Why does this article talk about "men who have sex with men" instead of "gay men"?
Men who have sex with men (click the link to learn more about this term) is an official term for this risk group that is widely used in the scientific and medical literature. This term recognizes that not all gay men have sex, and that not all men who have sex with another man are homosexuals.
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Syphilis article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Microbiology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Microbiology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MicrobiologyWikipedia:WikiProject MicrobiologyTemplate:WikiProject MicrobiologyMicrobiology
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Sexology and sexualityWikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexualityTemplate:WikiProject Sexology and sexualitySexology and sexuality
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's Health, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's Health on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HealthWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HealthTemplate:WikiProject Women's Healthwomen's health
The lead says that pinta is caused by Treponema carateum, which, indeed, pinta also says. In the body, however, the first paragraph under "Cause", talking of the bacterial cause, Treponema pallidum says that carateum is a subspecies. I am thus unclear, is T. carateum a separate species within the genus Treponema or is it a subspecies of T. pallidum? One paragraph or the other needs changing/clarifying, but i can't tell which is wrong. Happy days, ~ LindsayHello12:39, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for that. A tad embarrassing, as i thought i had checked sufficiently without finding the answer before writing my plea, but clearly i didn't. Anyway, chasing references seems to make the answer fairly clear, so i'll make the change required. Thanks for the pointer. Happy days, ~ LindsayHello08:50, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The "Bacteriology" subsection states "It is unable to survive more than a few days without a host". Then in the immediately following "Transmission" subsection the article mentions "the bacteria die very quickly outside of the body". Multiple days is very quick? Maybe on a geological timescale, but I think most people would not consider that to be "very quickly". Perhaps the wording can be changed to avoid such disjointed information. Nom de vileplume (talk) 12:27, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One website I found says "minutes". This much better source says "Treponema bacteria are susceptible to heat, cold, and oxygen exposure, so they do not survive long outside the human body". This Canadian source gives some interesting details: "T. pallidum can survive in banked donor blood for 72 to 120 hours. However, treponemes only survive for a few hours in plasma, whole blood, or serum at body or room temperatures. Motile organisms were observed for 8 to 14 days in sealed slides kept at room temperature."
So I think that the survival time depends on the details. If someone accidentally left a smear on some ordinary surface like a table or a door handle, for example, it'd probably be minutes-to-hours, maybe depending on how favorable the temperature was and if there were any protective/destructive factors (e.g., most microbes have a longer lifespan on wood surfaces than on copper ones). But if you carefully sealed it up, then it could be days.
This reminds me a little of the "Smallpox blankets" stories: some small amount of the pox virus, under perfect storage conditions (just the right temperature, no sunlight...), can remain viable for months outside the body. But most of it's destroyed in hours. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:45, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In the Origins, spread and discovery section of this article, it says, "According to the Columbian theory, syphilis was brought to Spain by the men who sailed for Columbus in 1492 and spread from there. With a serious epidemic in Naples beginning in 1495." This doesn't make sense. Apart from Columbus, the other 39 men who sailed with him on the Santa Maria were Spaniards. The crew of the Pinta was 26 Spaniards. And the crew of the Nina was 20 Spaniards. These Spaniards were not brought back to Spain by Columbus. They were, indeed, Spaniards. A google search for names of the men who sailed with Columbus in 1492 attests to them being Spaniards. Regarding the syphilis breakout in Naples in 1495, the article says, "The first records of an outbreak of syphilis in Europe occurred in 1495 in Naples, Italy during a French invasion (Italian War of 1494-98). Since it was claimed to have been spread by the French troops, it was initially called the "French disease" by the people of Naples". Columbus and his men sailed in 1492. The first syphilis outbtreak in Europe began three years later. Columbus and his crew were nowhere near Naples at that time. Will someone please look into and fix these oversights? D.Gormade (talk) 23:22, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The passage is correct. Your assumptions about distance and time are simply unwarranted and erroneous. To make just one potentially clarifying point, Naples is not terribly far from Spain; in fact, it was an interconnected part of the Mediterranean world during the late 15th century, and shortly thereafter in 1504 became a part of the Spanish Empire. Remsense ‥ 论19:03, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No. Spain won Naples from the French during the Battle of Garigliano in 1507. That's 15 years after Columbus and his crew of 85 Spaniards made their first voyage to the American continent. The French disease entered Naples back in 1494-98. That's 2-6 years after Columbus' first voyage to the American continent. My sense of distance and time are simply not unwarranted and erroneous. If you can't put things in their proper perspectives and count years correctly, that your bad, not mine. D.Gormade (talk) 00:27, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
level-4 vital article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
.jpg){kind=small}
.svg){kind=small}
