Jump to content

Talk:Syphilis/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Limerick

The limerick is amusing, but what's its copyright status? I found it on this web page dated 1997, but there's no indication of permission to re-use it. -- Ortonmc 03:43, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)

  • It wouldn't be hard to add a section on syphilis in literature. It could start with Girolamo Fracastoro who was a poet/physician who wrote about it, and could list literature about / fictional characters who probably had syphilis. --ssd 03:56 & 4:07, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • I agree that the limerick is amusing (and horrible) but it doesn't belong here in the encyclopdia. Instead there should be a "dry" summary of short and long term symptoms for men and women. Andries 11:52, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I don't mind the limerick. It shows how much this disease has to do with the culture of the time. Ksheka 11:42, May 20, 2004 (UTC)
  • This limerick is mentioned twice in the article. I removed the first section on it, since it seems excessively detailed for something so tangential to the topic. It also makes sense to note it under Art and Literature, rather than its own heading. However, it got replaced and I recieved a nastygram about removing it. So if anyone else agrees with me, they can remove it.
    —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.49.7.56 (talk) 00:00, 7 September 2005

The photo

Can we link to this photo instead of displaying it? RickK 22:51, Aug 10, 2004 (UTC)

I feel this photo would be better off with a link. Ditto with any other non-work-safe photos. Samboy 08:38, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
If you are so concerned about what people at work think about you, then why are you viewing an article about syphilis at work? - Ta bu shi da yu 15:11, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I, for one, view it in biology classes. It is then not very appropriate for close-ups of human genitalia to be displayed on my monitor, when one is discussing the biological properties of a disease. Ergo, put it in a link.--TVPR 08:01, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Why? If you don't like vaginas there are plenty of other syphilis photos where it came from, but since syphilis is a STD I found a vagina more appropriate. Also this is an illness and showing the effects of such things are bound to show things that are not very nice looking. --Dittaeva 22:58, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
How, exactly, is a vagina more appropriate than a penis to show the effects of an STD? Are you, perhaps, assuming that women are unclean? You sure as bloody hell sound like it, if I may say so. Respectfully, --TVPR 08:01, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
The point is that we want to offer the reader the opportunity to look at "not very nice looking" things without depriving the reader of the opportunity not to look at "not very nice looking things". The best way to do this is to show a link rather than the "not very nice looking" thing itself on the initial page. - [[User:Nunh-huh|Nunh-huh's talk]] 23:37, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
That is a point that applies to all articles with images that might be deemed "not very nice looking". I do not think the image looks so awful that it needs to be merely linked. Syphilis is a medical subject and an STD, and this is how many medical pictures look like. The reader does also have a choice not to read articles concerning STDs. Removing the picture will reduce its visibility and likely audience, and in my opinion will reduce the value and quality of the article. --Dittaeva 08:29, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Anyway, I'd still like to know what kind of problems you have with the image, because, as I have already stated there are alternatives out there. Do you not want any "not very nice looking" images inline in articles on medical subjects? --Dittaeva 08:42, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
That's the point. We can use the photo by linking to it, instead of putting it directly onto the page where people who don't want to be grossed out don't have to look at it. RickK 19:26, Aug 11, 2004 (UTC)
And you think this should be done for all medical articles concerning subjects (and images) that people might be "grossed out" by? I understand verz well what you want to do, but let me ask you some direct and clear questions since you haven't answered my more general ones until now: 1. What exactly is it about the current picture that makes you want it linked and not inline? 2. Would you be willing to accept a non-genital syphilis picture inline? 3. Do you think it should be policy to link (instead of including inline) pictures that you think will "gross out" people in all articles? I am trying to work with you here, but until now you have just been repeating yourselves. I still do not think it is necessary to merely link this picture that might "gross out" people in an article that should have the potential to "gross out" people without the picture. --Dittaeva 22:56, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Yes, I think we should be sensitive to our readers. [1] as you were the first to point out, it's not very nice looking (hereinafter referred to as repulsive). [2] not if it's not "gross". And I would oppose you removing a link to the current one. [3] It already is more or less the policy. The problem is defining the level of 'grossness' at which it takes effect. Beheading" videotapes seems to be agreed to be over that level, as are "beheading" photographs. A woman spreading her labia to reveal her clitoris with nail polish on is also over that level, while the same woman spreading her labia to reveal her clitoris with the nail polish Photoshopped out is below that level. I think the present photograph of condylomata lata falls above that level, and that inline inclusion makes people more likely to click away rather than continue to read it. Gross pictures are appropriate for medical texts, and less appropriate for encyclopedias. I'm also uncomfortable with the moralistic overtones of "wanting" to put repulsive photos into STD articles: we're trying to make an encyclopedia, not an army training film: we're here to disseminate knowledge about STDs, not scare people away from sex. - Nunh-huh 23:27, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
So I suppose it boils down to whether one find it above or under "the level", I find it is under, you and RickK think it is above. The moralistic overtones that you find in me "wanting" what you call repulsive photos probably comes from the excitement of opposing you guys, it is certainly not part of my POV. Anyhow, as I have said before, the archive where I found this picture have many other syphilis pictures, why don't you head over and try to find some that fits under "the level". BTW: I am aware that we are writing an encyclopedia. It would be nice if you linked the above mentioned examples.--Dittaeva 22:36, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
It's spread about in talk pages and their associated histories: Talk:Nick Berg for the beheading discussion, Talk:Clitoris (and the Village Pump and the English Wikipedia Mailing List) for the clitoris. - Nunh-huh 23:02, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I don't really understand why do people oppose to linking the image : a link allows people who want to look at it to look at it, and people who don't want to see it just won't follow the link, whereas putting the image directly in the article forces them to see it. For me, giving the choice is obviously better, since it doesn't prevent people from seeing the image. Linking would give the choice instead of imposing the picture. → SeeSchloß 00:26, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)


I've listed it at Wikipedia:Requests for comment. RickK 23:39, Aug 11, 2004 (UTC)

The article is categorized on "Infectious diseases", and this warns enough for the unadvised readers. Nobody is forced to read about syphilis. The article is clearly about biology (science), describing the symptoms of a very ugly disease. "The sore, called a chancre, is a firm, painless skin ulceration localized at the point of initial exposure to the bacterium, often on the penis, vagina or rectum." The readers interested in knowing more about this disease will appreciate the complementary images. A good encyclopedic article should be comprehesive and an image is worth 1000 words. I agree that removing the picture will reduce the quality of this article. --Vasile 01:42, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[1] Not all Infectious diseases articles will have repulsive pictures: one does not follow from the other [2] one learns what classification a pages is by viewing it...too late if you're basing your opinion to visit or not on its classification. [3] No one is talking about removing any images. They will all be there for those who wish to see them to view. They'll have to click their mouse button. - Nunh-huh
The content of the article is mainly medical. I suppose the esthetic principles aplies in science apart of the art. Those images are not art. --Vasile 12:34, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Do you think that someone looking for info on "Syphilis in art and literature" should expect to see such pictures ? And should be forced to see them ? I don't agree. → SeeSchloß 21:52, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
We discuss about the article "Syphilis". Those pictures are related with chapter 2-"Stages of syphilis". Those pictures are very good in describing different stages of syphilis -the subject of this medical article. In a medical article about syphilis such pictures should be expected. Nobody could be forced to read this or any other article. --Vasile 02:37, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
This is not a "medical" text, and this is not simply a "medical" article. Among those pages from which syphilis is one click away are: Al Capone, Bacterium, Edgar Allen Poe, Edward VI of England, Howard Hughes, July 17, Jane Eyre, Honeysuckle, Pastoral, Recluse spider, and Magic bullet. - Nunh-huh 04:45, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Hopefully, this article may be extended becoming a simple medical article. --Vasile 02:42, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Hopefully not. In fact, not even a "medical" article would be complete without a historical overview, and not even in medical textbooks would such a section be omitted when discussing syphilis. Of course, a medical textbook wouldn't make mistakes like claiming a penis has primary syphilis or a vagina has secondary syphilis (a person may have primary or secondary syphilis, a penis can have a chancre, a lesion of primary syphilis, and a vagina (actually in this photograph I believe it's labia) can demonstrate condylomata lata, a lesion of secondary syphilis, but genitalia do not "have" either primary or secondary syphilis. Nor would your typical medical text illustrate the usual (one chancre per customer) with a photograph of the unusual (three chancres on one penis). - Nunh-huh 03:41, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Alternative resolution

I am a bit disappointed at you guys, since it seems to me you do not want to resolve this, you'd rather have it your way. So since you are not trying to resolve this any other way than "the link way" I have come up with two other options:

1. Replace image with other image less repulsive: I have found Image:Penis_syphilis.png at PHIL which you might find less repulsive. I'd rather use that image anyhow because it depicts a penis which is more approriate since more men than women have syphilis.

2. Use very small thumbnail: This should grab more attention than a link, and look less repulsive.

I have just as well implemented the changes. I do not object to replacing the vaginal image with a link or removing it completely. --Dittaeva 21:13, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, have you seen any non-genital pictures of syphilis sores? --ssd 06:39, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, there are many extragenital images where the two others came from, maybe we should find one more to include? --Dittaeva 13:58, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

From RfC

I agree with Rick, Andries and company. The more grotesque elements of this article, including the pictures and the limerick, should be linked to with warning. No thumbnails. I agree with the general policy that non-work-safe images should not be placed on Wikipedia regardless of the article they belong to. –Floorsheim 05:25, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

It would be helpful if you and Samboy wrote an article on work-safe internet.

Okay. Looks like as per Vulva, Clitoris, and Penis, there's general agreement among the community in support of the inclusion of clinical photos. Is it possible to get one that's not quite so hideous as the vagina one, though? My opinion on the limerick remains unchanged. It's crude and has no place in an encyclopedia. Floorsheim 12:27, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

You can search for syphilis at the source of the vagina image, but I have tried and did not find any "less hideous" and equally illustrative.--Dittaeva 12:32, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I vote for a link. This looses nothing and gives people choice. Interestingly, I still have concerns about the photo of my newborn son I posted on caesarian section comments welcome on its talk page! best wishes Erich 21:16, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

actually change my mind, those tiny thumbs are fine, although the penis file size is ridiculously big - it should be JPEG not a PNG! but the limerick should go. completely innapropriate Erich 21:21, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)
The picture is PNG and big because I wanted to provide the loss-less original for anyone to use as they see fit, in one place. I agree that it is not very practical, but since its PD one might as well provide the best original available. I have also tried to solve the problem by including a fast-loading thumbnail, but since its on the bottom along with the description one has to kind of discover it. I don't think its necessary to do anything about it now, but I will request that the software display pictures underneath their description and not over. I think the limerick should stay. And BTW: PNG is more in line with the GNU FDL and the FOSS nature of Wikipedia.--Dittaeva 21:45, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I've just re-read JPEG and the licencing concerns don't outway that the disadvantage of that huge file! surely? (btw thanks for the comments on the other photo) Erich 01:13, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
No I don't think JPEG is a problem, but PNG is still better, but the reason I did what I did was that I wanted everyone to have access to the best version available without uploading several different versions. I have put up an enhancement "bug" at MediaZilla to address the issue in the software, if you'd like you can sign up and vote for it. --Dittaeva 16:58, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Would it be possible to have a PNG original and JPG thumbnail? or is the size of the thumbnail a non-issue? --ssd 06:43, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
If the thumb could display in JPG I don't find that a problem, but is it doable without uploading a new JPEG version? (Another feature request?). If you are talking about uploading a new JPEG version I don't think its worth it.--Dittaeva 09:21, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I agree with Erich; I think the thumbnail works well... draws attention to it without being exposed in its full glory -- so to speak -- to people who'd be repulsed (and yes, I find that picture nauseating, but useful). Mindspillage 01:42, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Dittaeva, let's hear why you think the limerick should stay. –Floorsheim 23:14, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I agree with Ksheka, and I think removing it would reduce the quality of the article and reduce the information given. The Limerick gives a very good picture of how it could be have have syphilis at the time. But: I kind of agree with Andries too.
Conclusion if you:
  1. Copy the limerick to WikiSource."dry" summary of short and long term symptoms for men and women.
  2. Write "a "dry" summary of short and long term symptoms for men and women".
then I think you can replace the limerick with a link to it, but please, the above mentioned points should be carried out before replacing the limerick. --Dittaeva 16:58, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I would be alright with something to that effect. Why don't you work on putting that together? For now, I'm going to go ahead and snip the limerick. I think the information currently in the main body of the article is extensive enough that we can afford to go without the limerick for now. –Floorsheim 11:29, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

A limerick on syphilis

Quite a good description of how one might have suffered from syphilis back in the days before modern antibiotics. It starts out with him having a chancre; he goes on to develop secondary syphilis, losing his hair to secondary syphilis; following which he has all the common complications of tertiary syphilis before he ends up mad from neurosyphilis. The limerick also mentions his wife catching it from him and then passing it on to his children. 

There was a young man of Back Bay, 
Who thought syphilis just went away,  
   And felt that a chancre,  
   Was merely a canker,  
Acquired in lascivious play.  
  
Now first he got acne vulgaris, 
The kind that is rampant in Paris,  
   It covered his skin,  
   From forehead to shin,  
And now people ask where his hair is.  
  
With symptoms increasing in number,  
His aorta's in need of a plumber,  
   His heart is cavorting,  
   His wife is aborting,  
And now he's acquired a gumma.  
  
Consider his terrible plight, 
His eyes won't react to the light,  
   His hands are apraxic,  
   His gait is ataxic,  
He's developing gun-barrel sight.  
  
His passions are strong, as before,  
But his penis is flaccid, and sore,  
   His wife now has tabes  
   And sabre-shinned babies, 
She's really worse off than a whore.  
  
There are pains in his belly and knees,  
His sphincters have gone by degrees,  
   Paroxysmal incontinence,  
   With all its concomitants,  
Brings on quite unpredictable pees.  
  
Though treated in every known way,  
His spirochetes grow day by day,  
   He's developed paresis,  
   Converses with Jesus,  
And thinks he's the Queen of the May.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Floorsheim (talk • contribs) 11:33, 21 August 2004

Inconsistant information

The article on Friedrich Nietzsche referred to in this article points out that the insanity that Nietzsche suffered is not consistant with syphilis infection, and that the accusation that he was a syphilis sufferer is probably a canard perpetrated by his detractors.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.121.60.182 (talk) 21:51, 13 February 2007

  • From that article...
"While the story of syphilis indeed became generally accepted in the twentieth century, recent research in the Journal of Medical Biography shows that syphilis is not consistent with Nietzsche's symptoms, and that the contention that he had the disease originated in anti-Nietzschean tracts."
Perhaps the cross reference should be removed, or at least amended to indicate the questionable nature of the inference of syphilis? Shokaman
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.159.71.40 (talk) 17:52, 7 November 2004
  • I'd go ahead and do what you suggested (remove nietzsche reference), but you should probably check the validity of what you just quoted first. --Dittaeva 14:59, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
You must consider that Nietzche's own sister did a major coverup of whatever was wrong with him after his death so that she could use his writings for her own pollitical agenda. I think it would be wrong to remove any reference for or against syphilis in his case until you had gotten multiple MODERN confirmations. And no, a single author on either side is not good enough. References to collected evidence should go on Talk:List of notable people identified as probably syphilitic. --ssd 05:52, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Removal of images

I have reverted User:GenerlaPattons last edits because they were in complete disregard of the discussion that has been held here. The edits also crippled the article as links with image captions in the beginning of paragraphs is just unusable. Please add your conserns/objections/replies to the discussion first if you'd want to revert. --Dittaeva 21:38, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Well, i've got no reason to revert as i've started this policy discussion Wikipedia:Graphic and potentially disturbing images that i hope will give us guidelines on how to deal with such issues in the future. I hope you, and others, join in the discussion. GeneralPatton 23:01, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Would anyone be opposed to a header announcing that it contains these pictures? I think it's really not obvious that the article would contain such images—especially for those who, like myself, were previously unaware of how syphilis affects in the body.

It's an article about a sexually transmitted disease, so I think most readers would expect drawings or photos of genitalia. thx1138 12:19, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

If there is support for such a header, how about the type of solution I crafted for Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse? Basically, we can make a version of the article with images suppressed by using the main article as a template. This does not duplicate the article, but creates a version without potentially offensive pictures. Cool Hand Luke 19:27, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'm not against having the images ... but I think their presence should be mentioned at the beginning of the article. I wasn't expecting to see them, myself... and it was kind of a shock 69.142.21.24

Syphilis in bones

I saw this picture [1] and i tried to think of how this disease affected the bones. I am somehow at a loss. Did it cut calcium intake? Would someone medically knowledgable include a more explicit sentence or two one how the bactaria affected bones please? That would make the article far more rich that most of the other writings out there
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Wk muriithi (talk • contribs) 03:12 &:13, 12 February 2005

One of syphilis's major mechanisms of damage is through the formation of squishy painful lumps. (I seem to recall these are labeled tabes but I can't find a refernece for that.) These nodules can form anywhere -- on the surface of the skin, in nerve tissue (esp. the spine -- tabes dorsalis), in the heart muscle, and even in bones. The result of them in bones and joints is a painful arthritis. --ssd 04:34, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
There's more than one way for syphilis to produce bony manifestations, but the predominant one is the "gumma" or "gummatous lesion", which is a tumor-like inflammatory reaction provoked in direct response to the causative organism, the spirochete. If you look at a gumma under the microscope, you'll see dead cells (necrosis), epithelioid cells, and multinucleated giant cells, but you generally won't find the spirochete. Gummas in the knee were fairly common signs of advanced untreated syphilis. ("Tabes dorsalis" is a neurological manifestation of tertiary syphilis, but isn't itself related to any bony changes). - Nunh-huh 04:41, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Thanks, I think gumma was what I was thinking. --ssd 00:38, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
  • The reference at the beginning of this section has unlinked.
    —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.85.6.26 (talk) 16:49, 8 August 2005

Bacteria ID

The content of the following box was a single contrib, accurately signed & dated.

A recent anonymous changed the bacterium name for yaws in this article. I have no criteria to judge which is accurate and have no sources to hand. Any microbiologists out there??

Yaws (also Frambesia tropica, thymosis, polypapilloma tropicum or pian) is a tropical infection of the skin, bones and joints caused by the spirochete bacterium Treponema pertenue. Other treponematosis diseases are pinta (Treponema carateum) and syphilis (Treponema pallidum). - from the Yaws article.

WBardwin 03:13, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I thought I'd fixed that one, but it didn't seem to "take": I've done it again now - taking the chance to remove tangential, though related, diseases out of the first paragraph. Treponema pertenue and Treponema pallidum pertenue indicate the same organism. - Nunh-huh 03:20, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

History Section

Who got rid of origin discussions?

