Talk:History of syphilis

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

Antibiotic Resistance[edit]

Would not a section on this properly belong in this article?--Jrm2007 (talk) 10:53, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That would probably be germain to the subject. Please feel free to write that up. Ckruschke (talk) 18:17, 18 March 2014 (UTC)Ckruschke[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on History of syphilis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:26, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The competing theories regarding the origins of syphilis in Europe[edit]

I've reverted recent edits which:

  • removed, without explanation, reliably sourced content criticizing research on the Guyana strains;
  • introduced non-encyclopedic and weasel-word language (i.e.; "retorted", "claimed", "according to them");
  • added unnecessary and undue redundant statements of already present information (i.e.; "holds that syphilis was a New World disease brought back by Columbus", "bolsters the case that syphilis did not exist in Europe before Columbus set sail", "lends support to the theory that syphilis was unknown in Europe until Columbus returned from the Americas", "bolsters the case that syphilis came from the New World")
  • added scare-quotes without explanation
  • added editorializing not found in the cited source(s), (i.e.; "yet-to-be peer-reviewed paper");
  • re-located content that was originally (and logically, in my opinion) positioned with this edit;
  • added an opinion from a news website piece, which is immediately refuted in the next paragraph

It would be appreciated if the reasoning behind such edits is explained before re-implementing them. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:33, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't remove anything of yours (edit: Guyana was a mistake, see below), except if you mean the misquotes and misrepresentation of sources. You quote an article as stating "another wrinkle to a debate that doesn't seem likely to be resolved any time soon" when a scientific editor earlier criticized you of using that exact article as a source on the page. You don't care, you add it back. I even wrote that if we're quoting magazines let's quote them fairly. Of course you remove any and all of my magazine quotes and keep yours. You accuse me of weasel words (in your definition from the other talk page a personal attack) yet you keep adding studies cited by no one, which the same scientific editor criticized you of. There is an interstellar difference between a peer-reviewed study cited by 60 and a 2-page report cited by no one from unnotable scientists. You of course remove any mentions pointing this out. You even misquote the Italians as "criticizing" the 2011 study, which they did not. You also keep edit warring the two separate theories into one without any understandable reason. The subtheory should clearly be marked with two stars as subcategory, but you keep edit warring it to be mentioned BEFORE the main theory's evidence and studies, as if to discredit the main theory and studies in a blatant way. There were no "scare quotes" added by me except if you mean leading scientists quoted in the few mainstream articles written about the matter. None of this behavior is new to you as you were given a hefty block just over a month ago for edit warring. Etsybetsy (talk) 16:11, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, okay, I now notice the Guyana bit from the modified theory disappeared for some reason. I think know the reason for this. I accidentally added the Bruce quote to the end of that paragraph and after editing other parts in the meanwhile, I had to copy and paste it to the correct upper paragraph; and then after doing that returned to remove the Bruce bit from below but in doing that I probably took out the Guyana bit as well. I had no intention of doing that as I have no problem with criticism of the modified theory. Etsybetsy (talk) 16:43, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I forgot to mention that the opposing pre-Columbian theory has large amounts of the supporting researchers' opinion noted. The two quotes from the scientists I added tried to replicate that without removing anything from the opposing side. I also forgot to point out that the newly added Science Daily (just republished study report by the university press too) also doesn't cover the bit it's supposed to. Etsybetsy (talk) 17:31, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You are going to need to be more specific. When you refer to "scientific editors", I don't know to whom you refer. I've only been dealing with Wikipedia editors. You mentioned "misquotes and misrepresentation of sources", but you did not specify any. Please print here the exact misquote I added, followed by the correct quote from the source. Do the same for any misrepresentation of sources by copying the text here, followed by the correct presentation from the source. I don't misquote or misrepresent sources, so what you believe you saw must be simply a mistake or typo, but I can't help you sort it out unless you are more specific. You also said "you keep adding studies cited by no one", so I reviewed the sources I added and each has been cited - so could you be more specific, please? You also claimed I edited two theories into one; did you mean like this? Look closer, that wasn't me - and those aren't two separate theories, that's two variations of the same theory. