discussion. You can also help with the History of Science Collaboration of the Month.History of ScienceWikipedia:WikiProject History of ScienceTemplate:WikiProject History of Sciencehistory of science articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Human rights High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights 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.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Medicine Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Nursing Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Nursing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Nursing 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.NursingWikipedia:WikiProject NursingTemplate:WikiProject NursingNursing articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Science Policy High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Policy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Science policy 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.Science PolicyWikipedia:WikiProject Science PolicyTemplate:WikiProject Science PolicyScience Policy articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Archive 1

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Nhuang97.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 11:49, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Tseanamega (talk) 21:57, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jimmysteph, Sshapiro16. Peer reviewers: Sshapiro16.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 11:49, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Chynichart, Tyram99.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 11:49, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Proposing we cut this to just coverage that focusses on or significantly features the subject. A simple mention by a character in a show or book has given us a section full of entries that take longer to explain than they probably lasted. Seriously, In the 2019 TV series Black Lightning episode “The Book of War: Chapter Three: Liberation“ (season 3 episode 16), Black Lightning references the Tuskegee experiment during a hearing? Just no. —valereee (talk) 12:19, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article is protected so I'm placing this here so that a registered user can make the edit: In the paragraph that begins "Later Smith, a local PHS representative" there is a phrase duplication that was introduced when the quote was expanded upon. The second instance of "but had tested positive when registering for the draft" should be removed. It is not part of the quote. See this edit. Thank you in advance for making the correction. 2806:108E:2:A6FF:EC91:C4B8:1041:D3DA (talk) 09:51, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Someone has made the edit. Thanks. 2806:108E:2:A6FF:EC91:C4B8:1041:D3DA (talk) 11:32, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

While for the most part the information portrayed in the article is accurate as far as I'm aware, the tone it is written in is highly aggressive and angry. While understandable considering the topic, even universally accepted genocides on this website maintain substantially more neutral tone than this one. The only time wikipedia articles are supposed to express tonal bias is when quoting commonly accepted views from experts on the subject or when citing individuals, of which the majority of any article is not. Can I get anyone else's words on this? Pabslabin (talk) 00:34, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Totally not being difficult, but I've been on this page for awhile and I don't see a tone issue. Can you note specific examples of this and the changes you would make? Ckruschke (talk) 19:16, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ckruschke, w/re the merge proposal below, I was thinking we should be at least mentioning the Terre Haute prison experiments and John Charles Cutler, and that all of these studies were conducted under the USPHS. I think that may deserve a section, even.

Also pinging @Pabslabin, who is new enough that they may not realize they've received a response. Pabslabin, can you discuss which parts sound aggressive and angry? I read over the lead and it seems pretty neutral. —valereee (talk) 09:46, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I will like to request a edit. As their are some important grammar mistake on this post 68.194.92.65 (talk) 00:30, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:32, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CLOSED

Reject merging of article(s) as per Snow. No desire to merge these. Proposer may consider creating an over-arching article based on his idea. GenQuest ^"scribble" 15:16, 2 September 2021 (UTC) Non-Administrative closure[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Formal request has been received to merge: Guatemala syphilis experiments and Terre Haute prison experiments articles into Tuskegee Syphilis Study; dated: August 2021. Request further involves renaming the resulting merged article to United States Public Health Service Syphilis Studies.

Proposer's Rationale: The primary reason is to more appropriately name the articles for the funding, initiating, controlling party. Separating into three articles, each with location as the first word inappropriately obscures the driving party in all three cases, and connections between the three cases. In the seminal informed consent cases of Auschwitz and Buchenwald, the reference names identify compounds erected or seized explicitly for inhumane purposes -- so using those names besmirches no good deeds. Moreover, Auschwitz and Buchenwald are now closed memorials. Though local governance failed to protect their charges from PHS abuse, PHS was the controlling actor, and earned the title role. Wikipedia should not continue with titles that invite misinterpretation. COVID-19 makes 2021 an especially bad time to highlight PHS errors. Still, we Wikipedians face a recurring challenge: Where the most common phrasing distorts the known history by misreporting agency, highlighting minor parties instead of major/controlling parties -- should we continue to reinforce that distortion because it's common/popular? While merging would make a long article, it would be far from our longest. Bringing the articles together could better convey the connected nature of the events and improve overall reader understanding. The articles should be merged and renamed -- even if we postpone publishing the revision for some agreed interval. —User:LoneStarNot (talk • contribs) .

Discuss here. GenQuest ^"scribble" 16:00, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm thinking a disambiguation page at Syphilis study might be more helpful? —valereee (talk) 17:52, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Do not merge. The timing doesn’t matter; the insertion of an editor’s personal views on how RS ought to have covered a subject (but didn’t) matters very much, as a strict no-go. I think we should either do nothing or at most add the dab valereee suggests. Innisfree987 (talk) 18:06, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additionally, the proposed additional article should only be created if there are enough sources discussing these experiments together to meet WP:GNG. Again they should not be grouped just because an editor decides they should be considered together, but only if reliable secondary sources have made that determination. Innisfree987 (talk) 00:26, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Do not merge. Completely disagree with the merger proposal as non-relevant. Ckruschke (talk) 17:20, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Do not merge but most definitely create the suggested article. An article on the United States Public Health Service Syphilis Studies would be a great place to provide an overview of the programs and how they link together, since many of them had the same doctors in charge, and in many cases, one lead to the other. But each of these experiments in radically different geographic locations are distinctly different topics. Once this article exists, I'm willing to considering merging in the Terre Haute article, since it was much smaller and a lot less controversial, but merging the Guatemala and Tuskegee ones is a definite no. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 06:13, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Do not merge. What is even the logic here? Having Tuskugee as the first word besmirches the good name of Tuskugee? --Eldomtom2 (talk) 11:39, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Do not merge. We have policies and criteria for how we name articles: recognizability, naturalness, precision, conciseness, consistency. It is not our place to rename an article to tell people what to call it. Everyone passingly familiar with the scandal knows it by the name "Tuskegee"; only people who've already studied it in detail know the name of the agency that conducted it and the others. These are connected incidents, but they are not the same incident, and warrant separate articles. If there's another article that can be written to provide an overview that ties them together, that's a fine idea, but they are better covered in separate articles. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 23:45, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Do not merge Ridiculous. ~ HAL333 19:17, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Do not merge Agree with the others. I do not see a logical reason for this.Rja13ww33 (talk) 20:02, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Do not merge Each article is better separate RajanD100 (talk) 06:32, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