Sorry don't know how to do all the tagging and stuff on here, but a (brief) reference for the Columbian exchange is found in "The Greatest Benefit to Mankind: A Medical History of Humanity from Antiquity to the Present" by Roy Porter, p166-7. ISBN 0-00-637454-9. Duncan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.243.37 (talk) 10:03, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

If no one is going to respond to this question, I'm going to put back my section on discussing origing theories on the disease. Any objections? --Notenderwiggin 02:05, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Someone removed the discussion of syphilis's orgins and my synopsis of the precoloumbian and colombian theories. This discussion was apporved as neutral after significant discussion. Why was it removed without talking about it first? I belive that the origins of syphilis should at least be touched on.--Notenderwiggin 18:06, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


Someone put "historically called lues" in the heading. Anyone have documentation of this, i havn't run into this term in the course of some pretty extensive research. If it was histoeically called lues, this wasn't an importnat term. If someone can argue this I will leave it, otherwise I will get rid of it soon.--Notenderwiggin 03:45, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Lues is certainly one of the names Syphilis has gone by. As you probably know, there is quite a long list names that have been used. Lues is one of them. I'm not sure how it ranks as far as which is the most common, however. Hope that answers your question. sph.md —Preceding undated comment added 00:46, 5 March 2006.
i've removed the reference to lues from the first sentance of the article. In my fairly extensive research on syphilis, lues doesn't strike me as a common name, "french pox or pox" was significantly more common in enlgish. I put it in the alternate name section
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Notenderwiggin (talk • contribs) 20:11, 10 May 2006
- unsigned, by Notenderwiggin.Accurate but incomplete imporvised notation struck thru, & replaced above.
The name "lues" is far more significant than, say, "Miss Siff" which you left in the first sentence. I've replaced "lues" in its appropriately prominent section. I find it hard to believe anyone could pursue "extensive research" without encountering the word "lues". One place to start your research would have been a dictionary. "Lues" entered the English language in 1634; "syphilis" in 1718. "Lues" was the preferred term for centuries. - Nunh-huh 20:21, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
can you try to be less insulting? "miss siff" was not in the sentance when i did the edit, nor is it now. The current positioing of the term lues is fine, when I removed it the first line of the artilce was "syphilis, also called Lues". Although I am sure "lues" was a term used, it seems to be much less common that the term "the pox" or "french pox" in English. If you want a bibliography I can provide one, actually come to think of it I did provide several references. One of the characterstics of syphilis is a multiplicity of names, of which "lues" was only one and not the most important. Try working with people instead of insulting them. - (unsigned, by Notenderwiggin)
Lues is certainly one of the most important historical synonyms for syphilis. I'm glad you have no objection to the current article. - Nunh-huh 04:26, 3 September 2006 (UTC)


I changed the history of Syphilis. Whoever posted the old history wrote that the columbian theory is weak and unsupported, wheras in reality is is probably more prevalent in scholarship today. I tried to be balanced in presenting both theories. User:Notenderwiggin

I moved this sentence from the head of the discussion page, placing it in date order and with a discussion topic. Please note significant history sections changes by the author above. Appears to me that too much was taken out of Pre-Columbian side of the controversy, which is hardly as weak today as the author seems to think. Will put some of the information back in. WBardwin 20:17, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I think the changes made by Notenderwiggin are very well balanced (and NPOV) and cover current evidence well. Perhaps too much was removed, but I don't think adding it back will make the article more well balanced. My personal feeling on this is that there was a more virulent strain in the new world, and although Christopher Columbus brought it back with him, it had been brought over first by others, but somehow did not reached epidemic levels and stayed local to where it landed previously. Perhaps the others were merely fishermen, where Columbus brought soldiers who traveled further when they came back. Similarly, there may have been cultural barriers to the disease's travel in ancient Greece. --ssd 21:08, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I left a note with the original author -- a brand new contributer!! -- and asked him to make changes before the rest of us chime in. I personally am on the Pre-Columbian side of the argument as there are too many human remains from historic and prehistoric Old World sites with evidence of congenital syphilis to call the disease new. However, from a biological point of view, some believe that a mutation from yaws produced the syphilis bug and that it has rapidly evolved in various niches worldwide ever since. See the Crosby reference. Having a New World strain collide with the Old World strain does seem a reasonable sequence, which perhaps led to the sudden explosion in Post-Columbian Europe. Consideration has to be made for the historic reporting problems with disease as well, as disease names were used very flexibly in the past. In particular, an accusation of syphilis infection was sometimes used as propoganda or a way of making a political enemy appear degenerate. Let's make these changes at a reasoned pace and try to present both sides of the issue. Comments welcome. WBardwin 23:45, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I'm in favor of the third idea now presented in history -- neither side has the whole picture. I think it is very clear that Columbus brought it back with him and started an epidemic in Europe. It is less clear (though I have been convinced with recent evidence) that it was already in Europe, although perhaps not wide spread or in a virulent form. I have also seen evidence that it was in the new world pre-Columbus, in both a skin and STD form, both of which were virulent. Also, the natives seem to have had ways of keeping it under control (like, with hot baths). As I said, I feel the article is now balanced. It gives about equal space to all three views. I think giving more than that is excessive unless we're going to divote a whole article on the history of syphilis, and talking about any one view more is POV until the experts come to agreement on one of them, which I suspect is not possible without a time machine. --ssd 05:00, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Oh, for that time machine!. History is full of mysteries like this one -- little dibs and dabs of information but never a real answer. Let's see if our new contributor makes some changes and I'll look for a few more current references on all points. A quote from Crosby article might go well -- as would some archaeological confirmation from earlier European periods. Thanks for the interest. WBardwin 05:37, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the help everybody, as noted I am a new Wiki contributer and am not sure of all the conventions yet. I tried to make the contribution balanced, I personally support the Crosby theory that Syphilis is a particular strain of Yaws that was brought back from the New World. If you think more evidence from the pre-columbian side should be put in then feel free to add it, but I think I left enough it there. I don't think we can go into to much more detail without creating a seperate page. If we want to create a new page for the History of Syphilis I could write some of the text, as it is an interest of mine, but I would need help creating a page and linking it properly. I think the really interesting thing is the spread of the epidemic from Naples and how the pathogen mutated so as be less virulent to spread itself better. I don't think we have room for this unless we start a new page though. Notenderwiggin 23:04, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hi! Welcome back. When I get around to tracking down your Crosby reference, I might tack a little more information to this article. I like the idea of a entire category on the History and Impact of Disease. The social impact of plagues and outbreaks was a subspecialty of mine as an undergrad. I've been playing with this in the plague area - with special pages on the three major outbreaks. History of syphilis would also be good, and I would be glad to help too. We might want to look over the Columbian Exchange article. WBardwin 00:29, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I take issue with the following statememt about the Columbian theory: "Although this evidence has been derided as "weak and circumstantial" ". It is highly misleading as it suggests the Columbian theory is not strongly supported. The literature searches and reading I have done frequently support the Colubmian theory - especially the most recent literature. I'm not suggesting it is or is not correct, I'll leave that to the experts in those fields but to suggest the theroy is weak is just wrong. I'll am removing that statement. -sph.md

The "weak and circumstantial" was from the history section before I rewrote it, whoever wrote it before me was a strong supporter of the pre-columbian hypothesis. I agree that the scientific consensus has moved towards the columbian thesis, but when i orginally re-wrote the section I wanted to include some of what the previous contributer had left. I agree with the deleteion. --Notenderwiggin 01:53, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Here is the citation needed for the Hippocrates reference. http://www.logoi.com/health/syphilis/syphilis_1.html Bigdatut (talk) 18:54, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. I've updated the text to indicate that the source is from the mid-19th century and cites an early 18th author as the source.
You can add citations yourself, if you'd like. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:13, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Friedrich Nietzsche and other Famous Persons who suffered from Syphilis

An anon removed Nietzsche from the syphilus sufferers section. I think it probably should go back in/and so I'm reverting. I've read a couple of books that assert he had the disease. Does anyone have any idea why it was removed or disagree with putting it back? (I admit to questioning whether the article needs the section at all - but that is for another day.) Comments welcome. WBardwin 04:39, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The question is where did these books get that information from. You should see if you can check the original sources. This article claims that Nietzsche probably died of a brain tumor and that the syphilis story was created after the war by Wilhelm Lange-Eichbaum. The article summarizes Dr. Sax's claims regarding why he believes Nietzsche's symptoms were inconsistent with syphilis. Also, according to the Nietzsche article: "One of the best arguments against the syphilis theory is summarized by Claudia Crawford in the book To Nietzsche: Dionysus, I Love You! Ariadne." Zensufi 02:22, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Anon's contribution starting a list of syphilis sufferers moved here for discussion (see below). (Additional ref: List of notable people identified as probably syphilitic.) I have concerns about such a list in this article, probably for both an emotional and historical research reason. First of all, it smacks of gossip. Accusations of syphilis infection were used to damage reputations and as propaganda throughout the history of the disease. And, consequently, people write about it almost with purient interest. Secondly, such accusations are nearly impossible to prove. Very few individuals were clearly identified by a medical source (iffy though they may have been) as syphilis sufferers during their lifetime. Should we have such a section here? Should we just refer to the above list? Should we build in caveats such as my concerns above? WBardwin 5 July 2005 16:39 (UTC)

I think this whole section is simply unacceptable without at least one reference for each person purported to have had syphilis. Contributors with references should add them, but unless someone can explain why this section isn't pure slander, I'll delete all unreferenced "sufferers" in a few weeks -Rustavo 04:14, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Agreed, popular mythology allows 'alleged' to be attached to such statements, but they are usually pure fantasy, Hitler (and his single testicle) being a perfect example. No serious biographers of Hitler ever mention him having had syphilis. I'm removing him from the list.1812ahill (talk) 17:49, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I would like to request putting Idi Amin in the famous people that died from syphillis.

Statistics/Sources

"United States has reported over 32,000 cases of Syphilis in 2002 and the cases were reported from 16 countries and 1 city. The number of cases of syphilis happened 20 to 39 years of age. Female’s highest cases were 20 to 24 years of age. Male’s highest cases were 35 to 39 years of age. The cases of congenital syphilis decreased from 2001 to 2002 in 2001, there were 492 cases of congenital syphilis in the 2002 it became 412 new cases syphilis and for the adolescence including mid adults between the ages of 15 and 34 who are sexually active have the highest rates of syphilis."

Anon. contribution to article moved here. Sources not cited and information needs improvement/clarity. WBardwin 07:46, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

"Natchitoches, LA is the syphilis capitol of the world."

Anon. contribution to article moved here. Probable vandalism as no source or context cited. WBardwin 14:55, 16 May 2005 (UTC)


Syphilis and malaria

Reportedly a dose of malaria was used to cure syphilis at one time. Is this true, and would it have worked?

Rather implausible. JFW | T@lk 21:33, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
Yes, it doesn't seem like a good idea now, but it certainly occurred. See From mercury to malaria to penicillin: The history of the treatment of syphilis at the Mayo Clinic, 1916–1955, which is cited in the article. It probably worked better than the equally improbable, yet true, concept of "bleeding" <g>. - Nunh-huh 00:14, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
And now bleeding is being explored in some controlled experiments, as a treatment for types of hypertension (these days, "blood donation" is the method). And leaches -- are starting to be used to improve blood circulation in reattached limbs, such as fingers. So things come around again!! WBardwin 18:29, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

At least the malaria "cure" has some obvious logic to its working - bleeding does not. Are there any other examples of one disease being used to cure another?

See 'TB may have killed off leprosy' at Talk:Tuberculosis and also see the malaria article section 'Sickle cell anemia and other genetic effects' having protection against malaria Petersam 06:59, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Please remove this, its confusing and scientifically crass - sickle cell anaemia is inherited, one does not 'catch it' - there is some evidence that the red blood cells of persons with sickle cell diseases are less easily invaded by Plasmodium falciparum (not all, there are a range of genes associated with having red cells that sickle under oxygen stress), your article gives the impression that giving someone sickle cell disease will cure malaria - it is just that people with SSA are less likely to contract malaria, and it is posited that this is the only reason these genes have survived in evolution. Relevant supporting sources are numerous - try the 'PUBMED' database (http://www.pubmed.com) using 'Dr. Anton Dlusewski' & 'plasmodium falciparum/red cells/erythrocytes/sickle cells/ ' as key words to search for them (his group at Kings College/Guys/Barts in London have worked for 20 years on this very topic). DrLofthouse

The theory is that malaria causes a very high fever that burns out syphilis. There is evidence also that very hot baths may also reduce the symptoms of syphilis, although they would not eliminate it, as the core body temperature (where the syphilis is living) would have to also go up. As to the other suggestions -- donating blood will certainly (temporarily) reduce blood pressure. Leeches are now used not so much to bleed a person but to increase the blood flow (as noted above), and are very effective at this. --ssd 03:57, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Please also amend the above - leeches do not 'increase the blood flow' - they inject an anticoagulant locally which prevents blood clotting and reduces the formation of scar tissue - DrLofthouse

As used in plastic surgery they do increase the venous drainage of flaps (by anticoagulation and by bleeding from the bite wound), preventing back pressure and therefore increasing flow of blood through them. Arfgab (talk) 18:02, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
There are several examples of one disease being used to treat another. For example, infection with BCG (a TB-like bacterium) is used to treat bladder cancer. Cowpox vaccination is a similar idea.
FYI to DrLofthouse: this is a talk page. We don't bother to clean it up to make it look pretty or sensible to encyclopedia readers, any more than the real world turns back time so we can un-say things we wish we hadn't said in a face-to-fact conversation. Just skip anything you're not interested in. WhatamIdoing 17:26, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Julius Wagner-Jauregg was awarded the Nobel Prize for Medicine in 1927 for the use of malaria inoculation in the treatment of tertiary syphylis, specifically general paresis of the insane. I have some books on malaria treatment for general paresis, including descriptions of the methods of caring for people undergoing treatment, but I've got a few other things I want to work on first Shelbypark (talk) 14:09, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Syphilis in literature

Maybe the section "Syphilis in art and literature" ought to include a reference to Thomas Mann's Doktor Faustus? The disease is an important theme in the novel and is remarkably explored, with allegorical connotations, in the book's central dialogue.

If we intend to include a complete catalog of literate references, might we also include Darla, who was infected with it when made a vampire in TV's "Angel"? Trekphiler 12:48, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

In Breakfest of Champions, Kurt Vonnegut speaks of syphilitics and how when he was a child he thought they walked like robots.

This might be true; in the "tabes dorsalis" form of late syphilis, sensory messages from the feet don't reach the brain properly, and people may have to slap their feet to "hear themselves" walk. Sfahey 19:17, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

The subsection title "Classic and antique literature" should be changed, perhaps to "Literary References from the 16th to 19th centuries." "Classical" and "Antique" as periods of literature generally refer to texts from Classical Rome through those of the Late Antiquity, periods stretching from the 8th century BC to the 5th century AD. Alternatively, the section could be titled "Early Modern Literature," as the early modern period is generally considered to as A.D. 1500-1800. Merellia 13:52, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Syphilis in Armed Forces

Perhaps someone could locate a link to the many anti-Syphilis Army/Navy/Air Forces information posters from WW2 - my Father recalls one featuring a woman (obviously a Tart, because the disgusting woman wore an ankle chain and was SMOKING A CIGARETTE IN PUBLIC!!!) that read 'If she'll have it, she's got it, and if she's got it - you've had it!. The Medical Officer who gave them the low down also told them that you could catch it if a Boxer dog licked your face - why he singled out this breed so cruelly, we will never know..I thought it was Beagles who smoked in public??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.225.189.192 (talk) 00:18, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Moved external link from article for discussion, as it is not in English. Appears more appropriate for a sister wikipedia. WBardwin 18:42, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

There are a few links in this section that go to pages that try and establish a causal link between T. pallidum and AIDS. I would have thought that this is more controversial than is acceptable for an encyclopedia. Could someone have another look at this please? 203.100.246.20 12:25, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

The external link "Homosexual men boost increase in syphilis rate" with the embedded URL http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20060317-123346-6729r.htm should be REMOVED. This URL appears to lead only to the front page of this paper and not to the article named in the link. 24.44.177.254 15:05, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I was bold in a minor way, checked what you said, and removed the outdated link. -- Lisasmall 04:45, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

removed cities with highest rate

I removed this sentence: "The highest per capita ratio of syphilis in the United States can be found in Auburn, Alabama followed closely by Pahokee, Florida." This looks like vandalism meant to denigrate the two towns mentioned. If this is for real, please cite sources. FreplySpang (talk) 16:02, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

I removed it again just now. There doesn't seem to be anything I could find (through Google) to support this statement. Richard W.M. Jones 09:22, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Leonardo di Vinci

"The name "syphilis" was first applied by Girolamo Fracastoro in 1530 from the name of a shepherd in a poem by Leonardo da Vinci."

Later

"In 1530, Girolamo Fracastoro, a physician and poet, wrote a poem from which syphilis derived its name."

...The first sentence is, at the very least, extremely awkwardly worded, and I suspect it to be downright inaccurate. Anyone know what's going on there? Adam Cuerden 01:52, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Vanished user (talk • contribs) 01:52, 27 March 2006

Rainbow party

Material moved from anon edit for discussion. I vaguely remember this or a similar incident from a TV news program. But I thought the kids were older. Notable? Verifiable? WBardwin 19:18, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

The following 'graph was an unsigned portion of the immediately preceding signed portion of the same edit by User:WBardwin:
In 2005, approximately twenty sixth grade students at Reading Fleming Middle School (now Reading Fleming Intermediate School) in Flemington, New Jersey contracted syphilis after attendeding a "rainbow party".
—Preceding unsigned comment added by WBardwin (talk • contribs) 19:18, 3 May 2006
  • Indeed. There is no source, it sounds rather urban-legendlike, and a rainbow party is a sure ingredient for those kind of tales. Sure enough, Googling for the string Flemington "rainbow party" syphilis gives 0 hits. JFW | T@lk 20:32, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Source from Hunterdon Central Regional High School in Flemington, New Jersy
http://central.hcrhs.k12.nj.us/bezsylko/discuss/msgReader$281?mode=day
I don't think a teacher would assign that if it wasn't true and, trust me, it is. One of my friend's sister's was one of the girls who contracted it. So, I'd appreciate it if you didn't accuse it of being an "urban legend".
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.247.5.97 (talk) 17:41, 4 May 2006

This is absolutely not a reliable source, apart from the fact that this received NO media coverage. Please stop reinserting this. When MMWR reports this, we can talk again. JFW | T@lk 18:08, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

You guys suck. You have no fucking clue what you're talking about you stuck up, prentious pricks. I am going to fuck your mothers in front of you, rip your balls of and wear them as earings. HOW ABOUT DEM APPLES YOU FUCKING DOUCHEBAGS!
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.247.5.97 (talk) 17:30, 9 May 2006
The following was substituted for the portion of the above contrib that is now restored but struck thru.--Jerzy•t 06:18, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello. I don't wish to divulge my name, but I am a teacher at Hunterdon Central Regional High School in Flemington, New Jersey. The one who posted the information about the Rainbow Party was a student in my class and I just found out about this today. We were discussing STDs and STIs in class and I assigned a laptop project, so apparantly he felt the need to share this information with you. I ask you not to ban this IP, as it is school wide and you would be banning a good deal of our nearly 3,000 students from your website. In regards to the information he posted, no one in our community knows for certain whether or not this case did occur though I can tell you that there was a case of syphilis at the middle school this past fall. Whether or not it's due to a Rainbow Party remains to be seen, but again I ask you not to punish numerous students due to the actions of one. Thank you.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.247.5.97 (talk) 17:25 & :27, 10 May 2006

Duplicated sections

There are two sections, one in History and the other in Etymology that duplicate the same info, with a little variation:

History Because of the outbreak in the French army, it was first called morbus gallicus, or the French disease. In that time the Italians also called it the "Spanish disease", the French called it the la maladie anglaise ("the English disease") and "Italian disease" or "Neapolitan disease", the Russians called it the "Polish disease", and the Arabs called it the "Disease of the Christians".
Etymology While the Italian Girolamo Fracastoro called it the French disease, the Dutch called it the Spanish disease, the Russians called it the Polish disease, the Turks called it the Christian disease and the Tahitians called it the British disease.