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 03:18, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I wrote a scientific editor, by which I obviously meant CatPath who had reverted your earlier edits. I very much specified what kind of misrepresentation in the following paragraph. The Italian scientists didn't "criticize" as you wrote. The Italian study hasn't been cited by anyone. The Austrian study has now been apparently and vaguely cited by one Romanian paper about a Romanian case and dental study of that case, not even reviewing the Austrian study whatsoever. That Romanian study is also about refutation of syphilis of the Romanian case, so it begs the question what they think of the Austrian case. Do they posit the two as similar or what? And you did edit that modified theory in. He simply moved it to the end of the Columbian theory listing, when the Columbian theory section was minimal. It's a subtheory. CatPath added it at the end of the listing because it's a subtheory. You push the most important studies and writings of the Columbian theory behind that modified subtheory. At this point it's apparent a sublisting is needed. Etsybetsy (talk) 00:29, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't personally know CatPath, and his user page doesn't tell me anything about him/her. If you say s/he's a "scientific editor", cool. As for all of your personal observations about the various studies, that's interesting, but what specific article improvements are you suggesting? Xenophrenic (talk) 01:03, 7 September 2016 (UTC) Oh, and when I ask you to please specify where I have misquoted or misrepresented, and you reply saying you already have, that tells me all I need to know. I won't hold my breath. Xenophrenic (talk) 08:21, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:CatPath was the one who reverted part of your edits before. I also now noticed I have removed nothing of yours. The Guyana bit wasn't even yours, it was CatPath's addition: [1]. This version of the section from before is a good version with mentions like the 14%: [2]. Etsybetsy (talk) 02:08, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
CatPath reverted part of my edits, and I reverted part of CatPath's edits; and such is how Wikipedia turns, and articles are improved. Yay. Now you say you've removed nothing of mine? So I guess gremlins were using your account and removed mentions of the Italian Forensic Anthropology and Odontology Laboratory I added? Did those same gremlins using your account delete the revised Columbian theory content I added? How about your deletion of Guyana samples content I added? Was that gremlins, too? And yes, the Guyana sample content was mine, which was then copied to this article by CatPath, which is all part of the article improvement process. So how many articles are you going to "accidently" delete content from? Facepalm Facepalm While you may find this entertaining, most Wikipedia editors would rather we use this space to focus on article improvement. If you want to bitch at me or make more unsubstantiated accusations, can we do it on your User Talk page, please?
If you'd like to add the 14% Dominican figure, I have no problem with that, but not cited to a quartz.com piece by one researcher with minimal editorial oversight. Would you mind changing the figure to 6%-14%, and citing the original paper instead? Xenophrenic (talk) 08:21, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Except when two editors oppose your edit. And your foremost case of me removing your material is when I shortened the 13-word long department and university title to just University of Milan? The Columbian Exchange one I also cut out my bits too because we were WP:FORKING content from here pointlessly. It had gotten long and needed to just be a link here. You also didn't add the Guyana bit. That criticism was added by CatPath, like I've already explained. Your version was quoting an article at another Wiki article he most likely hadn't even seen because why/how would he? He added a scientific review or "criticism" of the modified theory you added without adding the criticism. Why didn't you include the criticism, even with the article? Why did he have to add it? The accidental removal of it was also a mishap and it's not what I described in the edit summary.
And I were going to add the original paper but you didn't bother with (better source needed) or pointing it out but just removed it entirely. I had a hard time finding a readable copy at the time. Etsybetsy (talk) 09:14, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't see suggestions for article improvement. I'll check back. Xenophrenic (talk) 09:30, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've now constantly mentioned the sublisting. The Columbian theory also deserves more material and quotes, when comparing with the non-Columbian listing full of quotes from the researchers. Or do we cut those instead? I have to say you have gotten a lot more compliant after the report. Etsybetsy (talk) 09:48, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You are going to have to be more specific. I see the word "sublisting" only twice here, without context, and I don't know what you are suggesting. I also don't know which report you are referring to, or what you are proposing we do with it. Regarding adding to the Columbian theory, I'll repeat what I asked previously: As for your attempt to add quotations to one theory "to replicate" the opposing theory, are you aware that the theory you are adding to already has 101 quoted words of opinion compared to only 58 quoted words of opinion in the "opposing theory"? And worse, the quotes you proposed adding were redundant. The Columbian theory paragraph is also already larger than the pre-Columbian theory paragraph, and the Columbian theory paragraph already quotes many sources, while every quote in the pre-Columbian section is from an Owsley report. So I don't think I'm following your logic that the presently larger section "deserves" more material "when comparing" with the other section. Perhaps, instead, how about we add information to the sections because it is relevant and of encyclopedic use to our readers? Xenophrenic (talk) 14:36, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I used other terms than sublisting as well: subtheory, subsection. And the modified theory is separate from the Columbian theory. The combined theory currently exists at the bottom. Columbian alone isn't as big. Etsybetsy (talk) 17:21, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again, Etsy. I see you made an edit with an edit summary saying you added the 6%-14% figure we discussed, and noted a 2012 paper. That's fine, but you also added problematic scare quotes, moved a section of text out of chronological order, used nonencyclopedic language (i.e.; "retorted"), added italics against MOS:ITAL directions -- As these were not noted here or in the summary, I will assume this was inadvertent, and I'll clean up the edit for you. (i.e.; remove weird wording like "Skeletal remains in the Americas have documented extensive evidence" - I'm fairly certain it wasn't the skeletons doing the documenting. Or "6-14% of the skeletons", when sources say it was 6-14% of the population, etc.) Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 06:36, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You removed my study entirely? What's wrong with you? I'll just return it?