• LoneStarNot, I've created a disambiguation page, which you should feel free to turn into an article. —valereee (talk) 17:01, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a quote from Taliaferro Clark in the article, under the "Racism" category. It says: "The rather low intelligence of the African American population, depressed economic conditions, and the common promiscuous sex relations not only contribute to the spread of syphilis but the prevailing indifference with regards to treatment." And here is what the source for this quote actually says: "The rather low intelligence of the Negro population, depressed economic conditions, and the common promiscuous sex relations not only contribute to the spread of syphilis but the prevailing indifference with regards to treatment”

When quoting a quote, it should be what was said word for word, not edited by a random person on the internet to be politically correct. I notice that the article is locked so I am unable to correct it but perhaps someone else can.

Here is a link to the source used for the quote. ^[1] 2600:1700:1EC1:30C0:E9F6:7C9E:97A:EB7C (talk)

Changed the quote in the article. I don't understand how the quote is any less offensive with "Negro" changed to "African American". It's jarring and outright comical. --Svennik (talk) 07:31, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Salvarsan wikipedia article says that Salvarsan is a cure for syphilis so why is this not pointed out? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.45.62.81 (talk) 18:22, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's mentioned twice, with context. Robincantin (talk) 01:24, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

When did scientists know that Salvarsan did not cure syphilis? Did the doctors involved in the Tuskegee experiment know that Salvarsan did not cure syphilis? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.45.62.81 (talk) 19:31, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The text explains that actual medication (including salvarsan) was only administered after months of observation, since the study's undisclosed goal was to observe the progress of the disease when untreated. The problem isn't whether the treatment was effective or not, it's that the treatment was withheld. Robincantin (talk) 01:34, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In the first sentence, saying it was “ethicality abusive” sounds a lot like an opinion- that might be the case, but it is not attributed to anyone or in the references so far as I can tell. That kind of statement either needs to be a quote/attrition, or removed. 71.197.159.239 (talk) 15:50, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's clearly laid out in paragraph 5, with sources, as well as the section "ethical implications". I don't see why it wouldn't be in the lead. Robincantin (talk) 01:21, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Right. That is not just an opinion. Drmies (talk) 01:22, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In the second paragraph of section 5 "Ethical Implications", the Declaration of Helsinki is incorrectly referenced as the creation of the World Health Organization. In fact, the Declaration of Helsinki was created by the World Medical Association. The WMA isn't as well known in popular culture and the two have deceptively similar names but hey are different organizations. The WHO was created in 1948 as a public health apparatus of the United Nations whereas the WMA was established in 1947 and remained an independent entity. The two have public health missions and maintain direct relations. Still, where the WHO is known for its global initiatives like smallpox eradication, the WMA's claim to fame is the association's contributions to medical ethics. Documents of note include; The Declaration of Geneva (The modern version of the Hippocratic oath pledged by doctors), the Declaration of Tokyo ( which discusses physician conduct vis-a-vis torture and imprisonment,) and, a fundamental document in the field of human research ethics, The Declaration of Helsinki. BgerMister33 (talk) 04:49, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thanks. Robincantin (talk) 09:18, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

my pleasure. cheers. BgerMister33 (talk) 09:25, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

A request to add the following to the section about the impacts of the Tuskeegee Study in society and culture:

Pat Parker, a black lesbian poet and activist (-> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pat_Parker) writes in her poem My Lover Is a Woman (->https://poets.org/poem/my-lover-woman),

never hear my sisters rage of syphilitic Black men as guinea pigs 109.127.228.77 (talk) 14:52, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. The importance of this quote from poetry should be established by a WP:SECONDARY source commenting on it. Binksternet (talk) 15:59, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The title is an embarrassment, for all the reasons cited above under "merger".The CDC itself adopted the phrase "The U.S. Public Health Service Syphilis Study at Tuskegee". The current title throws Wikipedia's weight in a bad direction, while refusing to acknowledge the importance of phrasing. This persists even after the wave of media noting the effect of AI reinforcing bias because it pervades the sample space. WP:POVNAME "Notable circumstances under which Wikipedia often avoids a common name for lacking neutrality include the following: ...Colloquialisms where far more encyclopedic alternatives are obvious" The Guatemala and Terre Haute pages suffer similarly misleading names.

LoneStarNot (talk) 23:49, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Confused as to the issue. Perhaps you need to see WP:COMMONNAME? glman (talk) 00:48, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article is currently the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 9 January 2024 and 3 May 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Llove123 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Nadrayton, Lyricdrumgoole, Reneeterry05!, JamarK0709, Jjdial00, Luvv.Empress, Nynydagoat.

— Assignment last updated by Taty2004 (talk) 07:09, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]