Dougher 23:24, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

  • While not a perfect fix, I've consolidated origins and etymology as sub-heads under History and that should help. There's a nice segue there now from Owsley quote to the history of the nationalist name-calling. -- Lisasmall 04:34, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Graffiti in History section

The history section has the following graffiti at the end but when you try to edit it, it is not visible in the edit box.

While penicillin was able to cure most cases of syphilis, Fidel Castro, disguised as Marilyn Monroe, gave President Kennedy a case so bad, it blew the back of his head off.

Dougher 01:45, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Treatment

First of all I don't think any specific treatment regimen should be given here except perhaps for the injectable penicillins, but the mention of 'tetracyclines (100 mg orally twice a day for 14 days)' is outright wrong, as this is the treatment regime for doxycycline ONLY. Basic tetracycline or erythromycin will require 500 mg four times a day. This is a very serious error if someone would be foolish enough to try to self-medicate, or to be forced to do that in extreme circumstances.

Ditto. Wikipedia should not be dispensing medical advice. 69.247.134.2 08:28, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I disagree. The treatment(s) for syphilis can be found everywhere from Google to Medline, so they should be included in the article. However, the information should be correct and factual. Sedmic 15:41, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

"Sired by the Master"

The character of Darla in Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Angel is a colonial-era prostitute dying of syphilis when she is sired by the Master.

I'm not familiar with the show, but this makes no sense. He sired her (became her father) while she was a prostitute? Ordinary Person 09:42, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I think "sired" means "made a vampire", but that's only because I used to play V:TM. It wouldn't make any sense to anyone who isn't informed on the minutiae of modern American pop culture.
Yes, in this context, "sired" means the person who made her a vampire. Next time I edit the article, I'll do what I can to make the sentence make sense to a non-fan. -- Lisasmall 04:49, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

"A night in the arms of Venus leads to a lifetime on Mercury"

I've found this article at a CDC site which sources the above saying. The source given is:

Rose Palmer 23:04, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

How does mercury work to kill spirochaetes? Drutt 03:06, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Prevention

This section needs to be radically revised or scrapped. The injunctions appear to be out of a medical textbook or journal and assume the reader is a physician.

24.61.112.3 04:34, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

It's understandable... It just has a lot of conjecture (or has a lot of work plagiarized from original research or another encyclopedia).Species2112 14:41, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Can we get corroboration for the assertion that latex condoms aren't 100 percent effective in preventing the sexual transmission of the syphilis bacterium from a reputable source(s) not connected to the US government? That statement may be true, but given the George W. Bush Administration's well-known record of tampering with science reports to suit its political agenda (like on the environment and, more to the point, sex education), I find the CDC page linked to in this section somewhat suspect.Methychroma (talk) 21:47, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

(later) Okay, the page Whatamidoing linked to seems acceptable but I reworded the sentence immediately preceding it, which seemed to imply that condoms are less than effective in preventing the spread of syphilis, after the manner of the pro-abstinence propaganda that's going around these days.Methychroma (talk) 01:37, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Syphilis on the hand
I see that you've figured it out. The necessary corroboration is in the condoms article. It consists of the following two facts about latex condoms. Even when used consistently and correctly, condoms:
(1) occasionally break, and
(2) do not cover the entire body.
Now add that to the information shown in this picture (and discussed in the article): Unlike some infectious agents, T. pallidum is not specific to or restricted to the the tissues of the genitalia. Even if condoms never broke, using a condom can't protect you from infection through a syphilis chancre that is not on the genitalia.
As to "quite effective" -- those are "weasel words" and designed to promote a POV (namely, that condoms can be relied upon to prevent syphilis infection). Can you find something that says how effective condoms are? I haven't been able to. If we can't, I'd be inclined to restate the sentence as "effective against the spread of syphilis through sexual contact" or some such properly condom-related phrase. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:11, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I will take the suggestion you give in your last sentence.Methychroma (talk) 03:41, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

The statement "Proper and consistent use of a latex condom is effective against the spread of syphilis through sexual contact" seems misleading.

It is supported by reference to a site that claims "Correct and consistent use of latex condoms can reduce the risk of syphilis, as well as genital herpes and chancroid, only when the infected area or site of potential exposure is protected". The statement seems to be a missleading conclution to draw from the reference. Yes, if "through sexual contact" you only include the part of the genitals that are covered by a condom, but by reading the statment it would seem that is not possible to catch syphilis from having sex with an infected person, which is dangerously false. I think this is a flaw with an article about STD's; giving misleading information about effective prevention.

I suggest changing the statement to be something along the lines of "Proper and consistent use of a latex condom is effective against the spread of syphilis only to and from the parts of the genitals that are covered by the condom" Seakerseven (talk) 06:42, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

It used to say this:

While abstinence from any sexual activity is very effective at helping prevent syphilis, it should be noted that T. pallidum readily crosses intact mucosa and cut skin, including areas not covered by a condom. Proper and consistent use of a latex condom can reduce, but not eliminate, the spread of syphilis.

This was declared to be insufficiently supportive of condom use. However, since the immediately preceding sentence still mentions the risk of transmission involving "areas not covered by a condom", I don't think that we need to repeat that. Our readers probably have an attention span of more than two sentences. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:55, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Conjecture... Needs to have references

In other words, a common ancestor of the syphilis bacterium existed on both the Old and New Worlds, easily spread by the poor hygeine of primitive cultures. As hygeine standards improved in Europe the bacterium was forced to evolve into a more aggressive version to survive and reproduce, which also resulted in it becoming deadly to Humans. The European strain was carried to the New World, where the native population's exposure to the less deadly version of syphilis vaccinated them against the lethal variety. As fewer Native Americans than Europeans succumbed to the deadly syphilis, it appeared to contemporary thinkers that the New World was to blame for the disease.^ That's quite a claim to have made without any references... Not impossible but its like umm anyone could have come up with that theory. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Species2112 (talk • contribs) 14:37, 1 April 2007 (UTC).

Non-sexual contact

Article only talks about sexual and congenital modes of contraction... Syphilis, unlike AIDS, also can be contracted (although pretty rarely) by sharing cups, spoons, etc. Plus, like HIV, it can be contracted through blood transfusions, non-sterile tattoo instruments, etc.
: The text-supplemented sig included as part of the preceding contrib was:

71.206.200.174 06:50, 27 May 2007 (UTC)Mashinist
but that was removed by User:Mashinist 3 minutes later.
  • False. Please provide evidence. Syphilis is for all intents and purposes either sexually or vertically transmitted. The CDC states: Syphilis is passed from person to person through direct contact with a syphilis sore. Sores occur mainly on the external genitals, vagina, anus, or in the rectum. Sores also can occur on the lips and in the mouth. Transmission of the organism occurs during vaginal, anal, or oral sex. Pregnant women with the disease can pass it to the babies they are carrying. Syphilis cannot be spread through contact with toilet seats, doorknobs, swimming pools, hot tubs, bathtubs, shared clothing, or eating utensils. (http://www.cdc.gov/std/syphilis/STDFact-Syphilis.htm) Sedmic 11:36, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Here are couple references:
http://www.who.int/tdr/dw/syphilis2004.htm
"Syphilis is usually transmitted by sexual contact or from mother to infant, although endemic syphilis is transmitted by non-sexual contact in communities living under poor hygiene conditions."
http://www.drstandley.com/stds_syphilis.shtml
"The most common way of contracting the disease is through vaginal, anal or oral sex. However, it can be spread by non-sexual contact if the sores (chancres) rashes or mucous patches caused by syphilis come in contact with the broken skin of a non-infected individual. This disease can be contracted through physical contact such as kissing, as well as through sexual intercourse"
http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=536307
“Contagion summary - syphillis: Sexually transmitted; only contagious in the early stages. Also mother to fetus. Rare contagion from oozing fluid exposure into broken skin. No longer contagious 24 hours after beginning antibiotic therapy.”
Contagiousness properties of Syphilis: Contagious overall?: Yes Contagious by sex?: Yes Contagious by anal sex?: Yes Contagious by vaginal sex?: Yes Contagious by physical contact (non-sexual)?: Yes, rarely. Contagious from mother to fetus (transplacental)?: Yes http://www.wrongdiagnosis.com/s/syphilis/contagious.htm "
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Mashinist (talk • contribs) 03:30 &:36, 1 June 2007


"Well-known and suspected syphilis patients"

This section is completely unsourced, and following the links to articles shows that many of the people listed aren't known to have had syphilis. It's also completely unordered. I'm going to go ahead and go through the list and remove those that don't have a mention of syphilis in their respective articles (quick and dirty way to trim out the obvious ones), but I'm of the opinion that a section like this is bait for urban legends and rumors, and advocate its outright removal. siafu 22:21, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Replaced, perhaps, with a sentence or two about how historically retrospective diagnosis of syphilis is particularly problematic, as symptomatology varies so widely that almost any symptom can be ascribed to the disease, and how notwithstanding this caution, such retrospective diagnosis remains a popular, if unenlightening, sport. - Nunh-huh 22:30, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
When I got to the article today, there were two sections of famous names, one a narrative near the top, and one a two-column list near the bottom. I consolidated them, put a source on Scott Joplin, and then had to stop because of time constraints. I think the section has merit beyond mere gossip value, especially for major historic figures, but
1. needs to be watched for vandalism and
2. should more carefully note when the syphilis story appears to have been spread by enemies (e.g., Adolf Hitler probably did not have it, per a 2006 scholarly article), and
3. of course, needs citations for each individual
The edit I made today does not make this part of the article good; but it makes it better than it was. I hope someone can do more clean-up. -- Lisasmall 04:58, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

"Early/Late Latent stage dividing point"

The section of "Syphilus Infection" entitled "Latent syphilus" divides Latent syphilus into early and late at two years after initial infection without symptoms. The section of "Current treatment" entitled "Late latent and infections of unknown duration" divides it at one year. Can we come to some agreement? 66.92.65.86 21:55, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Origins: Crosby's combination theory

I pulled this:

As hygiene standards improved in Europe the bacterium was forced to evolve into a more aggressive version to survive and reproduce, which also resulted in it becoming deadly to humans. The European strain was carried to the New World, where the native population's exposure to the less deadly version of syphilis vaccinated them against the lethal variety. As fewer Native Americans than Europeans succumbed to the deadly syphilis, it appeared to contemporary thinkers that the New World was to blame for the disease.[citation needed]

on the grounds that (a) it's unsourced, (b) there's no undisputed evidence for the existence of a pre-Columbian European strain (yaws is traditionally assigned to Africa), and (c) disease evolution does not necessarily move in the direction of killing the host. It's at least as likely that a bacteria would become less deadly (and more easily transmitted) under these circumstances (because the bacteria needs longer to move from one host to the next, and dead hosts are poor transmitters of social diseases).

Furthermore, while I haven't read (quite) every single page of Crosby's book, my recollection was that he assumed a New World version was the more deadly version. If my memory fails me, please post an actual page number from his book: It's very easy to pull a selective quotation from a book (like this one) that summarizes the opposing viewpoints. WhatamIdoing 05:03, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I added a POV similar to (in at least one respect), but not the same as, Crosby's, with citation. See Doug Owsley quote in article, detailing early Chinese & European mention of the disease, and Owsley's belief it was worldwide prior to, and regardless of, the Columbian expeditions. -- Lisasmall 03:24, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Lyme disease reference removed

I pulled this:

Infection with Syphilis has often been ascribed to historical figures, who have died from diseases that had characteristics which are suggestive of Syphilis. However, we now know that Lyme Disease will exhibit similar symptoms in its later stages, and the possibility that Lyme Disease was the causative agent in many historical cases, cannot be excluded[1].

on the grounds that the source is itself only another Wikipedia article, which made a single, very minor, and somewhat ambiguous reference to advanced Lyme causing neuropsychiatric symptoms like tertiary syphilis does. There wasn't really a clear statement that the symptoms are the same, nor any reference to medical literature indicating the two conditions can be, could be, or ever have been mistaken for one another. It seems to serve the purpose here of providing a "respectable" alternative explanation for the prominent figures known, or believed, to have been affected by syphilis. --Lisasmall 03:24, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Racial Bias in diagnosis of Syphilis

Ties in with the Tuskegee disgrace in the USA, but the early tests for syphilis gave a false positive if you had SLE (ie Lupus- source is NHS Direct ) - which is most common (though not exclusive) to those carrying Afro-Carribean genes - this is also associated with the occurrence of blood clots and therefore neuropsychiatric symptoms. Many historical black figures (especially jazz musicians it appears) were probably horribly misdiagnosed up until mid-sixties. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.225.208.35 (talk) 00:26, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Comments from Version 0.7 review

I gave this a quick review for Version 0.7, and I've been asked to give a little more feedback. I'm not an expert on the topic, but overall my impression is that this article is of high quality. It seems to cover the main topics (although the biochemistry is missing - maybe this isn't known?) and fairly well referenced. The parts I read carefully seemed to be well written. The main weakness - as is often the case - comes in the "Syphilis in art and literature" section which contains too much trivia and is currently tagged for cleanup. If you're not careful, every mention on syphilis will get added and it will take over the article! From what I've seen on other pages, the people who work on this page should discuss how to approach the problem. I would suggest you can (a) agree to remove such a section altogether if it's unimportant, or (b) spin off the content into a separate article if it is important, or (c) if you have someone active here, chop the section down to the really important stuff, leave an editor's note and be prepared to keep reverting new additions.

The other dangerous section is the "famous people who have had syphilis" but that is at least done in a very nice, concise way. I wouldn't expect to find a citation for every name; instead, I would expect to find a citation in every biographical article mentioned. If there is no mention (with citation) of syphilis in the Adolf Hitler article, for example, then it should be removed from this page. So, overall a nice article, and we're glad to have this topic covered in Version 0.7. Thanks! Walkerma (talk) 12:37, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Origins

New information on the origins is here[2] WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:12, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

This article's biggest editing problem is basic vandalism, like adding the name of someone you know to the list of people who had syphilis. However, IMO the second-biggest problem is the ongoing addition of external links. One user, for example, has added a link several times to their teen-oriented website. (This is approximately all this user does.) This page provides no information that isn't already covered in the other links (and the article itself). As far as I can make out, the only two additional "features" that their website provides are (a) having dramatically less information than the article does and (b) putting all the information in pale gray text on a white background so that visually impaired people won't be able to read it.

I'd like to invite all of the regular editors to keep a watchful eye on external links for this article. The policies are at WP:EL, and a basic rule of thumb is that the links should provide substantial encyclopedic information that is not already in the article. If the article were truly perfect, then we probably wouldn't need any external links in it (because they'd all be used as references to support statements in the article). WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:36, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps the site in question could be added to the Wikipedia:Spam blacklist? - Nunh-huh 21:40, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Basic vandalism

Just wanted to let other editors know that when you revert the typical stupid vandalism to the 'notable people' list, you can also template the user page with {{subst:Blp1|syphilis}}. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:48, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Old world proven!

The syphillis is now proven NOT to have come from the Americas. Two skeletons have been recently unearthed in Szeged, southern part of Hungary. A young lady in her early 20s and a mid-40s woman, both show obvious symptoms of being consumed by syphillis and radioactive dating put their time of death between 1420-1470. The discoverers, Ms. Brigitta Ősz Phd and Mr. Prof. György Pálfi of Szeged University have just made a conference presentation about these findings. The discovery is so significant, the french society for paleopathology will hold its 2009 conference in Szeged. 82.131.210.162 (talk) 14:40, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

We need a reliable source.
Importantly, this discovery isn't as sweeping as it sounds. Everybody agrees that syphilis was present in the Americas for hundreds of years before Columbus sailed the ocean blue. The only question is whether it also existed in Europe, Africa, and Asia before then. Even if a strain of syphilis existed in pockets of the "Old World", it's still entirely possible that European explorers acquired a virulent American strain and spread it all over Europe, with devastating effects. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:09, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Beethoven

Beethoven had appeared on the list of famous people suspected of having syphilis. However, I have removed him, as I recall the lack of mercury in his hair suggesting that he did not have the disease (or wasn't treated for it, anyway). I found a source corroborating this:

"Very low (undetectable) mercury levels were reported independently by McCrone Research Institute and Argonne National Laboratory. These results provide no evidence that Beethoven received medical treatment for syphilis, usually treated in the 1820's with mercury compounds. This supports the consensus of Beethoven scholars who believe that Beethoven never had syphilis. Rumors that Beethoven suffered from syphilis have been discounted in all serious musicological literature for the last thirty years."

(http://www.sjsu.edu/depts/beethoven/hair/hair.html)

Metasquares (talk) 14:22, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Syphilitic Megalomania

I recollect references to The Pepper King and to others with syphilis (see list of sufferers for many likely examples) behaving as megalomaniacs. What sources are there to verify this ?? 86.146.17.129 (talk) 11:16, 14 August 2008 (UTC) John King - Salisbury, England

Notable known and suspected syphilis-infected people in previous centuries

Syphilis#Notable known and suspected syphilis-infected people in previous centuries is long and regularly grows. It was a very common disease. Would anyone mind if we shortened the list by removing the "suspected" names? WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:39, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Lenin died of syphilis, but he isn't in this list.Agre22 (talk) 19:45, 8 May 2009 (UTC)agre22

{{editsemiprotected}} Please add Robert Schumann to Syphilis#Notable_syphilis-infected_people_in_history: Robert Schumann (1810 – 1856), composer S THXXL (talk) 00:10, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Schumann might qualify as a "suspected" case, but before I add him is there consensus one way or the other on whether suspected cases belong in this list? I'd argue no given the length of the list and the poor sourcing for most supected cases. This was first raised six months ago and so far no one has argued for including suspected cases. Equally, no one has removed the ones we have. Does anyone have any further views on this?