And the "quote" in question is what the study is solely about? If their title wasn't neutral, that would be the title of the study.
Why do you keep pushing the subtheory information ahead of the main theory? It's already mentioned at the bottom already too? You're repeating the same information.
And I originally replaced "criticized" with retorted because they didn't criticize but only retorted? Is a mistruth more encyclopedic than the truth? What word do you want instead? Criticize is simply not true.
And I'll now take out extensive but right below in the article you quote non-scientific magazines willy-nilly with very unscientific quotes? You don't see the hypocrisy? Etsybetsy (talk) 04:43, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, I did not remove a study entirely. I removed a poorly worded and misleading sentence you had cited to the "Research by documentary" article (I left the citation in the article). I've cleaned it up a bit and re-added it to the article, but I don't think it is likely to remain. You mention a "subtheory", and I don't know what that is. Could you explain, please? Xenophrenic (talk) 06:49, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You just now added the study back in separate edit after you first reverted my revert. You're just being obtuse now.
You're also still ignoring the fact that the modified/combined theory is already mentioned at the bottom and that we're repeating the same information twice in the article. And the fact that it used to be separate, at the bottom of the section. You're also ignoring when I pointed out the hypocrisy of your magazine article criticism when you yourself quote them just below in the article for an opinion that fits your view. And don't add editorializing like "postulates". You use completely opposite kind of language like "confirms" of your own cited-by-none study. Etsybetsy (talk) 08:19, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You just now added the study back in separate edit...
No, I did not. Here is my separate edit. Click on the link and then look carefully and you'll see I only added the one sentence, citing the already existing reference tag to the already existing "Armelagos2012" paper that is already in the article. The "study" (a paper, actually) was there all along, supporting the "modified theory" content. So your "just being obtuse" comment is not only inappropriate, but also completely inaccurate.
You're also still ignoring the fact that the modified/combined theory is already mentioned at the bottom and that we're repeating the same information twice in the article.
No, I'm not ignoring it. Are you? I see that the Crosby "combination theory" is still mentioned in your latest edit, too. Your edit "ignored" what you say is repeated information. If you think this is a redundancy that needs to be addressed, I'm willing to work with you on that. My primary concern is that the "combination theory" Crosby discusses may not be the same as the "modified theory" discussed by Armelagos, Harper, et al. The Armelagos article says, "However, the tone of the debate over the origins and antiquity of syphilis shifted some years ago, when the pre-Columbian hypothesis faced a new, modified Columbian hypothesis, one that better fit available evidence and also absolved the New World of being the birthplace of syphilis ... in this modified Columbian hypothesis, Columbus and his crew could have transported a New World, nonvenereal treponemal infection to Europe upon their return, which, once there, could have responded to dramatically different selection pressures with a new sexual transmission strategy." It cites studies from 2005 & 2008, and sounds different from Crosby's theory from 1972, which he called a "Unitary theory". I'd like to hear your thoughts on this.
...You use completely opposite kind of language like "confirms"...
Incorrect. That is the language used by the cited sources. We should stick to what the sources say, don't you think?
...your own cited-by-none study...
You are mistaken; I don't have any studies in this field. Did you mean someone else's study? I'm just a Wikipedia editor, conveying what actual published reliable sources say on the subject. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 15:31, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That usage of the reference for just for the small, side mention of the modified theory in the 2012 study—which is not what the study was about—isn't using the study itself. The study's gist is "In conclusion, there has been a blatant disregard for the peer review process in making the case for pre-Columbian syphilis in the Old World."
And the combination theory very much is the same as the modified theory. If you take a look at the references of the modified theory they mention Crosby. The point is that it's originally at the bottom. Forcing the modified theory to be mentioned in the pre-Columbian theory before the main theory is against the stable edition of the article. I'm trying to add two much cited studies and keep the stable edition. You're trying to remove my studies except for a ref use, keeping your cited-by-none and forcing an unstable version of events. Not to mention your quoting of the non-scientific magazine which you didn't allow me to do.
Concerning the green bits, that use of "confirms" is a quote. If you're not putting it into quote marks you're synthing it to actually confirming it rather than in just their opinion. And we're of course talking about the study you're pushing that fits your view.
And you're now ignoring that I mentioned the 2012 study isn't just about PBS or BBC. Etsybetsy (talk) 15:07, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • this content uses poor sources and the content is non-encyclopedic; for example we don't include quotes from scientists like this is a newspaper or magazine. 14:19, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Some refs in support of the Columbian Theory[edit]

