Talk:Eunice Rivers Laurie

Untitled

Any feedback/tips to edit the article about Eunice Rivers Laurie would be very much appreciated!

Achara1 (talk)

There is evidence for her being a "race traitor"? I understand the need for neutrality and to point out accuracy on both sides of an argument, but this is just a moral judgement; what's more, a moral judgement that arguably doesn't even really mean anything.

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

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): Achara1. Peer reviewers: Henryschuh, LauraBou, Jpunnoo1.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:56, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Peer Review

This article is really well-done and has a substantial amount of information. There are a couple areas I think could still be improved. First, the "Impact on Race Relations" section could benefit from more supporting evidence. I'd certainly agree with statements like "she was expected to accept demands by all whites" and "her life paints a picture of defiance against segration" (typo!), but I think you're better off giving examples of these rather than simply citing a journal article that drew those conclusions. Perhaps these conclusion-type claims could go after the main section on the experiments? Second, in the last part of the article, you say she's seen as both "the ultimate nurse" and "the ultimate race traitor." I'm not sure exactly what you mean by those - an "ultimate nurse" could be a nurse who acts in the patients' best interest or is very good at doing her assigned job, and the "race traitor" part isn't explained much in that paragraph. If you clarify these a bit, the article will be in good shape!

Henryschuh (talk) 20:37, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Great article! I really love all of the citations that you use. It really strengthens the legitimacy of the article. When you say,"She became one of the first African-Americans to be employed by the United States Public Health System (PHS), thus paving the way for other people of color in this area of service," you might wan to give an example of the other famous names that followed after her. In the Tuskgee experiments, you should talk more about the reasons why Rivers continued to be a part of the experiments. Also just like the previous reviewer said, you should explain why she's viewed as a race traitor. Jpunnoo1 (talk) 14:51, 28 April 2017 (UTC) jpunnoo1

I really enjoyed reading this article. I think you could expand the Tuskegee section a bit more and discuss the degree to which Nurse Rivers complied with the study's lack of treatment. If my memory serves, she helped her patients find treatment outside of the Tuskegee Hospital. The first section under career also didn't have a subheading which made the organization feel a bit asymmetrical. Overall very good job though! Zsmith7 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:38, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

This was a really good article. It was a great read and had a lot of information. I think that information could be added to some sections in order to provide a more detailed background on her. In addition, the section on the Tuskegee Syphilis Study could be expanded. I think a good source of information would be a book that I used for my article on Dr. Dibble called: Examining Tuskegee: The Infamous Syphilis Study and Its Legacy by Susan M. Reverby. LauraBou (talk) 02:36, 6 May 2017 (UTC)LauraBouLauraBou (talk) 02:36, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Style Issues in "Public Perception" Subsection

Near the end, the subsection "Public Perception" refers directly to the reader (contradicting WP:PRONOUNS) and generally has a persuasive tone (contradicting WP:TONE). While the role of Rivers in the Tuskegee experiments is something worth discussing, Wikipedia shouldn't take a stance on the topic. Samuelemarro (talk) 16:03, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Eunice Rivers Laurie

There's a book titled "Bad Blood: The Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment" (1981) by James H. Jones that provides very useful archival analysis. The medical scientists and the US Public Health that introduced the project to Tuskegee did a great deal of lying to the Tuskegee staff. The medical scientists of the project hid the truths of the purpose and structure of the experiment. The author of the book makes a strong argument that the Tuskegee staff were not race traitors. They did not choose to create the problems of the experiment. They were trying to help the local community and to allow medical analysis to help support the future of the community. KwabenaSlaughter (talk) 00:16, 21 February 2024 (UTC)