Demographics

This article could use information on the worldwide prevalence and incidence of syphilis. I heard recently that it had nearly been eradicated in the United States, but was recently starting to spread again. It would be interesting to see a comparison across regions, as well as prospects for complete eradication. -- Beland (talk) 09:22, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

There are about 70,000 new cases in the U.S. per year. "Nearly eradicated" is, I think, an overstatement (more of a goal than an achievement), but certainly incidence has been increasing. - Nunh-huh 09:36, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

A seeming contradiction in the article

There is a sentence in Section 6.2 which *appears to the layman reader* to contradict the origins discussion in Section 2. I'm not commenting on anything but how the article reads, by the way, I know very little about this topic.

Section 2 states there is argument about where the disease originated, and includes the quote "there is no unequivocal evidence of any related disease having been present in pre-Columbian Europe, Africa, or Asia".

Section 6.2 however offers this statement: "The use of mercury was the earliest known suggested treatment for syphilis, dating back to The Canon of Medicine (1025) by the Persian physician, Ibn Sina (Avicenna)." This can easily be interpreted as saying that there WAS reliable evidence of the disease in "Europe, Africa, or Asia" prior to 1492.

My (uninformed) speculation is that in reality people aren't entirely certain what disease Ibn Sina was talking about. Whatever the truth of the matter, could this section of the article get tidied up so as to not appear to contradict Section 2?

Regards Manning (talk) 02:27, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I was under the impression that Avicenna used mercury for smallpox and other skin diseases, but that its use for syphilis (which may or may not have existed) was speculation. We'd have to check the listed source, though. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:33, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I already removed this statement about Ibn Sina(although user WBardin undid my change and I subsequently redid it which I guess is frowned upon... anyway Ibn Sina would have had no words to describe syphilis which was not known as a disease prior to Columbus; the statement that he recommended mercury for it is absolutely ridiculous. In any case syphilis changed rapidly after first being noted, and to argue that any symptoms Ibn Sina described were caused by this disease agent would be a very hard theory to support and such a claim certainly could not be made without much more supporting evidence and discussion. I think Wikipedia is no place for such bizarre theories. Danpovey (talk) 21:07, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

We have to go by whatever the reliable source says. If the source says that Avicenna used mercury to treat syphilis, then we say that. If, however, the source says that Avicenna used mercury to treat "poxes", then we wouldn't include that (because syphilis is not the only kind of pox). WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:16, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
OK, I am trying to dig up the reliable source, but I think it's stupid-- if the reliable source said the moon is made of cheese, would we accept it? The theory that syphilis existed pre-Columbus is a minority one at the present time, and anything dependent on that being true cannot be cited except as a relatively remote possiblility-- anyway syphilis was not recognized as a distinct disease pre-Columbus. Danpovey (talk) 04:22, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Unless the source's claim truly represented a tiny minority position, then yes: we would, at minimum, say that "So-and-so says that the moon is made of cheese." WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:57, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Source of Syphilis

Danpovey, the source of Syphilis is often a topic of discussion on this article. There are sources, many sources, that present differing theories. Although all editors have an opinion, we must try and present an appropriate balance in the article. I reverted the removal of the assertion on mercury treatment primarily because it was sourced. As a sourced assertion, its validity and the validity of the source, should be discussed on the talk page before removal or significant alteration. Do you have an opposing source to prove that this assertion is rediculous? WBardwin (talk) 21:41, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

And we have an answer: The named source definitely lists syphilis by name. See the quotation that was kindly provided here. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:17, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Then we should include the quote/statement within the European origin or multiple origin theories. Of course, the historian must ask: "Is the quote from the original document?" "From a contemporary translation of the original document?" or "From a translation of the original after European contact with the Americas?" That would make a difference in how credible the statement is. Thanks for the effort. WBardwin (talk) 01:20, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Edit Request

Resolved

{{editsemiprotected}}In the fifth paragraph of the History section of the article, change "prisoners" to "sharecroppers" please.

Thank you very kindly in advance!

Sleeptalking (talk) 01:47, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I've changed "prisoners", which is clearly wrong, to "men". I know the study victims were men; I'm not certain that all of them were sharecroppers. If you can provide a source which says so, I will gladly change "men" accordingly. - Nunh-huh 02:39, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Thank you so much! The Final Report of the Tuskegee Syphilis Study Legacy Committee published in 1996 seeking a Presidential apology says "sharecroppers" but would it have to come from a primary source to meet Wikipedia's standards? The report can be found here: http://www.hsl.virginia.edu/historical/medical_history/bad_blood/report.cfm
Thanks again! -Sleeptalking (talk) 22:25, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
That's good enough for me, but I see the article already contains the information that the subjects were sharecroppers, so we don't need to repeat it. - Nunh-huh 23:14, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Oh good point. Thanks. :) -Sleeptalking (talk) 00:02, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

{{editsemiprotected}}

Tuskegee Syphilis Study error

Resolved

"The study began in 1932, when syphilis was a widespread problem, especially in poor communities, and when there was not effective treatment or cure. Study researchers recruited a group of 600 black male sharecroppers in the rural area of Tuskegee, Georgia."

{{editsemiprotected}}"Tuskegee, Georgia" should be changed to "Tuskegee, Alabama."

71.59.3.102 (talk) 15:34, 15 April 2009 (UTC)Maureen K

Will do. --The New Mikemoral ♪♫ 23:40, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


This section on the Tukegee thing is way too long. It's only of interest to people in one country (USA) and yet it takes up my whole screen. Please delete it, or at least chop it back to three or four sentences, with a link to the full article for those people who are interested. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.143.59.94 (talk) 12:53, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Lenin died of syphilis

About persons killed by this STD, the name of Lenin is forgotten.These sites: [Discover Magazine] , [Israeli researchers solve mystery of Lenin's death] and [The New York Times].Agre22 (talk) 19:40, 8 May 2009 (UTC)agre22

Actually, the article as a whole would be more stable if the list of the affected could be eliminated or severely restricted. It's never going to be an exhaustive list, there are always going to be people who want to add their favorite to it, and there will always be a problem with documentation and post-mortem speculation. We should consider spinning it off into a separate article with no persons named in this article and merely link to it, and/or adopt relatively strict guidelines about who should be added to this article. - Nunh-huh 19:43, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
I could go either way on this; my primary concern is the number of immature people that add the names of their (soon to be ex-) "friends" to this list, or who think that some unsubstantiated rumor about a living celebrity is grounds for inclusion. We've made progress by retitling it as a "historical only" section, but it is still a concern.
As for a longer list, whether on this page or not: I'm not sure that a more complete list is at all important and encyclopedic. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:16, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

"Famed"?

Origins, para 6:

Also arguing for worldwide incidence of syphilis prior to Columbus' voyage, Douglas Owsley, famed physical anthropologist at the Smithsonian Institution...". The link for Owsley is red, therefor I ask - how is he famed? 71.234.215.133 (talk) 20:03, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

History needs citations

The second half of paragraph 1 ("Prior to Noguchi's discovery...") and the entire of paras 2 and 3 (citing personages who might have had syphilis) are in dire need of citation(s). 71.234.215.133 (talk) 20:09, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Prevention

this section requires a level 2 headline, it is not a "treatment" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.245.91.136 (talk) 10:42, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

It's rather odd that Hitler's name is included as a possible syphilitic, when recent research debunks this claim, whereas Lenin, whose doctors were treating him with salvarsan, which quite conclusively proves he had syphilis, is absent from the list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.67.193.135 (talk) 05:31, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Bizarre omissions (and inclusions) in suspected cases section

I also find it bizarre that Robert Schumann (yes, I have suggested this before, albeit anonymously) is excluded from the list of suspected cases, even though in the main article on the composer, a possible syphilitic infection is suggested FOUR times, including one "Further Reading" entry referring to a recent biography. Yet individuals like Henry VIII, who now it is commonly believed did NOT die of syphilis, and Eleanor of Toledo, in whose main article the topic of syphilis is not even mentioned ONCE, are both included!

I personally subscribe to John Worthen's view of events, outlined in this book review...

http://www.classical.net/music/books/reviews/0300111606a.php

And in my opinion, I think this section would benefit from a just a little more consistency with related articles.

Toloatzin (talk) 19:50, 25 November 2009 (UTC)


Thank you for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to).
Schumann is mentioned: "One suspected example of syphilis was the insanity of noted composer Robert Schumann, although the precise cause of his death has been disputed by scholars." His name is just not duplicated in the bulleted list, because that would be unnecessarily redundant.
I think the general goal here is to reduce the "suspected" cases to very high profile people for which high-quality reliable sources are available. A long laundry list isn't exactly encyclopedic anyway. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:10, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


Thanks for the tutorial, but I've already submitted my first article, and I think I've pretty much got the hang of things around here now.

I hadn't noticed the earlier reference to Schumann. I've added Schumann before, but had the edit reverted by user Kilbad with the alternate reason that I should "cite my sources". I note that Schumann had been in the list right up until the end of June 2008 when you attempted to prune the list (to no avail, it would seem). With respect, I have to say your argument for not including him because his case is touched upon earlier in the article, doesn't really cut it for me, as Schubert is also referred to earlier, but he remains in the list. As composers go, I'd say they were at least equally notable.

But as he's been already referenced earlier in the article, I don't think I'll bother. It's obviously a very contentious section, (and in need of a little more pruning, I'd say). Thing is, I'm primarily a musician, and notability for me pertains to people who've actually contributed something positive to existence, as opposed to kings and despots and the like. But that's another matter. It was a only small edit, and I don't want to get into a silly argument (with anyone) over such a piffling little detail, so I'll think I'll leave it there.

Toloatzin (talk) 23:12, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Edit Request: Cures Before Pennicillin

{{editsemiprotected}} The I'm only mentioning this because I can't edit it myself: The first cure people used was mercury (I don't have a source but I think it's pretty well known so it shouldn't be hard to find one), and I know for a fact that the Frenchman Dr Albert Sézary (after whom Sézary's syndrome is named) found a cure in 1921 involving arsenic and bismuth (http://www.whonamedit.com/doctor.cfm/2977.html), yet neither of these two cures is mentioned on the "history" section. I would put them in the history section rather than the "cure" section, because nowadays you use different cures, but they should be mentioned for their historical value, so can someone please put them in the history section? The mercury is hinted at elsewhere (and there's a picture of it in the article) but never talked about explicitly. It would be interesting to say that all cures before pennicillin were somehow toxic (source: wiki page on the Tuskegee syphilis study), which is why pennicillin was such a breakthrough, being the first cure that wasn't toxic.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.180.173.111 (talk) 14:05, 10 December 2009

  • Already done Welcome and thanks for contributing. There is already an extensive discussion of mercury in the history section. If you would like to modify that, describe the change in a 'please change X to Y' level of detail and create a new request and someone would be glad to help. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 20:43, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

John Keats?

Any reason why John Keats it's listed as suspected of having syphilis? He died of TB at 25. This is extremely well documented. He hardly would have had any time to develop observable symptoms even if he had somehow managed to contract the disease, which he's unlikely to have done given his biography. No reference is given, I'd delete it myself if the article wasn't locked. 212.183.140.52 (talk) 00:50, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the note; I've removed it. There was no source here, and no mention of it in the linked biography. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:00, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Image caption - Homosexual?

The second image of an infected persons back has a caption which reads:

"A 23-year-old homosexual man had an intensely pruritic, papulonodular eruption over his arms and back."

How is the fact, that the man is homosexual, relevant? The sexual orientation does not change the course of the desease and I believe that the comment could enforce the stereotype, that homosexual people are all infected with STDs. I think it should just say "A 23-year-old man..." --88.217.49.147 (talk) 16:33, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Compared to the source, the captions may be backwards.
Sexual orientation does not change the course of the disease, but it does change the likelihood of becoming infected in the first place. It was doubtless named by the source because sexual orientation is a well-documented risk factor: In the source's area (Houston), syphilis is far more prevalent among gay men (and non-Hispanic black men) than among non-black heterosexual men or women of any race or sexual orientation. (Did you notice that one image shows distinctly dark skin? The author may have chosen the images to represent the two largest risk groups.)
This is a relevant and non-discriminatory statement: Gay men represent less than 3% of Houston's population, and more than 50% of syphilis diagnoses.[3] That means that gay men in Houston are about twenty times more likely to have syphilis than other people. If this concerns you (as it does me), then IMO the appropriate course of action is to lower the prevalence of the disease among gay men, so that fewer people suffer, rather than trying to pretend that syphilis is not really a problem for gay men, or that people who think that twenty times the non-gay rate is a problem are merely succumbing to a "stereotype".
Additionally, gay men (and non-Hispanic black men) are far more likely to have HIV than women or non-black heterosexual men, which means that they are more likely to develop dramatic disease courses -- like the ones shown in this images.
Finally, Wikipedia follows the sources: If the source thought it was important enough to mention, then we probably do, too. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:50, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Current research

I removed:

In 1998, the complete genetic sequence of T. pallidum was published, which may aid understanding of the pathogenesis of syphilis. <ref>C. M. Fraser; et al. (1998). "Complete Genome Sequence of Treponema pallidum, the Syphilis Spirochete". Science. 281 (5375): 375–388. doi:10.1126/science.281.5375.375. PMID 9665876. {{cite journal}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |author= (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)</ref> <ref>"Syphilis Genome Sequence Offers Clues to Better Diagnosis, Prevention and Treatment". National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID). 1998.</ref>

from the lead section, where it was clearly misplaced got unjustified emphasis, and was tossed in at the end of a 'graph whose topic did not extend to it. It surely belongs in the article on the spirochete in question (please respond w/ info on whether or not it is there); it may be suitable for the accompanying article if accompanied by discussion of why genome-based research is promising and/or by a brief survey of major or recent anti-syph initiatives.
--Jerzy•t 07:16 &07:24, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

My edits today

The authorship of the following struck-thru material (between this note and the sig added in the same edit as the struck-thru material) is unclear, and that material appears to have been added to this talk page in violation of WP policy that concerns both attribution and the use of registered user accounts.Jerzy•t 05:34, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Please attribute the edits under my name today to user:wajulp. - Badgettrg (talk) 22:07, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

  • I have struck thru that request for the following reasons:
  1. Such matters are off-topic on an article talk page.
  2. The edit placing the material on this article-talk page appears to have been made in violation of WP policy regarding both attribution and the use of registered user accounts, making the requested remedy inappropriate.
  3. The edits to the article referred to in it have been reverted, for reasons that i'll discuss at User talk:Badgettrg#User:Waljup-related edits, which i'll link to from user talk:wajulp#User:Badgettrg-related edits. The reversion removes any urgency from the request, and the edits may also be removed from the edit history, which would obviate the request.
--Jerzy•t 05:34, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

World graph

This states 'age-adjusted death rates' which is not what the graph shows. It is a disability-adjusted life year graph showing the number of years of healthy life lost - a measure of mortality+morbidity, not just mortality as the caption suggests. I would edit, but can't think how to phrase 82.46.172.177 (talk) 15:44, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Citation verification

On behalf of American Journal Experts (AJE), I have reviewed this article to verify facts and citations as part of AJE's collaboration with Google.org and WikiProject Medicine. My suggestions are described below, divided into article sections.
Introduction

Though it makes general statements, this section needs references. I suggest the CDC's website, http://www.cdc.gov/std/syphilis/

Alternative names

  • "sent by the god Apollo as punishment..." - not found in the given reference.
  • "as Fracastero notes" - no reference containing Fracastero's writing is cited
  • "frequent sexual contact with local prostitutes" - suggest book with ISBN 1598843664
  • "a rash similar to smallpox (also known as variola)" - suggest book ISBN 0300069340
  • "The terms "Lues"[2]" - I was unable to verify this citation, but it is likely to be accurate. Another potential reference is http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/lues

Signs and Symptoms

  • Much of this section lacks citations. Potential resources for citations include: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16326843 or http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10194456
  • "the infectious lesions of a person with syphilis.[4]" - I was unable to access the content of this reference. See above suggestions for web-accessible references
  • "Secondary syphilis occurs approximately 1–6 months" - reference cited says 4-8 weeks
  • "Other symptoms common at this stage include..." - many of these symptoms are not listed in the given reference, as indicated by my edits.
  • "as having syphilis for two years or less" - other sources say 1 year (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10194456); later in the article, it says 1 year
  • "body with mass effects upon the local anatomy." - suggest http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10194456
  • "16% had gumma formation and 7% had neurosyphilis" - This is from 100-year-old data and is not necessarily relevant. More current data on outcomes would be better here.
  • "Neurological complications at this stage... See below for more information about neurosyphilis." - this paragraph is unreferenced and probably should be moved to the whole section on neurosyphilis, below.
  • "Syphilis infects the ascending aorta causing aortic dilation and aortic regurgitation." - suggest http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16326843 or http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10194456
  • "Contraction of the tunica intima... heart failure resulting from aortic regurgitation." - this seemed like too much detail to me, especially considering that cardiovascular syphilis is not common
  • "in recent years has further complicated such characterization." - suggest http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17407043
  • "traditional classifications of organic disorders of the brain" - I suggest deleting this paragraph because it is either redundant or overly-detailed.
  • "There are four clinical types of neurosyphilis:" - suggest http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10194456
  • The final 3 paragraphs of this section also need citations.

Diagnosis

Prevention

  • "Syphilis cannot be contracted through toilet seats, daily activities, hot tubs, or sharing eating utensils or clothing." - I suggest moving this sentence to previous paragraph, as it shares the same reference as the previous statement.
  • "Patient education is important, as well." - these statements do not appear to fit wikipedia's guidelines for unbiased articles.

Treatment

Epidemiology

  • Reference http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10194456 has quite a bit of detail on current epidemiology
  • "Age-standardized death from syphilis per 100,000 inhabitants in 2004.[17]" - I was unable to find this chart, though there is a spreadsheet at this site.