"Europeans brought deadly viruses and bacteria, such as smallpox, measles, typhus, and cholera, for which Native Americans had no immunity (Denevan, 1976). On their return home, European sailors brought syphilis to Europe. Although less deadly, the disease was known to have caused great social disruption throughout the Old World (Sherman, 2007)."[1]

"The Voyage of Columbus Led to the Spread of Syphilis to Europe."[2]

Ancient Spanish historics describe the origin of the Naples disease as having been from the crew of Columbus:

"Bartolomé de Las Casas (1474-1566) censured Oviedo's work strongly, but they both agree that the natives of Haiti gave syphilis to the white race. After referring to the spread of the disease to Naples..."[3]

and like de Las Casas and Oviedo, so does Ruiz Diaz de Isla, who similarly records the spread of the new disease to Naples and leading to the epidemic.

The American origin of syphilis has been written as early as our modern understanding of diseases goes. There are writings of "the American origin of syphilis" as early as from the 1920s and 1930s.[4][5]

And only that late because:

"Except for the matter of syphilis, few took much notice of the effects of the Columbian exchange on Europe, Africa and Asia until the twentieth century."[6]

right after talking about smallpox and the Columbian exchange.

We have established that the first epidemic of syphilis in Europe happened in Naples. By this point we have established they brought over the strain of the Great Pox that caused the wide epidemic. It's not a matter of whether the disease pre-existed or not, it's a case of the strain. You have scientists who believe in pre-Columbian but who still assert the new strain was brought over, the strain that was then named "the Great Pox." The term was used to differentiate from smallpox, which didn't affect Europeans as much anymore after gained resistance.

I also noted a 2012 review from the 2011 study authors. I'll note this instead of Bruce. I'll include the accidentally removed Guyana bit that was added by CatPath. Etsybetsy (talk) 20:51, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ Nunn, Nathan; Qian, Nancy (May 2010). "The Columbian Exchange: A History of Disease, Food, and Ideas". Journal of Economic Perspectives. 24 (2): 164. doi:10.1257/jep.24.2.163.
  2. ^ Grieco, Michael H. (1 September 1992). "The Voyage of Columbus Led to the Spread of Syphilis to Europe". Allergy and Asthma Proceedings. 13 (5): 233–235. doi:10.2500/108854192778817130.
  3. ^ Penzer, Norman Mosley (2016). Poison Damsels. Routledge. p. 53. ISBN 1317847520. {{cite book}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help)
  4. ^ Williams, Herbert U. (1 December 1927). "The American Origin of Syphilis". Archives of Dermatology and Syphilology. 16 (6): 683. doi:10.1001/archderm.1927.02380060002001. {{cite journal}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help)
  5. ^ Holcomb, R. C. (1934). "Ruiz Diaz de Isla, and the American origin of syphilis". Medical life. 41 (11): 533–541.
  6. ^ Crosby Jr., Alfred W. (2003). The Columbian Exchange: Biological and Cultural Consequences of 1492. ABC-CLIO. p. 224. ISBN 0313095396. {{cite book}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help)

Protected edit request on 5 September 2016[edit]

I'd like to add back nigh all of what the section about the Columbian theory was a few edits ago: version view and diff. The one change not needed is the accidental cut of the Guyana bit seen here at the bottom. Notice the section being split into a subsection. Etsybetsy (talk) 17:46, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Before an admin takes this action, they should wait to see if there is consensus for the change. EdJohnston (talk) 17:48, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, okay, I thought this was a simpler way. Etsybetsy (talk) 17:50, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not done for now: Please wait for other editors to comment. If there is no objection in a day or two, feel free to reactivate. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:10, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on History of 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 05:57, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Recent work on the pre-Columbian theory[edit]

I'm afraid I don't have time to incorporate this myself, but there have been a number of convincing cases of skeletal evidence of pre-1492 syphilis which have been peer reviewed since the Zuckerman polemic. The one which comes to my mind is the Anglo-Saxon burial from Apple Down, which has good skeletal evidence and which comes from an Anglo-Saxon pagan cemetery, rather ludicrously rejected by Harper et al. (Yearbook of Physical Anthropology 2011) on the basis that without a radiocarbon date it might be a post-1492 burial which somehow ended up being placed in an Anglo-Saxon cemetery. Since then Cole et al. (American Journal of Physical Anthropology 2015) have published radiocarbon dating for the skeleton which shows that it is, as expected, a pagan Anglo-Saxon burial.European Prehistorian (talk) 21:21, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Syphilis[edit]

Erm... south east asia appears to be its origin. Which I assume to mean Thailand, Cambodia, Vietnam, Laos, Bali. 82.5.26.124 (talk) 10:39, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:History_of_syphilis&oldid=1202733468"