Talk:Tuskegee Syphilis Study

Wiki Ed

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. Peer reviewers: Nhuang97.

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

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

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): Jimmysteph, Sshapiro16. Peer reviewers: Sshapiro16.

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

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. Peer reviewers: Chynichart, Tyram99.

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

IPC section is silly

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)

Requested move 31 December 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: No consensus. Relisted discussion with last input a week ago. Several suggestions but no clear consensus for a single new title. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 13:55, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

---

Tuskegee Syphilis Study → Tuskegee experiments – per WP:COMMONNAME. This would mean moving Tuskegee Experiments to Tuskegee Experiments (album) or creating a dab, but I think the very fact there's an album named "Tuskegee Experiments" provides evidence that that is the common name. —valereee (talk) 12:37, 31 December 2020 (UTC) —Relisting. (t · c) buidhe 08:51, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

• Comment The term The Tuskegee Experiment has also been used to describe the program under which African-Americans in the U.S. Air Force were trained as fighter pilots, as described here and here. Larry Hockett (Talk) 13:01, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
• Comment I think moving Tuskegee Experiments to Tuskegee Experiments (album) is definitely warranted, but perhaps a dab fro just Tuskegee Experiments would be best in the intrest of clarity—blindlynx (talk) 19:46, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose the plural "experiments" – practically all sources discuss it as a singular study. However the singular "Tuskegee experiment" is commonly used – it is about as popular as "Tuskegee Syphilis Study". Looking at some other encyclopedia:

Britannica: "Tuskegee syphilis study" (lowercase),

Encyclopedia.com – History section "Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment"

Encyclopedia.com – Science section "Tuskegee Experiment"

Looking at the number of hits on the NYTimes, we have 91 for "Tuskegee Syphilis Study", 39 for "Tuskegee experiments" (plural), 159 for "Tuskegee experiment" (singular), 47 for "Tuskegee syphilis experiment". Just in recent years we have a lot of variability (Tuskegee syphilis study, Tuskegee Syphilis Study, Tuskegee syphilis experiment, Tuskegee Syphilis Study, Tuskegee Study, Tuskegee Syphilis Study, Tuskegee syphilis experiment, Tuskegee experiment, Tuskegee syphilis experiment).

So we have several equally valid WP:COMMONNAMEs, "Tuskegee (syphilis) experiment" and "Tuskegee (syphilis) study". Including the term "syphilis" is more WP:RECOGNIZABLE, and since so many sources don't treat it as a proper name, I would opt for either "Tuskegee syphilis experiment" or "Tuskegee syphilis study".

The album is clearly under the wrong title – the album has 4 times as many hits as the artist! Tuskegee Experiments should redirect here.

– Thjarkur (talk) 17:30, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

• Support alternate Tuskegee syphilis study (sentence case). Also support moving the album to include a parenthetical dab and making Tuskegee Experiment a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT.
  It would seem that using title case would only be appropriate for the formal title: "Tuskegee Study of Untreated Syphilis in the Negro Male". But because that is not the common name, sentence case should be used. Because the use is spread pretty evenly, I support "syphilis study" since both words are used in the formal title. -2pou (talk) 17:54, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: No consensus. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 13:55, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

---

Requested edit

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)

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

Article desperately needing a rewrite

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)

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)

@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)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 August 2021

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)

 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)

Merger proposal

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)

• I'm thinking a disambiguation page at Syphilis study might be more helpful? —valereee (talk) 17:52, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
• 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)
  • 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)
• Do not merge. Completely disagree with the merger proposal as non-relevant. Ckruschke (talk) 17:20, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

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)

• 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)

• 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)
• Do not merge Ridiculous. ~ HAL333 19:17, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
• Do not merge Agree with the others. I do not see a logical reason for this.Rja13ww33 (talk) 20:02, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

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

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)

The quote from Taliaferro Clark is not word for word and has been rephrased by who added it.

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. 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)

References

They were given Salvarsan and that is a cure for syphilis.

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)

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

The article states the dcotors "never informed subjects of their diagnosis," but it also says that they "administered disguised placebos, ineffective methods, and diagnostic procedures, which were misrepresented as treatments for syphilis." These statements seem to contradict each other. Did they tell the subjects that they had syphilis and were receiving treatment for it, or not? SchrodingersMinou (talk) 13:10, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

I removed the "as treatments for syphilis and/or 'bad blood'", which did imply that some participants may have been told they had syphilis. Good catch. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:16, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

When did scientists know that Salvarsan did not cure syphilis?

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)

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)

“Ethically abusive”

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)

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)

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

Declaration of Helsinki

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)

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

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

Semi-protected edit request on 20 October 2022

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)

 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)

The title should be changed

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)

Wiki Education assignment: English 102 Section 4

This article was 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)