History

  • "thought to have been a key factor in the transmission of syphilis.[22]" - not appropriate source, suggest PMID 16345063
  • "syphilis in Guyana, South America." - also should point out that according to these theorists, specific evidence of syphilis is absent in pre-columbian Europe; remove New Scientist reference, and add reference PMID 15844068
  • "The epidemiology of this first syphilis... low immunity of the population of Europe.[33]" - these statements have already been discussed in the previous section
  • "use of heartsease (wild pansy), an herb with antimicrobial activities.[36]" - better to reference the whole book, see http://books.google.com/books?id=234fAAAAYAAJ&pg=PP1#v=onepage&q&f=false
  • "Another common remedy" - this was the most common medical treatment, not just a remedy.
  • "and by injection.[38]" - suggest PMID 7829712
  • "not 100% effective, especially in late disease." - suggest PMID 7829712
  • "quinine, which was available at that time." - suggest PMID 7829712
  • "From 1932–1972, the U.S. Public Health Service..." - present in its own section above
  • "it was a major advance in the prevention of syphilis." - suggest PMID 14955455
  • "reactions than the Wassermann test." - suggest book, ISBN 019516024X, p. 405
  • "Treponema pallidum was the cause of the disease." - suggest http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2125022/
  • "often misattributed to damage by political enemies." - this may not be appropriate to the article. What is missing is a desription of more current tests for the organism, potentially referencing the Diagnosis section.
  • "Notable syphilis-infected people in history" - there are no references for most of these people.
  • "# Adolf Hitler (1889–1945), politician S [45]" - not a reliable source
  • "# Eleanor of Toledo (1522–1562), Duchess of Florence S [47]" - source does not claim that she had syphilis
  • "Leo Tolstoy (1828–1910), writer S" - insert reference cited above

Society and Culture

  • I suggest adding an introductory sentence or two describing the role syphilis has played in society.
  • "antique literature" - I'm not sure "antique literature" is a word.
  • ""between snub and eaten by the French illness"." - what's the connection to syphilis?
  • ""A Beautiful Young Nymph Going To Bed" and "The Progress of Beauty"." - see http://books.google.com/books?id=5uIFAAAAQAAJ&pg=PR3#v=onepage&q&f=false
  • "it plays an important role in the plot of a recent movie adaptation." - link is in Spanish

External Links

  • "Sex, Sin, and Science: A History of Syphilis in America " by John Parascandola" - inappropriate link to bookseller site
  • "New study blames Columbus for syphilis spread" - overly specific article
  • "History of Syphilis" - marginally relevant
  • "Origins of Syphilis" - a better link would be http://health.nytimes.com/health/guides/disease/syphilis/overview.html

Pdb factcheck (talk) 19:47, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Sexyy 97, 19 May 2010

syphilis cause by Treponema Pallidum bacterium how is it spread is by sexual contact:contact between chancre and rash and mucous membranes or breaking in skin: Mother to infant before birth Sexyy 97 (talk) 08:27, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

This article may be too technical for most readers...

I disagree, it's fine.

Basesurge (talk) 13:45, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Treatment

Article still too light on treatment history - what was the treatment during the development of mass professional armies in the 18th and 19th centuries? Deipnosophista (talk) 12:34, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Bedřich Smetana

A significant czech dental surgeon and craniologist Dr. Jiří Ramba, has already proved that the cause of Smetana's death was ischemic-vascular dementia caused by advanced arteriosclerosis. He also suffer's from osteomyelitis - aetiology of his deafness. Ramba's opinion was confirmed by many historians, biographers and pathologists. Even his Smetana's contemporaries - a famous neuropathologists investigating his brain confirmed the assumption of senile dementia. Please apologize my english ....

ref: http://zpravy.idnes.cz/zahranicni.asp?c=A100616_132206_zahranicni_btw (Czech article) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.85.179.40 (talk) 18:35, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Other Unethical Studies by fellow great Americans

Included alongside the Tuskegee studies was a recently unearthed "U.S. Public Health Service Sexually Transmitted Disease Inoculation Study of 1946-1948," wherein the U.S. infected unknowing Guatemalans to then test the success of penicillin.

ref: http://www.hhs.gov/1946inoculationstudy/factsheet.html 10:10, 02 October 2010 (UTC)

Origin Found

The debate has gone on for centuries. In January of 2008 however a team led by Dr Kristin Harper of the Department of Population Biology, Ecology, and Evolution, Emory University, Atlanta, in the USA finally answered that long debated question.

Genetic analysis of the bacterium found that the closest ‘wild’ relatives of the syphilis-causing spirochaetae are indeed found only in South America.


Kristin N. Harper et al On the Origin of the Treponematoses: A Phylogenetic Approach. www.plosntds.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pntd.0000148 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.11.110.86 (talk) 13:53, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Needs refs

===Film, television and stage=== Because it was for so long incurable, syphilis has been used as a plot device in many dramatic films, television shows, and plays. Few, such as the Warner Brothers film Dr. Ehrlich's Magic Bullet (1940), focus on the history of the disease. Most involve characters suffering late-stage syphilis, both because neurological damage provides an excuse for strange behaviors and because the disease came to symbolize evils that might be hidden, or problems with family inheritance (which could also apply to personality or genetic defects.) In recent years, syphilis has been mentioned on Grey's Anatomy, House M.D., Law & Order: SVU, Buffy the Vampire Slayer when Xander Harris contracts it due to Chumash spirits at Thanksgiving

, Angel, and other television shows. A few particularly notable portrayals include:

  • Miss Evers' Boys (1992) is a stage play written by Dr. David Feldshuh, based on the decades-long Tuskegee syphilis experiment. The play was subsequently adapted into a 1997 HBO TV movie. It was nominated for eleven Emmy Awards and won in four categories, including Outstanding Made for Television Movie.
  • In Japanese director Akira Kurosawa's film The Quiet Duel (1949), Toshirô Mifune plays a doctor who contracts syphilis after cutting his finger with a scalpel while operating on an infected soldier.
  • In Spanish film Alatriste (2006), the main character finds the love of his life, actress María de Castro, dying in a hospital for syphilitics. It is implied that she caught the disease from an affair with Philip IV of Spain.
  • In the Masterpiece Theatre version of Bram Stoker's Dracula,[citation needed] Arthur Holmwood, whose father dies of syphilitic insanity, enlists the services of Count Dracula in hopes of curing his congenital syphilis.
  • In The Libertine, a 2004 film with Johnny Depp, the main character John Wilmot, second Earl of Rochester, is portrayed as having died of syphilis.
  • Beth Henley's 1979 play The Miss Firecracker Contest features the main character, Carnelle Williams infected with syphilis, and previously transmitting it to another character, Mac Sam.

===Modern literature===

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:59, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Reviews

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:33, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Syphilis & Paresis

I've seen the link credited to Krafft-Ebbing; his page doesn't mention it. Can anyone confirm? Trekphiler

Reference..

The second reference is incorrect, i've just been looking it up, and it should be "Baker, Brenda: Armelagos, George. The Origin and Antiquity of Syphilis: Paleopathological Diagnoses and Interpretation. Current Anthropology 29/5 (1988). " Also, i'm not sure if it is standard practice to include issue numbers, but it makes life easier.

nick


Origins. Children's teeth.

I remember seeing a documentary where they found signs of syphilis in children's teeth in Europe before contact with the new world. These signs are caused by women with syphilis giving it to their kids according to the documentary. --Gbleem 01:40 & :41, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Incidence

This article should include information on the incidence of syphilis worldwide and in notable subpopulations.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Jengod (talk • contribs) 05:15, 25 September 2006

(Prophylaxis)

Given that there are non-sexual methods for the transmission of syphilis (which are also mentioned in the article), the sentence "Avoidance of sexual contact is the only completely reliable method of prophylaxis." seems dubious.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.121.60.182 (talk) 21:51, 13 February 2007

(De Musset's sign)

I'm questioning the validity of origin of de Musset's sign. Alfred de Musset's brother Paul first noted the head bobbing in his brother at the table, not by viewing prostitutes. If this is true please share. Thank you
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.225.204.82 (talk) 21:03, 21 September 2009

Edit Request

{{Edit semi-protected}} Please fix this minor typo/grammatical error in the "Signs and symptoms" section, under the "Primary" subsection, in the third-to-last sentence of that section, where it currently says: "Lesions outside of the genitals maybe painful." Please change the word "maybe" in that sentence to "may be". Thank you.

Thanks. I have unprotected this article to see how things go. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:50, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 Already done CTJF83 chat 16:04, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Invitation to edit

It has been proposed that Syphilis be part of the trial of a new template; see the green strip at the top of Pain where it has been in place for a couple of months. The purpose of this project is to encourage readers to edit, while equipping them with the basic tools. If you perceive a problem with this, or have any suggestions for improvement, please discuss at the project talk page --Anthonyhcole (talk) 09:32, 10 January 2011 (UTC).

This article has been semi-protected a lot during the last year or two because of libelous vandalism (e.g., putting in the names of classmates), which might skew the stats. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:59, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for that. We'll pick another. Anthonyhcole (talk) 08:45, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Failed verification

Most of the "Failed verification" tags actually mean "Citation needed". In some cases, I suspect that the citations (e.g., "Baker") were once present but have been lost in subsequent editing. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:50, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry about the vandalism.

I was just looking at the article about illegal numbers and I had a message telling an edit I made was reverted. (Except that I didn't make any edits.) I'm certain it was one of my boys. I'd like to apologize on behalf of their vandalism, even though (thankfully) it was reverted quickly. They'll get a stern talking to about this. 24.21.25.173 (talk) 07:20, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Sourceofknowledge100, 11 April 2011 !!!!!Julius Wagner-Jauregg won the 1927 Nobel Prize for his Malaria treatment and NOT for Penicillin!!!

!!!!!Julius Wagner-Jauregg won the 1927 Nobel Prize for his Malaria treatment and NOT for Penicillin!!!

Please change:


Malaria as a treatment for syphilis was usually reserved for late disease, especially neurosyphilis, and then followed by either Salvarsan or Neosalvarsan as adjuvant therapy. These treatments were finally rendered obsolete by the discovery of penicillin, and its widespread manufacture after World War II allowed syphilis to be effectively and reliably cured.[36] This discovery was championed by Julius Wagner-Jauregg,[37] who won the 1927 Nobel Prize for Medicine for his work in this area.


To:


Malaria as a treatment for syphilis was usually reserved for late disease, especially neurosyphilis, and then followed by either Salvarsan or Neosalvarsan as adjuvant therapy. Julius Wagner-Jauregg, won the 1927 Nobel Prize for Medicine for his discovery of the therapeutic value of malaria inoculation in the treatment of neurosyphilis[3]. These treatments were finally rendered obsolete by the discovery of penicillin, and its widespread manufacture after World War II allowed syphilis to be effectively and reliably cured.[36]


--Sourceofknowledge100 (talk) 15:39, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Done. I moved the sentence up so it referred to using malaria as a treatment instead of penicillin and used your wording to describe what he won the Nobel Prize for. — Bility (talk) 16:28, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Request for change to reference

Reference #24 states that Crosby's quote about the origins of Syphilis comes from page 225. 225 is the bibliography, the quote is actually on page 146, second paragraph. Thank you. MarshalNeubauer (talk) 16:28, 2 May 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by MarshalNeubauer (talk • contribs) 17:54, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Done Google Books result. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 17:21, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

grammar ?

hello, I am not a native English speaker. However the following sentence makes me wonder if it is in correct English (paragraph Tuskegee and Guatemala studies ) : Study directors continued the study and did not offering patients treatment with penicillin. . Should it not be did not offer ? bye...

Thanks will fix. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:33, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Dilleaux, 28 June 2011

Spelling of chancre, under "Secondary" "... do not report previously having the classic chancer of primary syphilis." change chancer for chancre

Dilleaux (talk) 18:44, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

 Done Nice catch. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 18:47, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Non reffed stuff

I have removed this non reffed content

Many famous historical figures, including Charles VIII of France, Hernán Cortés of Spain, Adolf Hitler, Benito Mussolini, and Ivan the Terrible, were often falsely alleged to have had syphilis. Guy de Maupassant and possibly Friedrich Nietzsche are thought to have been driven insane and ultimately killed by the disease. Al Capone contracted syphilis as a young man. By the time he was incarcerated at Alcatraz, it reached its third stage, neurosyphilis, leaving him confused and disoriented. Syphilis led to the death of artist Édouard Manet and artist Paul Gauguin was also said to have suffered from syphilis. Composers who succumbed to syphilis included Hugo Wolf, Frederick Delius, Scott Joplin, Gaetano Donizetti, and possibly Franz Schubert and Niccolò Paganini.

Mental illness caused by late-stage syphilis was once one of the more common forms of dementia. This was known as the general paresis of the insane. One suspected example of syphilis was the insanity of noted composer Robert Schumann, although the precise cause of his death has been disputed by scholars.

Keys: S—suspected case; †—died of syphilis

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:01, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I think this should be included. For one thing, it drives home the point that this was once a very common STI. Additionally (at one point), all of the linked biographies explicitly named syphilis as a significant illness/suspicion, so the information is definitely verifiable (the actual requirement), even if we haven't cluttered up this article with several dozen additional sources. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:43, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Move it to its own page as compromise.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:23, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
Veracity assumed, why wouldn't you include in the article? I rather expected to see this info in what I think was a professional quality piece — nice job. I'd expect a separate People known to have been affected with Syphilis page to be subject to a should be included in main article discussion. If referencing and size of the list/article are your concerns, how about putting it into a collapsible table with a note that references are contained in each relative source article (not that I've checked the linked pages). Having just checked one, then more, Scott Joplin — the cited source isn't available on–line (though a memorial web page accepts as fact the Syphilis assertions and I seriously doubt the Manhattan coroner's office is planning on web publishing official 1917 cause of death determinations any time soon though it actually looks like for $22 one could order a hard copy; but I don't think anyone's doing that for a sidetopic of a WP article), Lord Churchill — an on–line article specifically disputes Syphilis (at least calling for additional sources), Oscar Wilde — the WP article acknowledges then specifically refutes Syphilis as the likely cause of death, and Toulouse-Lautrec is "rumored" in the WP article but definitive in the Toulouse–Lautrec Foundation·org—Biography; so I guess inclusion of this list would first require item–by–item verification of each article and cited source; but I still think a list of RS confirmed cases should be would be appropriate here. Suspected but reliability discounted (Wilde Churchill) doesn't (IMHO) make the cut unless that's going to be column 2 of Suggested but Doubtful claims; at least that'd be my interpretation of NPOV & RS. — Who R you? (talk) 23:50, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
Yes each would require a reliable source. And as you state many of these cases are disputed. This is not my area of interest. Since it is unreffed it does not belong in this article. If someone wished to clean it up than I would not have a problem with seeing some of it return.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:39, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

File:2ndsyphil2.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:2ndsyphil2.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests July 2011
What should I do?
A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 09:18, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Syphilis/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer:  Sehmeet singh  Talk  17:46, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
  • Comment
  1. Diagnosis section of article needs some little more work  Completed
  2. No prognosis section in the article/Prevention topic needs more work  Completed
As treatment leads to excellent outcomes their is not much to say on prognosis. Prognosis is discussed in the epidemiology section.
  1. Epidemiology section is good but try to expand it  Completed
Great thanks. Will work on it in the next week or so.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:32, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
I did a little touchup yesterday, unaware that this discussion was ongoing.
I hope I did not do anything inadvertent to compromise GA status.
Varlaam (talk) 18:56, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Comments: another set of eyes

  1. I would agree, overall this article is well written and clear in its presentation of information.
  2. The information presented is verifiable and accurate. With regards to the epidemiology section, I agree that it could be expanded. I not sure if all statements are up to date, for example: "Since the year 2000 ... Primarily among men who have sex with men." More current literature is indicating that the rising rates are not necessarily limited to this group, I am providing a link to a current report relating to increased rates and concerns in the province of Alberta, Canada [[4]] . Although this reports focuses on one region in Canada, national discussions reflect similar current trends and these may be similar in other regions of North America and possibly other developed countries. This may be something to research. I realize epidemiology is a difficult area to write on, as when stats become available - they are often already dated.
  3. As to the prevention section and its expansion, the above report also discusses this issue - prevention and possible strategies.
  4. As to section on treatment, prognosis and outcomes could tie in here very nicely. Here is another web link that provides good quality information that is readable, current, and has a good reference list [[5]]. On this website, under Reference - pediatric/congenital syphilis is discussed as well as other types you have mentioned. It has good reference lists that can help lead to information in other places.
The problem I have with the emedicine page is they present American data as if it applies globally. I am trying to keep the epidemiology section on this page more global in nature with the specific countries dealt with in depth on the subpage.
  1. This article has evolved with stable content and has changed primarily when content is edited... clearly its creation is a result of hard work and research.
  2. NPOV and coverage is represented in the article's broad scope of information and its unbiased presentation, leaving the reader informed on the subject matter.
  3. Images are presented in the appropriate sections and illustrate thieir associated captions.

Overall, this is a good article and with a few additions/edits, I think it would be suitable for Good Article nomination/status. --4tiggy (talk) 00:29, 31 July 2011 (UTC) (a newbie editor, with a health-care background)

  1. Further adding Lead section has no inline citations and ref no 24 is DEAD LINK  Sehmeet singh  Talk  13:42, 31 July 2011 (UTC)  Done
GA criteria do not prohibit dead URLs. In fact, WP:DEADREF basically prohibits editors from deleting citations merely because the URL isn't working today.
Also, inline citations are not necessarily required in the lead. There is no rule that says the very first appearance of a fact in an article must be accompanied by an inline citation. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:09, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
Acoording to WP:DEADREF either you replace the dead link with convenient proper source or you delete it with [medical citation needed] tag and regarding lead section third paragraph needs citations badly so that it can maintain text-source integrity. Sehmeet singh  Talk  04:51, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
The lead is supported by the body of the text with refs supporting the lead found in the main body of the text. Will fix the broken url thanks. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:44, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
Actually, while anyone can change any citation whenever s/he wants, DEADREF basically prohibits the removal of URLs solely because the URL is dead unless you've determined that the link isn't archived—which cannot be reliably determined until the link has been dead for as long as two years. You cannot remove the link (step 5) until you've have completed step 2, "Check for web archives". The exact text of step 5 says: "If the source material does not exist offline, and if there is no archived version of the webpage (be sure to wait ~24 months), and if you are unable to find another copy of the material, then the dead citation should be removed". Since I'm the person who drafted that text, I can assure you that "and" actually means and in this sentence: You may not delete the citation unless all three conditions have been fulfilled. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:24, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Attempted to address the concerns

I have attempted to address the concerns of scope. Any further comments? Have I missed any concerns? Not sure what was deemed original research? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:17, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

From my point of view there is now no concern about article it is a good research and a time devoted hardwork. If there is concern from any one they can comment now and this article will be good article in 1 or 2 days  Sehmeet singh  Talk  06:55, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
Question
  1. syphilis causes respiratory distress in neonates?
It can cause many symptoms. Respiratory distress was not singled out in this text http://books.google.com/books?id=I3Kh1cNJxyUC&pg=PA86&dq=Neonatal+syphilis&hl=en&ei=_4g4Tp3kCcXKiAKQ76D8Dg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCgQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Neonatal%20syphilis&f=false
  1. Beside Argyll Robertson pupils as occular manifestation can there be more also?
There are a bunch of ocular symptoms but these are rare http://books.google.com/books?id=u43MTFr7-m8C&pg=PA805&dq=Ophthalmology+Syphilis&hl=en&ei=SIg4Ts3ADaLkiAKkuYn9Dg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCgQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Ophthalmology%20Syphilis&f=false
  1. Azithromycin is effective in early syphilis ?
Yes it can and I have added this to the article.

 Sehmeet singh  Talk  07:33, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I have added azithromycin. More depth on the other topics you mention would belong in a subarticle IMO.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:42, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Syphilis staging

Staging of Syphilis infection in an individual is used to determine treatment, when a person was exposed and to identify and treat infected persons limiting the spread of the disease. Using symptoms and titers, the stage of Syphilis can often be determined. A Syphilis lesion indicates a primary infection. Average incubation of Syphilis to the onset of a primary lesion is 3 weeks. Determining the date of the midpoint of a lesion, one can estimate the date of exposure 3 weeks prior to the midpoint date. When secondary Syphilis symptoms are observed (i.e. a Syphilis rash), determine the onset date of the sypmtoms and calculate four weeks prior to the onset which is the average latency period between primary and secondary Syphilis. Then, count 3 weeks back from that date to cover the average time period of a primary lesion. During that 3 week period, the person was infectious. From the midpoint of the 3 week period, counting 3 weeks prior to the midpoint, this person was infected with syphilis either from a primary infection of another person or an infectious secondary symptom of another person. With information about sex partners symptoms, on can determine the source and the spread of Syphilis in a sexual network. Untreated Syphilis titers can provide evidence to the stage of the disease as well. A rising titer (RPR) of two-fold increase indicates a possible new infection. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xanynax (talk • contribs) 16:09, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Xanynax, 7 September 2011

Please start subject of Syphilis staging: Staging of Syphilis infection in an individual is used to determine treatment, when a person was exposed and to identify and treat infected persons limiting the spread of the disease. Using symptoms and titers, the stage of Syphilis can often be determined. A Syphilis lesion indicates a primary infection. Average incubation of Syphilis to the onset of a primary lesion is 3 weeks. Determining the date of the midpoint of a lesion, one can estimate the date of exposure 3 weeks prior to the midpoint date. When secondary Syphilis symptoms are observed (i.e. a Syphilis rash), determine the onset date of the sypmtoms and calculate four weeks prior to the onset which is the average latency period between primary and secondary Syphilis. Then, count 3 weeks back from that date to cover the average time period of a primary lesion. During that 3 week period, the person was infectious. From the midpoint of the 3 week period, counting 3 weeks prior to the midpoint, this person was infected with syphilis either from a primary infection of another person or an infectious secondary symptom of another person. With information about sex partners symptoms, on can determine the source and the spread of Syphilis in a sexual network. Untreated Syphilis titers can provide evidence to the stage of the disease as well. A rising titer (RPR) of two-fold increase indicates a possible new infection.

Xanynax (talk) 16:14, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

What is the suggested change.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:33, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
Please point out exactly where the change should go and how, and we will accomodate. I've also left a message on your talk page. Thanks! JguyTalkDone 21:36, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Homosexual Claim

The claim in the third paragraph that the increase in cases of syphilis since the millenium "has been attributed primarily to unsafe sexual practices among men who have sex with men." is unsourced and rather ridiculous. And this page is locked so I can't even stick Citation Needed in, let alone remove it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.81.36.142 (talk) 18:51, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

That sentence is attributed to "Stamm LV (2010). "Global challenge of antibiotic-resistant Treponema pallidum". Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 54 (2): 583–9. doi:10.1128/AAC.01095-09. PMC 2812177. PMID 19805553. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)" in the "Epidemiology" section. As to the lead section not having references is because it merely summarizes the content in the main prose. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 18:58, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
I don't think that these verifiable and well-known facts are ridiculous. The relationship is so strong that it's used as a sentinel indicator in many public health programs, e.g., to judge the effectiveness of HIV prevention campaigns. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:02, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
FYI, for myself, when I read your article for the first time and came to the men who have sex with men wording, I assumed it to be a moronic term in some politically correct to the extent of being meaningless way, used by the article's editors because they for some reason didn't want to use the terms gay/queer/etc; and it wasn't until I read the linked article (perhaps the next day), that I learned it to be a clinical term purposely worded in a way which (I think) would, otherwise, qualify as moronically politically correct. I'd just suggest that you consider including some wording around your first usage of the term to indicate that it is a clinical phraseology; personally I had no need, at first, to click on a link entitled 'men who have sex with men' to find out what some (presumed gay) editor (of this uncensored web-site) wished to espouse under this title.
I'm assuming, based in part on the overall quality of the article, that many of the contributing editors are health care professionals who are already fully accustomed to this clinical term; but as an uneducated outsider, the term didn't bring to my mind what the linked article explained and logically supported. And given the potential defensive response that a gay person might logically have to a (what appears to be unsupported) claim, I'd suggest duplicating the reference in the Intro paragraph even through it is fully supported by RS references further down in the article; a reader may not get that far if their first impression is that the article is unfairly biased. Still think the article is impressively, professionally well done. — Who R you? (talk) 20:03, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
If we inline attribute one statement in the lead, we'd have to inline attribute them all. Otherwise it may appear that some facts are sourced and some are not. So for articles it's usually either all inline attributed or none. Also, I don't think I agree we need to explain the term "men who have sex with men" beyond a wikilink. By that standard we would need to explain many other words which are far less likely to be understood by general readers. "Controversial" is an often brought up but a poor reason to stray from encyclopaedic prose, and explaining terms to avoid some party getting offended is biased. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 20:29, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
This is the language we as health care providers use. I have never seen it as being political in any sense. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:38, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
Was that a reply to me? I never implied it was political or biased, in fact, as far as I'm concerned, it's accurate. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 20:46, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
No it was a reply to Who R you. I alway add my comments at the end rather than in the middle as they get lost their. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:48, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

 ┌────────┴─────────┘
It's entirely up to you; you (collectively) have written what I think is a very good & well written article & I doubt my comments (which were really a follow-up suggestion to you creator/editors after reading 68....'s comments) would, in any way, affect the GA review. That said, I was making a suggestion (by way of providing an alternative POV) which might improve a GA; but, it's YOUR article & I wouldn't edit it at this point.

I merely point out, while you are health care providers (HCPs), and thus use terms in a manner where you have a uniquely informed POV, that is not necessarily the same POV as that of the average reader (atleast not in my case), and unlike other clinical terms, such as pinta or chancre (which you did opt to explain); which a reader can recognize that they do not understand and can still opt to continue reading (without reviewing the link) under the mental self-disclaimer of there have been words used which I am fully aware that I do not understand and I take that into account as I continue reading; however, the "men who..." phrase is something which everyone is capable of arriving at their own (granted maybe wrong) interpretation of, yet still continue through the entire article without any real need to understand the very subtle difference between that and gay, etc, which generally, the non-HCPs of the 80-85-90-95% straight society would never differentiate between.

I merely suggest to you that, for non-HCPs, the term men who have sex with men in an article (like say if I picked up a newspaper or a hard-copy encyclopedia) would (I suggest very commonly) be intepretated (by a straight non-HCP) as someone reaching way to far in an attempt to come up with a politically correct version of "gay". You may find it hard to believe, but there apparently are some people who are bigots, and some could even be WP editors, and therefore it is just possible that a reader, who doesn't know you and who maybe hasn't decided, by the end of the third paragraph, whether you could be bigots who have no idea what the hell you're talking about, could misinterpret your wording selection. Personally, I think, after reading the entire article, you appear to be intelligent writers responsible for a quality production of an informative article about something which you obviously know and did some research and substantial hard work on. I, as an uninformed reader, stumbled across this article because I saw it mentioned on someone else's talk page with reference to a GA review & I was curious to see what qualified as a GA, and I can see why this article was nominated.

BUT, 68.... who started this thread obviously took offense to the last line of the intro; and, having read the article long before reading his comment, upon review of the area his complaint relates to, I am capable of seeing it from his (obviously defensive) POV; can you?

I also point out that your article states that atleast some part of the gay/non-gay risk variance stems from greater condom failure rates among gay men, rather than from purposely unsafe habits, so potentially your intro closing line is misleading.

Having read the line in question, and not being a HCP, I can tell you the "men who..." does not necessarily have the same default interpretation to the layman as it does to the HCP. I was only trying to point that fact out to you, in case you didn't recognize that not everyone will interpret this term in the same manner as you, given you professional exposure to the topic. But, of course, that's why you wrote the article, was to provide information to those who don't have the same insight as yourselves. But, like I said, it's your work, excellently done, and I wouldn't suppose to boldly edit it despite the fact that I might have worded things somewhat differently.

Personally, I'd suggest that this last intro sentence read something along the lines of "As the body of the article shows, this concerning trend is generally attributed to unsafe sexual practices among the clinical classification of men who have sex with men." Don't like that, don't want to change it, suit yourself; I only offer what I intended to be constructive criticism to (perhaps) improve an already great article.

And if I come across as a long winded whatever, sorry, I do that some times. Peace man (and on the off chance that some fine lady may take offence or deem me sexist, please take that farewell to be equally interpretable as "and on that note I bid you fine ladies and gentlemen a very good evening and bestow upon you wishes of happiness, good tidings, and good fortune")! — Who R you? (talk) 01:38, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Gay applies to both females and males. MSM applies only to males. Which in the context of this article is the group we wish to refer to. We could use the term "male homosexuals" but men who have sex with men seems clear.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:57, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
And I meant (and should have said) gay men where I said gay. And even the "Men who..." article points out good reasons to differentiate the general term of gay men from bisexuals, trans-sexuals, men who have sex with men but consider themselves none-of-the-above; but, on reading your article, I just don't think everyone will automatically read the (informative) linked article. So I'd just suggest some hint that the term you've (correctly) chosen isn't a restatement of gay, but rather that it is a clinical term with added inference.
BTW; the greater condom failure rates amoung gay men (attributed to anal vs vaginal sex), is actually in the men who have sex with men Sexually transmitted infections section. Don't know if/how that factors into your article, since your statement (which 68.... felt according to his Edit Summary was blatant homophobia) is straight from a source; but then, maybe your source didn't consider what "men who..." attributes to a CDC publication. — Who R you? (talk) 02:13, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
I have added "male homosexual" to the text. Gay still means happy in much of the English world.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:32, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
Yeah it's been a long time since "gay" had that meaning in North America. And the differentiation of those terms was what I saw at first, and is a pretty minor thing of phrasing.
But I think 68....'s problem is the implication that "Gay/Homosexual/Men who.../whatever the term used" have caused the increased infection rates through unsafe sexual practices. And that appears to have more to do with the source than your article; but I've just tried to check the referenced source for those statements, reviewing footnotes 1 & 2, and only abstracts are available for unpaid online viewing.
And while those abstracts do mention the increase globally and in China; they do not include the portion of the source supporting that it is unsafe sexual practices among "men who..." that is the attributable cause of that increase. I assume you're likely working from the full text which does backup those statements; but given the inflammatory nature, you might want to "quote word for word" from some part of that source to back up that part of your article.
Re:increased condom failure which I referred to earlier from "men who...", that CDC references is:
"...However, condoms are more likely to break during anal sex than during vaginal sex. Thus, even with a condom, anal sex can be risky. A person should use generous amounts of water-based lubricant in addition to the condom to reduce the chances of the condom breaking."
from HIV Transmission|Questions and Answers|CDC HIV/AIDS from the section entitled Can I get HIV from anal sex?
That article section also ends referring to another CDC article CDC - Condom Effectiveness - Male Latex Condoms and Sexually Transmitted Diseases which does not mention this added risk of condom failure; and only makes some reference (which you may or may not find useful), in relation to syphilis; toward the end of the article, in the Genital ulcer diseases and HPV infections section, saying:
"... Consistent and correct use of latex condoms reduces the risk of genital herpes, syphilis, and chancroid only when the infected area or site of potential exposure is protected. ..."
and follows:
"Epidemiologic studies that compare infection rates among condom users and nonusers provide evidence that latex condoms provide limited protection against syphilis and herpes simplex virus-2 transmission. ..."
Just to save you some time searching of references. Good luck with the GA! — Who R you? (talk) 03:49, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I am still not sure what you are getting at. This paper is freely accessible http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19805553 I do agree that the mention of only MSM is very Western centric. Thus I have added other factors that are playing a role in other areas of the world and a lessor role in the west to the lead. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:29, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry... The link was to the article abstract and whatever I clicked last time I checked asked me for fifty something dollars for the rest of the report. But I see that the link you provided to the abstract has a link to http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2812177/?tool=pubmed#__ref-listid2258968 the full article. And while the abstract is an RS of "Despite elimination efforts, syphilis remains endemic in many developing countries and has reemerged in several developed countries, including China, where a widespread epidemic recently occurred."; and the full paper has
"While the widespread epidemics of syphilis that occurred in Russia in the 1990s and more recently in China mostly involved heterosexuals, smaller outbreaks in the United States, Canada, and England predominately involved men who have sex with men (MSM) (5, 10, 43, 67, 77). However, recent increases in syphilis rates for U.S. women and infants suggest that heterosexually transmitted syphilis may be an emerging problem in the United States (5)."
I haven't found anything that supports "This has been attributed primarily to unsafe sexual practices among..."; you may take that as a common sense extension of the quotes above, and I might agree, but common sense extension doesn't qualify as WP:RS. I searched the full article for "practice", "unsafe", "promiscu", "prostitu", "barrier", and "condom" and found nothing supporting the statement. I will now go back and read the entire article to try to find something that supports this specific claim that the increase is attributable to unsafe practices; not that I necessarily doubt this to likely be true, but it isn't proven by this article (atleast that I've found in it yet); but as I say I'll read it now from start to finish, but in case you're looking for this response I send it now. And if I find the quote supporting it, I'll post it immediately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Who R you? (talk • contribs) 07:30, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
I couldn't find anything to specifically support the claim that unsafe sexual practices among men who... is the source of the increase. I tried to start a search on that linked site (pubmd.gov) looking for anything with syphilis + men + unsafe, but that gave 124 responses and I'm a little to tired to read all those right now (it's 4:40am here), but I'll try to look at these tomorrow and see it there's anything citable to support this part of the article. I can see, from the few papers that I did read, why the wording in this article would seem logical, but that's not the same as having a citation to support the statement that (at least one person) interpreted as homophobic. I'll post if I find anything citable. Ciao for now. — Who R you? (talk) 08:44, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
  • "This increase in primary and secondary syphilis is thought to be due primarily to an increased incidence among men. Today, more than 60% of new cases of syphilis occur in men who have sex with men (MSM), and these cases are often associated with HIV coinfection and high-risk sexual behavior." PMID 18212261
  • WRT Russia "Many social changes have been hypothesized to be contributing to this recent increase including opening of borders, a rapid growth in prostitution, glamorization of sexuality from the Western world, and a partial loss of free diagnosis and mandatory treatment from the Soviet Ministry of Health." PMID 18212261
  • "Main epidemiology changes, at the basis of increasing prevalence, reflect sex industry, sexual promiscuity, decreasing use of barrier protection (i.e. condoms) due to a false sense of security that today sexually transmitted disease are curable and lack of pertinent knowledge. Today, more than 50–60% of new cases of syphilis occur in men who have sex with men (MSM) and are strongly associated with HIV coinfection and high risk sexual behavior. In the Russian Federation since the fall of the Soviet Union the incidence of syphilis has shown a rapid and substantial increase. The reasons are linked to changes in sexual behavior, drug abuse, increased travel and migration which all have created the conditions for a parallel epidemic of HIV infection. Also in other European countries like Spain, syphilis has been linked in injecting drug users with high-risk sexual behavior. In China cases of syphilis have been recently observed in an increasing number and in association with less education, alcohol use, unprotected anal sex with male partners and diagnosis of sexual transmitted diseases" PMID 20596972.
  • "The incidence of syphilis is rising all over the world, partly due to the increased transmission in HIV patients and other high risk groups such as men who have sex with men." PMID 19237085

I feel my summary is in line with the conclusions of this research.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:04, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

MSM is preferable because it is free of "identity" and "orientation" issues. It describes a behavior. Also, "male homosexuals" is technically wrong, because MSM includes most male bisexuals and a few men who self-identify as heterosexual but still have sex with men. It also excludes some male homosexuals (those who do not have sex with men, e.g., the median 15-year-old male homosexual, who has never had sex with anyone).
I do not think that any gay man will be offended by the choice of language; they are highly likely to be familiar with the MSM terminology. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:05, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
This may seem like splitting hairs, but the "unsafe sexual practices" doesn't bother me at all. The fact is that safe sexual practices would not result in 2% of the US population accounting for 60% of the new syphilis cases in the US. The only possible way for a group identified by sexual practice to account for 30 times its fair share of syphilis cases is if that group is engaging in unsafe sexual practices. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:11, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
Given these citations, the statements in the article are now (I believe) fully backed up. My point had been that I could see where 68.... (gay, straight, or otherwise) or any MSM could, prior to these citations, reasonably believe that they were being persecuted and falsely accused of being responsible for a global increase in syphilis; an interpretation which, prior to your citations, I could completely understand precipitating a negative response.
I fully acknowledge, after having read men who have sex with men, that the MSM term makes total sense. My point was, that unless someone reads the link (and of course not everyone reads every link in every article since that would typically involve reading all of Wikipedia), the term MSM comes across (IMO) as a dumb term until you understand that it is a clinical term which one might argue is meant to be dumb, in that it is not, unlike most words in the English language, intended to provide additional information beyond those selectively chosen words. I'm just saying that "MSM", without indication that it's a clinical term, struck me as a very odd term, which I assumed (wrongly) was used for an incorrect reason of excessive political correctness.
And I do still think it may be prudent to add some phrasing to the end of the third paragraph to indicate that the claim is backed up below. I recognize that one isn't normally required to say in an article lead that the rest of the story follows; but I would point out that 68....'s comments were "And this page is locked so I can't even stick Citation Needed in, let alone remove it.", and without some indication that you've backup of the statement further on (which you have done), the initial response from some readers will be to take immediate offence (however unjustified that response may seem).
But regardless, you've fully backed up the statements of the article, and I hope you believe it's therefore an ever so slightly better finished product. I still think, as I have from the start, that it's an extremely well written article & I congratulate you all on a job well done; I hope & assume (with the other additions you've made) it will garner the GA it deserves. Cheers! — Who R you? (talk) 01:20, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Who R you. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:40, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

You are most welcome Doc. — Who R you? (talk) 02:48, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
I like your description of MSM as dumb, because it fits so well with the old sense of "silent" or "mute". It is one of those odd terms that is both truly medical (and quasi-medical) jargon and also correctly interpreted by the plainest of the plain old meaning of the individual words. I believe that whoever invented the phrase would be delighted to know that it has (so far, at least) maintained its silence on any point except the plain meaning. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:46, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Nice...  The down side is that no layman catchs that unless they read the MSM link and, I suspect, given the large number of unknown phrases and terms in a medical article like this, the non-HCP likely won't follow that particular link and therefore won't learn the particularly succinct nature of the phrase. It's unfortunate they don't (as far as I know) have stats to indicate how many readers follow which links out of an article; I'd be curious what percentage of readers (other than HCPs who already understand the term) will a)understand, or b)follow the link to learn, about the term. — Who R you? (talk) 09:32, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I

I am struck when reading this article by the sentence mentioning syphilis being associated with an increase in promiscuity and unsafe sexual practices among MSM, as it seems both hard to believe and, frankly, unfounded, as there is no citation immediately available. For a claim such as this, I think an inline citation is very much needed, even if that means adding citations to the rest of the introduction. Not doing so undermines the reputability of the whole article.--Mhogan24 (talk) 04:49, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

If you read this article there are excellent refs to support it.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:12, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
Notice please that the sentence does not claim that promiscuity has increased among MSMs. It identifies four separate causes, which are:
  1. unsafe sexual practices among men who have sex with men,
  2. increased promiscuity,
  3. prostitution and
  4. decreasing use of barrier protection.
The last three causes apply just as much to heterosexual women as to MSMs. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:23, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Solution to the contention

This discussion is very interesting. While research does seem to back up this assertion, I think the wording might be inflammatory and seem biased. In the interest of keeping Wikipedia unbiased, why don't we move that last sentence in the intro to the epidemiology section and tag it with citations? That way the information is there, but a reader who comes to the page doesn't suddenly become upset at the wording and move on to a different site? Obviously, from this talk page, people become upset when reading it. A citation will at least show that the assertion comes from science, and not from Doc James' own bias. I can't think of a good reason not to cite something on Wikipedia! Sdegan (talk) 16:54, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Sure added refs to the lead to verify the content in question. While WP:LEAD states we should not be putting refs in the lead I agree that the reality is different and will begin adding refs to the lead again as these sorts of issues inevitably arrive.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:10, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks! I agree that it's odd to have citations at the beginning, which is why I suggested moving it. Either way, it is now harder for someone to misconstrue the meaning of what is being said because it is very clearly cited. Sdegan (talk) 17:15, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Ceftriaxone is a cephalosporin, not a tetracycline group antibiotic

Ceftriaxone is a cephalosporin, not a tetracycline group antibiotic (common medical knowledge) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.78.129.25 (talk) 04:26, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

 Done  Dr meetsingh  Talk  14:59, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Genome sizes are measured in basepairs, not daltons

Under the "Bacteriology" section, it is stated that the genome of Trponema pallidum is 1.14 MDa. It should be 1.14 Mbp. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Btho86 (talk • contribs) 18:24, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 24 December 2011

Under 'Epidemiology', change:

"It affects between 700,000 and 1.6 million pregnacies a year"

to

"It affects between 700,000 and 1.6 million pregnancies a year"

because

'pregnacies' is probably a misspelling of the word 'pregnancies'.

Abuzadora (talk) 14:59, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Done --Jnorton7558 (talk) 17:47, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 14 May 2012

I would like the author or another eligible member to please change men who have sex with men to the political correct term homosexual men, who are sexually active, and also men who have rectal or anal sex, or men who have sex. the line that implies a prejudice against homosexual men that they only have anal sex, and that they should be placed in another category along heterosexual men, if the author wants to divide the categories. it would be asked that they then also include lesbian women can get syphillis from vaginal intact, or another better suited word. thank you, it is much appreciated. 216.194.43.62 (talk) 17:57, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

 Not done Men who have sex with men is not the same as "homosexual men". This official term includes many men who are not homosexual. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:58, 14 May 2012 (UTC)


Edit request on 29 July 2012

In Cause/Transmission, kissing is claimed to be a means of transmission. This is inconsistent with the CDC Fact Sheet (http://www.cdc.gov/std/syphilis/STDFact-Syphilis.htm). The cited source is behind a paywall and does not mention this in the available abstract. Could someone verify or correct? 98.245.165.52 (talk) 15:55, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Done The ref states "Unlike other sexually transmitted diseases (eg, HIV), syphilis is readily transmissible by oral sex and kissing at or near an infectious lesion in addition to vaginal and anal intercourse." Thus will clarify. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your talk page please reply on mine) 16:52, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Syphilis in women

This is my first time trying something like this, my apologies in advance if there is an err...I have low vision and am having trouble finding a way to start a different topic point. Please feel free to move this wherever is appropriate.

I think perhaps the article would be improved if information were provided about the large jump in married women who acquire syphilis, many who don't realize it until they get pregnant or give birth to a child with it. There is also a good percentage of women who are raped who wind up with it as well, last statistics I was told was that it had reached the top five STD's rape victims are infected with. The article gives the impression that women only get syphilis via being drug users or prostitutes.

I volunteer at a support center for victims of sexual assault and abuse. I've known a number of married women who caught it from their husband who had cheated on them, two of them were told by the doctors and hospital that this was a quickly increasing issue and provided a printed article about it at the time to pass on to an attorney. I confess I don't know where the article came from, only that it exists. A number of the rape victims find themselves struggling to get charges regarding being infected added to their file so that if their rapist is caught, it increase the chance of jail/increases bail cost.

I apologize that I can't provide written info to back this up, I can't read it so only know of it by having heard someone read it to me or it being discussed.

Than you for your time and patience in reading this post.

184.17.96.138 (talk) 21:52, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

To start a new topic, you click on the "New section" tab at the top of the page.
Welcome to Wikipedia. The thing is, syphilis seems to be far more common in men. In the US, there are almost six infected men for every woman. The rates in women have actually decreased, and the overall uptick is almost entirely due to MSM behaviors. So, yes, these women were infected by cheating husbands, but the odds are well above even that these husbands were cheating on them with men. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:37, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 9 January 2012

This article states the columbian hypothesis for syphilis is currently the best supported by modern science. This hypothesis has been destroyed by evidence of congenital syphilis in Pompeii, however: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11952322 Please fix. 76.91.45.145 (talk) 03:33, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Please provide review articles.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:04, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 Not done, needs a source--Jac16888 Talk 15:12, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
The Columbian hypothesis at its 2004 citation has been superceded since 2004 by other research. Example- QUOTE:
"However, skeletal remains with evidence for venereal syphilis from the Old World have been dated to the pre-Columbian period. It appears that the disease was present worldwide even before its devastating effects on war-torn late fifteenth-and sixteenth Europe where it went hand in hand with deprivation, poverty and prostitution." -- Joseph Patrick Byrne 2008. Encyclopedia of Pestilence, Pandemics, and Plagues: A-M. pg 453
Likewise another reference says:
"There is now sufficient skeletal evidence to settle once and for alt the long standing controversy about the incidence of syphlis in Europe before Columbus returned from the New World in 1493. Treponemal infections (either endemiic or venereal syphilis) were far from unknown, if not evidently widespread, in medieval England." --Carol Rawcliffe. 2006. Leprosy in Medieval England. pg 89
The claim that the "columbian hypothesis for syphilis is currently the best supported by modern science" is no longer supported. CHange will be made to reflect recent research. ChuMao (talk) 05:39, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
Another review article Harper, KN (2011). "The origin and antiquity of syphilis revisited: an appraisal of Old World pre-Columbian evidence for treponemal infection". American journal of physical anthropology. 146 Suppl 53: 99–133. PMID 22101689. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 09:14, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
I support updating the reference to the review article, and sticking with the facts, which are that there is no good evidence of a pre-Columbian syphilitic disease in the Old World (exactly as said in the review article that Doc James linked). WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:57, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit request 4 Sept 2012

The flat assertion that Hitler had syphilis is not supported by the citation. "According to one theory" or similar language should be inserted. 173.21.54.229 (talk) 16:59, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree. The title and intro of the BBC article used as reference already suggests it's little more than speculation: "Hitler syphilis theory revived: A fresh attempt to suggest that Hitler's behaviour might partly be influenced by advanced syphilis has been made by a US historian." Syphilis, one testicle, homosexual, meth addict, impotent ... there's no shortage of theories about Hitler. Removed it. Ssscienccce (talk) 01:11, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
On the broader topic, we need more examples of historical figures who suffered from the disease, because it had a very significant impact on some of the most creative and influential people who have ever lived. I have just added Benjamin Britten to the list because there is good evidence that he probably died from the disease. But I agree, each citation must be supported by evidence, and it is essential that the wording leaves room for individual cases to be disproved. --Wally Tharg (talk) 10:28, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Curiosity

"Gummatous syphilis or late benign syphilis usually occurs 1 to 46 years after the initial infection, with an average of 15 years"

Where does such a specific number as "46" years come from? Is this some limit of a normal distribution or what? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.62.196.12 (talk) 04:22, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Edit request July 19, 2013

Could add a See Also section and add:

Notable cases of syphilis

I kept running across cases of artists who had died of syphilis and came to this page expecting to find a list. It exists on another page and I think it's logical to have a link to it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.125.134.86 (talk) 23:39, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Added to society and culture. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 21:38, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Condom useage

The article states that condom usage has declined. I cannot find this information in the references given. I would really like to see the reference for this claim. Does anyone have such a study?MBWeitzel (talk) 18:42, 30 October 2013 (UTC) Mary Weitzel

You will need to get the full ref. These are all secondary sources. They will likely ref the primary source. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 15:35, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
One ref here shows a decrease in condom us among high school students from 2003 to 2011.[6] This is not the best source but is from the developing world [7] Doc James (talk ·contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:30, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
And more [8] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:38, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

I second the original comment and what to add that the last sentence of the introduction seems to add a very moralizing tone. The scientific articles cited do not focus on unsafe sexual practices among MSM, promiscuity or prostitution. Of the three citations, one talks about drug-addicts and the other two discuss MSM as high-risk populations deserving particular attention. Further in the article (section: Prevention) it is correctly pointed out that even correct condom use may not prevent infection (e.g. if the chancre is in area not covered by condoms). I therefore think this last sentence in the introduction should be taken out. It rings the usual conservative tone that STDs are spread by people with "loose morals", which goes against the grain of most modern public health approaches for STD education and prevention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.146.9.10 (talk) 23:53, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Just because condoms are not perfect it does not mean that they are not effective. The use or none use of condoms is not an issue of morality. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:33, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Photo of chancre on penis

In heterosexual men, 99% of primary syphilis is chancre on the penis. I think that this is worth illustrating with a photo. Indeed I added such a photo four years ago, but it has since been removed. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:37, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

We could replace the primary cancer on the hand with with one on the penis if you like. I have no opinion either way. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:24, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
Okay, I have changed the picture. Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:32, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Origin

The jury is still out (I believe) on whether this is an Old World or New World disease. Can't we have a brief section on this? There is reference to a Reuters article in the external links at Columbian Exchange. I find interesting that Dürer, Joseph Grünpeck and other artists illustrated people with this disease at about the time that Columbus returned from his first voyage - how fast could the spread have been? Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 12:09, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

We discuss it with a review article within the history section. Do we have other reviews that disagree? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 14:59, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
My mistake. I am used to seeing history sections in WP articles, where there are, at the beginning of the articles, usually right after the intro. So, my eye went down only about halfway before I 'decided' there was no history section. Regards, Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 22:55, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Our guidance with respect to layout is here WP:MEDMOS. We put the history section typically at the end and put the current medical aspects first. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:45, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Turkish anthropologists found evidence for syphilis already existing in Anatolia -in the Old World for that matter- at 13th century. Excavations in the Roman Theatre site in Nikea (modern Iznik) revealed a teenager having syphilis evidence on his bones. Also, syphillis affected human bones dating 4th century AD were excavated in Perga (close modern Antalya) in southern Anatolia.Sndilek (talk) 13:20, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Are there high quality sources (see WP:MEDRS) that support this? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:04, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
I believe you are referring to this study: [9], at least for the Nikea specimen. Please see the critical review of this and many other studies by Harper [10], specifically Table 1. (Note that the Harper paper is cited in this wikipedia article.) According to Harper et al., the problem the Turkish study is that the specimen was never subjected to radiocarbon dating. Instead, the age of the specimen was inferred by its location near artifacts and structures of known age (such as the Roman theater). These indirect methods are prone to large errors. CatPath (talk) 02:55, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 05:35, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

La Belle Dame Sans Merci reference

I do not understand why the reference to La Belle Dame Sans Merci is valid. There appears to be no evidence beyond the opinion of one critic, Robert Hughes, whom the author cites without quoting. (Hughes' own reference appears to be quite unsubstantiated.)

The author writes:

The earliest known depiction of an individual with syphilis is Albrecht Dürer's Syphilitic Man, a woodcut believed to represent a Landsknecht, a Northern European mercenary.[40] The myth of the femme fatale or "poison women" of the 19th century is believed to be partly derived from the devastation of syphilis, with classic examples in literature including John Keats' La Belle Dame sans Merci.[41][42]

If this reference is to stand I believe the author should substantiate it. Currently, with no further information, it is a misrepresentation of the poem. At the very least, the author should quote from the work he cites. Otherwise, I believe this reference should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jc636 (talk • contribs) 23:22, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

The paragraph that begins: "Syphilis is believed to have infected 12 million people in 1999, with greater than 90% of cases in the developing world." ends with the statement that 50% of syphilis cases occur in African-Americans. Which is clearly not true because 90% of the cases occur in the developing world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.94.94.231 (talk) 06:00, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

About lead paragragh

Mentioning of subspecies Pallidum and diseases caused by related Treponema pallidum is description of waste, isn't it? Baqeri (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 08:49, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 June 2014

3rd "paragraph" - 1st sentence - should report **1899** rather than 1999 - the sources I've used to verify the fact are already used in the article, this seems to be only a typo. (btw: extremely difficult to make the 10 required edits that are required to allow general editing - unsure how this procedure could help your editing process but very sure how this requirement deters folks from wanting to involve themselves at all. Just an opinion. ~JLT Jbf68jlt2x (talk) 07:13, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

 Not done the new cases in 1999 figure is very clearly stated in the cited references - e.g. this one] - I have, however, altered the article to try and make it clear that these were new cases, not the total number of cases. Arjayay (talk) 08:06, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Treatment for syphilis

Under the heading "Treatment" this article lists intramuscular penicillin G as the preferred treatment for uncomplicated early syphilis. We actually recommend a single intramuscular dose of Benzathine penicillin G, also known as "Bicillin". This is a long acting form of penicillin and this is important because penicillin G may not be strong enough to treat the infection completely. The dosage is 2.4 million units. Late syphilis infections require 3 doses spaced one week apart, this is correct, however we again use Benzathine penicillin G, 2.4 million units per dose. Penicillin G is only used to treat neurosyphilis and is given intravenously as the article describes. Otherwise the second line of treatment recommended for syphilis is is Doxycycline 100mg twice per day. I believe this has been reported by another user.

This information can be found on the Public Health Agency of Canada's website. Please scroll down to the "treatment" section: http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/std-mts/sti-its/cgsti-ldcits/section-5-10-eng.php

This document was last modified February 2013.

The section that describes the incorrect usage of penicillin G reads as follows: "Reports from some jurisdictions have indicated inappropriate use of short-acting benzylpenicillin (penicillin G) (IM) for the treatment of infectious syphilis rather than the standard long-acting benzathine penicillin G (Bicillin-LA). Practitioners, pharmacists and purchasing agents should be aware of the similar names of these two products to prevent and avoid inappropriate and inadequate treatment. Long-acting benzathine penicillin achieves detectable serum levels of penicillin for 2-4 weeks in non-pregnant adults and is required to adequately treat infectious syphilis; short acting penicillin agents are not adequate for achieving cure."

DianeMcK 05/10/2014 — Preceding unsigned comment added by DianeMcK (talk • contribs) 20:00, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, not only did we fail to supply the correct form of penicillin, we also linked to the wrong form. I've fixed it. - Nunh-huh 14:12, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Prevention

The prevention section suggests not consuming alcohol as a means of reducing risky sexual behaviour. Is this a legitimate prevention method? Does alcohol have any connection to syphilis? Is there any evidence that those who consume alcohol have a higher rate of contracting syphilis? The citation goes to the CDC facts on syphilis which does not mention alcohol. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TimeFox (talk • contribs) 00:52, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

This issue was resolved by this edit. AlphaEta (talk to me) 02:32, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

JAMA

Review of treatment doi:10.1001/jama.2014.13259

RPR and serologic diagnosis of syphilis doi:10.1001/jama.2014.2087

JFW | T@lk 00:02, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 December 2014

Please remove or change the below statement as it is not objectively delivered. An article, though referenced, should not suggest any form of relationship or create exaggerated fear of alcohol usage (including drugs not specified).

thank you.

Thus, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends a long-term, mutually monogamous relationship with an uninfected partner and the avoidance of substances such as alcohol and other drugs that increase risky sexual behavior.[17]

88.246.197.25 (talk) 17:56, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. --Mdann52talk to me! 18:18, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Possible misidentification of photo

Before I get to the point, I want to say that photos and illustrations add sooooo much to a topic's discussion, and our understanding of that topic - please add as many as possible!!!

OK, so my point - I wonder if the "Patient with tertiary (gummatous) syphilis. Bust in Musée de l'Homme, Paris" is actually a case of bejel, or endemic syphilis, caused by the endemicum subspecies of the spirochete Treponema pallidum, rather than the pallidum subspecies of Treponema pallidum. I'm no medical professional, but in comparing the photos provided on various websites (including Wikipedia) for these 2 types of syphilis, it seems that the endemicum subspecies can cause more severe disfiguration than the pallidum subspecies, and that's what the bust shows - severe disfiguration. But, please do check this before editing! Grrlrocks (talk) 02:16, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

I do not know. User:Grrlrocks do you want to try asking the Museum in question? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:13, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Arthur Schopenhauer

It is stated that it is believed that Arthur Schopenhauer had syphilis. This is very much not the generally-held opinion: see [4] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.153.123.227 (talk) 11:35, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Lyme_disease
  2. ^ http://www.ucolick.org/~randi/aecom/syphilis.txt
  3. ^ http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/medicine/laureates/1927/
  4. ^ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2210030/?page=1
 Done Jytdog (talk)
2008 review article however says they did [11] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:30, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
yes just in a list, with no citation. i replaced Manet (also mentioned only in the list) with Niccolò Paganini who is also discussed at length in the source. sometimes these historical diagnoses are so speculative... Jytdog (talk) 15:41, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Sounds good. No strong feelings either way. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:00, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Medical ethics

Issues around the Tuskegee study are quested in this paper.[12]

Penicillin did not become universally recommended for treatment of late syphilis until later supposedly. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:42, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

The disease is not eradicated in Cuba

the statement in the incipit shall be edit with the adjective "congenital": infected women giving birth cannot transfer the disease to babies, for adults the disease is present as elsewhere

91.205.194.4 (talk) 12:39, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Pictures

Is the picture of a black poxy penis really necessary? I feel that it could probably be erased, and the quality of the page would only improve as a result...

IMO a picture of the primary chancre is important and the page would be worse off without one. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:08, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

List of famous people

I have reintroduced a slightly longer list of famous people who had Syphilis, after user Doc James removed it. I don't see why the two famous people selected by Doc James - Franz Schubert and Niccolo Paganini - should be considered representative. I also don't see why Doc James should have the authority to enforce his bizarre choice with such zeal.Wwallacee (talk) 12:42, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

You need proper sources of which this is not really one [13]
The other source needs page numbers.
I have left the Britanica one as it was well referenced.
Why did you remove Paganini?Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:28, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
The prior ref supported so restored. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:31, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

I have once again restored names removed from the list of famous people by user Doc James, as well as references in support of these names which were also removed by Doc James: i.e. the authoritative biography of Charles Baudelaire by Pichois and Ziegler, and the book Pox by Deborah Hayden (2003). Doc James alleges the latter is not a proper source but does not provide any rationale; in fact the book is thoroughly researched and provides abundant additional references in support of the syphilis diagnoses it reports. I hope this will now end Doc James's campaign to deprive Wikipedia readers of relevant information about the history of syphilis. Wwallacee (talk) 18:51, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

That book is awful. See reviews in NEJM, this exerpt of a review from Bulletin of the History of Medicine, this from BMJ. Not a single one of those gives credence to her posthumous diagnoses. Our mission here is to provide accepted knowledge to readers per WP:NOT - we are not here to provide (to quote one of those reviews) "gossip". Jytdog (talk) 05:05, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Columbian debate (introduction of syphilis)

When evaluating whether or not the expedition by Columbus to the New World brought about syphilis, the work of various scientists in the 20th century identified that the syphilis-carrying bacteria contained strains traced back to the New World, suggesting that the sexually transmitted infection was transported back via the Columbus expedition.

[1]

References

  1. ^ "Columbus May Have Brought Syphilis to Europe". LiveScience. 15 January 2008.

BigPapa1995 (talk) 16:51, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 February 2016

The 1st sentence in the 3rd paragraph should change from "The risk of syphilis can be decreased by latex condom use and a low number of sexual partners" to "The risk of syphilis can be decreased by latex condom use."

There is no correlation between number of sexual partners and syphilis contraction that is separate from use of latex condoms, nor is it supported by the linked reference.

198.182.157.252 (talk) 20:42, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Done You are correct that the source does not support that statement. The closest it comes to it is "The surest way to avoid transmission of sexually transmitted diseases, including syphilis, is to abstain from sexual contact or to be in a long-term mutually monogamous relationship with a partner who has been tested and is known to be uninfected." [14]. That is not the same as "a low number of sexual partners" as it's possible to have dozens of long-term mutually monogamous relationships with partners who have been tested and is known to be uninfected. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 00:28, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
One or no sexual partners is a low number. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:39, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry doesn't add up

It took 2 years after Columbus returned the 2nd time for syphilis to show up. Did you know that the first person to write this idea up was Jean Astruc who also included false facts and bad logic in his book on Genesis? 100.15.120.122 (talk) 23:29, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Prevalence

This ref says 315,000 cases in 2013.[15] The other says 10 million.[16]

Peoples thoughts? User:Scray Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:00, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Possible change of pictures?

I'm a young girl (14) who happens to be looking this up for a school health project. I'm not sure if the photos of male genitalia should be displayed so prominently on the page. Is there any way to change the settings so that you have to click on something to see the more "graphic" images, but otherwise they stay hidden? I think this would be a good compromise. thank you!! 192.199.53.2 (talk) 03:26, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

See WP:NOTCENSORED. Jytdog (talk) 04:55, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 October 2016


The caption under Steber's picture reads "The earliest known medical illustration of people with syphilis, Vienna, 1498." However, a woodcut depicting individuals with syphilis by Sebastian Brant was published in 1496 (See: https://www.researchgate.net/figure/224005934_fig2_Figure-2-This-illustration-was-originally-featured-in-a-broadsheet-in-verse-De)

Brent's illustration was altered and reprinted by Joseph Grünpeck in his pamphlet on syphilis in late 1496 (See: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1052964/?page=8). Grünpeck's pamphlet was meant to spread medical information.

To reflect this, I would suggest changing the caption under Stuber's picture to read "An early medical illustration of people with syphilis, Vienna, 1498" OR replace the illustration with Brant's or Grünpeck's.

66.90.154.64 (talk) 04:53, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Done Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:07, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 October 2016


The caption under Steber's picture reads "The earliest known medical illustration of people with syphilis, Vienna, 1498." However, a woodcut depicting individuals with syphilis by Sebastian Brant was published in 1496 (See first reference).

Brent's illustration was altered and reprinted by Joseph Grünpeck in his pamphlet on syphilis in late 1496 (See second reference). Grünpeck's pamphlet was meant to spread medical information.

To reflect this, I would suggest changing the caption under Stuber's picture to read "An early medical illustration of people with syphilis, Vienna, 1498" OR replace the illustration with Brant's or Grünpeck's.

[1]

[2]

References

  1. ^ https://www.researchgate.net/figure/224005934_fig2_Figure-2-This-illustration-was-originally-featured-in-a-broadsheet-in-verse-De
  2. ^ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1052964/?page=8

66.90.154.64 (talk) 04:58, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Done Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:07, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Famous people

@User:Doc James: I have reinstated the mention of Charles Baudelaire and Guy de Maupassant as famous people who had syphilis. There is no reason to mention Franz Schubert or Edouard Manet and not Baudelaire or Maupassant. And the addition of two names to this "list" does not make the sentence unwieldy. Doc, in the past you repeatedly removed the names of famous people I have added to this section, using technical justifications about scholarship; but when I overcame these "scholarly" objections, you cut these names again, this time without justification. This editorial bias looks to me like "ownership", i.e. that you have become so invested in this page that you view yourself as its sole curator. And so I ask you to step back and allow the change to remain please. - Wwallacee (talk) 09:51, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Would be good to get consensus for them here as a few people have reverted them over the years. Have at least formated the references to match those in the rest of the article. No strong opinion on them being move to the subarticle again. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:19, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

grammar

Intro: "In latent syphilis, which can last for years, there are little to no symptoms" s/b few or no symptoms — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.145.20.155 (talk • contribs) 17:19, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

done thanks. Jytdog (talk) 17:38, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Error in "Bacteriology" subsection

The T. pallidum pallidum genome is 1.14 Mbp or megabasepairs long; it isn't measured in MDa or megadaltons. The term "doubling time" is also used, when "generation time" is the scientifically-accepted nomenclature. 18:10, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

131.111.185.76 (talk) 18:10, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

I changed MDa to Mbp - thanks for catching that. I kept "doubling time" because it's probably an easier term for laypeople than "generation time." CatPath (talk) 20:41, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

History

It's unbalanced for a wikipedia article the introductory paragraph sets up the pre-columbian and columbian hypotheses, but fails to show the pre-columbian hypothesis in any of the following paragraphs, only saying that the columbian is better supported, but what happened to the lines of evidence for the pre-columbian? If there is a dispute, I believe for NPOV, Wikipedia requires both sides to be shown.--KimYunmi (talk) 21:52, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

We would misinform our readers if we suggest these theories are equally supported or equally probable. See https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3413456/ and https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3956094/ .
But detailed discussion of the lack of support by scientists (rather than by documentary film makers) for the pre-Columbian hypothesis really belongs in a different article on the history of syphilis rather than having an extensive discussion in this article. Essentially, all advocates of the pre-Columbian theory have been wrong about either the cause of the lesions shown or the age of the bones. They are looking for single instances of pre-1492 disease in Europe when their hypothesis demands evidence of widespread disease in Europe before that time. -Nunh-huh 23:56, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Historic

Syphilis existed in europe, middle east, africa, india long before any european set foot in the america's. It has a known history of 6 milleniums. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.44.92.216 (talk) 16:47, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Unless you know more definitively than the National Institute of Health (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3956094/), the exact history of the disease prior to the late 1400's is murky at best. This is reflected in the Wiki article. Ckruschke (talk) 17:54, 8 May 2017 (UTC)Ckruchke

Mr. J. Kay

Can anyone see a reason for the inclusion of the portrait of Mr. J. Kay? Does the picture relate to syphilis at all? If it doesn't, I propose that it should be removed from the article. --Frans Fowler (talk) 01:00, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Improved the caption and added a ref. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:25, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Settlement amount.

The section Tuskegee and Guatemala studies states a $9 million settlement. The reference says $10 million, lifetime medical benefits and burial services to all living participants(?). (Last part sounds like a threat). To adjust for inflation use this: (${{Format price|{{Inflation|US|10000000|1974}}}} in {{Inflation-year|US}}) It will output this:($61.8 million in 2023). 50.64.119.38 (talk) 07:40, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Sure done. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:04, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. 50.64.119.38 (talk) 23:29, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

change ((STI)) to ((Sexually transmitted infection|STI))

 Done. Hey, how come you keep doing that with parentheses? The article's raw text uses brackets like [ and ]. CityOfSilver 18:17, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

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:

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)

Pinta

Have adjusted the wording. Pinta is still a type of Treponema. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:53, 13 April 2018 (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)
Added the ref that these three are not sexually transmitted. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:55, 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

  1. ^ 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)

The soure is fine. What you did here and again here and as I noted directly above this section, here, you added it again here after adding it to the 1st paragraph of the article on the study itself here -- was add a specific fact from the Brandt paper, about the lie they told to get study subjects to come get a spinal tap. In the section above I asked you to explain the WEIGHT you are giving to this fact from the Brandt ref, which you did not respond to. That fact has been in the body of our article in the study itself (twice actually) for a long time; it is not new information. All that is new is your desire to give it this much WEIGHT. That is the issue here. And please see your talk page. Jytdog (talk) 19:11, 10 November 2018 (UTC) ((edit conflict), was adding this missing bit Jytdog (talk) 19:35, 10 November 2018 (UTC))
The source is fine. Please restore the source to the article then, in a way that you believe accords it appropriate weight (cited 882 times) as compared to the RM White source (cited 114 times). SashiRolls (talk) 19:33, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
The issue is the weight you are giving to the fact from the source. The source is not the issue. Sure I will add it. Jytdog (talk) 19:36, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 July 2019

please add an external source as a citation: Losse, N.. Syphilis: Medicine, Metaphor, and Religious Conflict in Early Modern France. Columbus: The Ohio State University Press, 2015. Project MUSE,


This link talks about the origin of syphilis and how it was first transferred as well as the religious context.

preferably add the source to these lines: The origin of syphilis is disputed.[2] Syphilis was present in the Americas before European contact,[74] and it may have been carried from the Americas to Europe by the returning crewmen from Christopher Columbus's voyage to the Americas, or it may have existed in Europe previously but gone unrecognized until shortly after Columbus’s return. These are the Columbian and pre-Columbian hypotheses, respectively, with the Columbian hypothesis better supported by the evidence.[40][75][76] 20sahsan (talk) 02:36, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

This link is behind a pawyall and is only accessible to Harvard students. 20sahsan, could you give a full citation for this paper? (Such as author, title, DOI, publication, date). – Thjarkur (talk) 16:18, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Schopenhauer?

In the "History" section, it is claimed that Schopenhauer may have had the disease. I have never read anywhere that this was the case. Biographies record that he died of heart failure at the age of 72.96.248.116.130 (talk) 03:19, 5 September 2019 (UTC)De'Antwon Davis

See this. Like most post hoc historical medical diagnoses, and for syphilis in particular, well-known for being confused with other diseases, this diagnosis is tenuous at best and really doesn't deserve repetition in an article about syphilis. - Nunh-huh 03:29, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

If the reference to Schopenhauer "doesn't deserve repetition in an article about syphilis," then it might be acceptable to delete it.96.248.116.130 (talk) 00:06, 6 September 2019 (UTC)De'Antwon Davis

Semi-protected edit request on 9 December 2019

Please change

"The three main dental defects in congenital syphilis are Hutchinson's incisors (screwdriver shaped incisors), Moon's molars or bud molars, and Fournier's molars or mulberry molars (molars with abnormal occlusal anatomy resembling a mulberry)."

to

"The three main dental defects in congenital syphilis are Hutchinson's incisors (screwdriver shaped incisors), Moon's molars or bud molars, and Fournier's molars or mulberry molars (molars with abnormal occlusal anatomy resembling a mulberry)."

The links make it easier for the reader to look up what these symptoms are, without having to Google them. MJasK (talk) 07:24, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Done – Thjarkur (talk) 11:49, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

It's relevant to note these ways in which the disease was politicized

I think this fascinating and very timely bit of history is worth including. And today, we have COVID-19, which Trump calls "the Chinese virus," while the Chinese media says it was created and spread in China by the US.

I think this would be appropriate in place of, or after this sentence, which incorporated in what I wrote, along with the new information -

> Since it was claimed to have been spread by French troops, it was initially called the "French disease" by the people of Naples.[73]

Here:

From time syphilis first emerged, in the 1500s, many countries blamed neighboring and sometimes enemy countries for the outbreak, thereby politicizing it; Italy, Germany and the United Kingdom called it ‘the French disease’, since it was claimed to have been spread by French troops;[1] at the same time, the French named it ‘the Neapolitan disease’, the Russians assigned the name of ‘Polish disease’, the Polish called it ‘the German disease’, The Danish, the Portuguese and the inhabitants of Northern Africa named it ‘the Spanish/Castilian disease’ and the Turks coined the term ‘Christian disease’. Furthermore, in Northern India, the Muslims blamed the Hindu for the outbreak of the affliction. However, the Hindu blamed the Muslims and ultimately everyone blamed the Europeans.[2]

74.101.202.221 (talk) 13:32, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Winters, Adam (2006). Syphilis. New York: Rosen Pub. Group. p. 17. ISBN 9781404209060.
  2. ^ Tampa, M. (March 25, 2014). "Brief History of Syphilis". Journal of Medicine and Life. Bethesda, MD. Retrieved March 21, 2020.

"Tuberculosis+of+the+Spine" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Tuberculosis+of+the+Spine. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Hog Farm (talk) 19:42, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

"Tuberculosis of the Spine" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Tuberculosis of the Spine. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:14, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Simple spelling correction

I believe palsis should be palsies in: "Meningovascular syphilis is characterized by stroke, cranial nerve palsis and spinal cord inflammation.[28]"

As it is under the page 'Meningeal syphilis': "symptoms may include headache, stiff neck, cranial nerve palsies, convulsions, and mental confusion" Morris1415926 (talk) 03:17, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Syphilis, origin of

Several years ago, forensic archaeologists excavated arched boat-docking areas near what was in A.D. 79 the sea coast of Pompeii. The investigators found many skeletons of people from both sexes & a broad range of ages and socioeconomic levels. Among them were two young girls whose teeth bore clear signs of congenital syphilis.

My sources for this information are (1) an article from the National Geographic and (2) a TV show based on the article & probably also produced by National Geographic. I believe that photos of the affected teeth were shown in both sources. Sorry I don't have the bibliographic information. Both items likely were issued within the last 20 years.

Research99Robin American99robin (talk) 22:45, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Partially covered on the article on history of syphilis:
    • "The theory holds that syphilis was present in Europe before the arrival of Europeans in the Americas. Some scholars during the 18th and 19th centuries believed that the symptoms of syphilis in its tertiary form were described by Hippocrates in Classical Greece. Skeletons in pre-Columbus Pompeii and Metaponto in Italy with damage similar to that caused by congenital syphilis have also been found. Douglas W. Owsley, a physical anthropologist at the Smithsonian Institution, and other supporters of this idea, say that many medieval European cases of leprosy, colloquially called lepra, were actually cases of syphilis. However, these claims have not been submitted for peer review, and the evidence that has been made available to other scientists is weak. Although folklore claimed that syphilis was unknown in Europe until the return of the diseased sailors of the Columbian voyages, Owsley says that "syphilis probably cannot be 'blamed'—as it often is—on any geographical area or specific race. The evidence suggests that the disease existed in both hemispheres from prehistoric times. It is only coincidental with the Columbus expeditions that the syphilis previously thought of as 'lepra' flared into virulence at the end of the 15th century." Lobdell and Owsley wrote that a European writer who recorded an outbreak of "lepra" in 1303 was "clearly describing syphilis." In 2015, researchers discovered 14th-century skeletons in Austria that they say show signs of congenital syphilis, which is transmitted from mother to child rather than sexually. In 2020 DNA analysis of nine infected skeletons was advanced to defend the "pre-Columbian" hypotheses, but is short of conclusive. " Dimadick (talk) 12:04, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

That SYPHILIS is also known as the FRENCH DISEASE needs to be highlighted from the start and also a subheading downleaf.

No point censoring it from the opening, so many references and even books that headline, name and talk of syphilis also as the French disease. 2A00:23C7:2B13:9001:1479:1B7F:1FB4:83F2 (talk) 02:17, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you seem to have missed the part where it was called "The French Disease", "The Spanish Disease", "The Italian Disease", "The Jewish Disease", or "The Muslim Disease" by whatever country, ethnicity, or religion had an axe to grind. Ckruschke (talk) 19:08, 16 November 2022 (UTC)Ckruschke

Tuskegee Institute Study introductory sentence neutrality

Starting a talk page about this sentence:

The "Tuskegee Study of Untreated Syphilis in the Negro Male" was an infamous, unethical and racist clinical study conducted between 1932 and 1972 by the U.S. Public Health Service.

in response to revision 1087991413 by User:WhatamIdoing

WP:VOICE says, in an almost perfect comparison, that we "should not state that genocide is an evil action". Given this how can we include "unethical" here?

"Racist" here does not pass the test of disinterested tone in my opinion. If we do allow that it being racist is a fact stated in a disinterested tone, it is mostly redundant assuming nearly all readers will identify the racist component of the study given its name, setting, and details. --SidLuckman (talk) 23:02, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Sure. We're not stating that unethical and racist behaviors are evil. We're just stating that it was unethical and racist. We're stating that because that's what all the sources do. There are no reliable sources that say this wasn't racist, or that say it was perfectly ethical. NPOV "means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." It does not mean that we try to hide the fact that all of the sources addressing whether it was racist conclude that it was, in fact, racist. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:28, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
Is there any relevant difference between "genocide is evil" and "the study was unethical"? How is the second not stating an opinion as fact? --SidLuckman (talk) 21:48, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Why do you believe that ethics are a matter of personal opinion?
Are you aware of any ethical system at all that permits someone to:
  • repeatedly tell you that he is giving you state-of-the-art medical treatment for a serious disease, but
  • not actually providing any treatment
  • for the purpose of watching you, your wife, and your future children die from it?
There are philosophical systems in which good and evil don't really exist (or, more precisely, are not relevant concepts). To my knowledge, there are no branches of ethics that endorse intentional deception for the purpose of seriously harming other humans. It is, therefore, unethical in fact, not as a matter of someone's personal opinion. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:56, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Agreed there are no WP:VOICE issues with the sentence as-is. VQuakr (talk) 19:47, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Elitist Beliefs Endorsed?

In the "History" section, the statement "certain more elite social groups separated themselves from their inferiors and regularly practiced better hygiene" appears to express and validate elitist beliefs rather than a neutral point of view.  The Wikipedia document from which this "History" section claims to originate seems to present the relevant socio-economic differences between the groups being described, without conveying or supporting elitist beliefs: "...the implications of revealing a disease more often fatal to elites than commoners could be incendiary." SgtKeys (talk) 23:09, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Syphilis/Archive_1&oldid=1214155446"