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 subject of the article.
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
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's your bad, not mine. D.Gormade (talk) 00:27, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your story sounds like this:
Columbus and his crew returned to Europe (first landing in Lisbon, Portugal, rather than Spain) in March 1493.
A 1495 outbreak in Naples was blamed on French troops.
As the sailors were not French, and the French were blamed for the outbreak, then the outbreak couldn't have anything to do with Columbus or his crews.
This of course, can only be true if:
Sailors never have sex with French people (e.g., by traveling to a French port on a subsequent gig), or with anyone who would later have sex with a French person (e.g., a prostitute in a port city).
As we all should know by now, an infectious disease can spread widely in the space of two years. It does not depend on direct contact with the original "patient zero". It could easily have spread from a crew member to a Lisbon prostitute, and thence to many people, including (but not limited to) some French people. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:13, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Was reading a textbook chapter on secondary syphilis and as I often do, I came to the Wiki page to get additional information. In this case, it seems like there is only a single highly condensed paragraph for the relatively complicated and important topic of secondary syphilis. I'm not sure whether this should be a section expansion or a secondary page; I understand that usually the flow of things is to expand the section first and to do a split proposal later (if needed) but in this case I thought there might be some support for the idea of a split even before the section got very long. In any case, I'm still thinking on it, and would like to hear other opinions before calling any votes. Just-a-can-of-beans (talk) 17:15, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would favor seeing how large the section gets and then talk about a split since it seems like a minor detail (since I'm not an expert on the subject). If it blossoms, we can certainly create a new page! Ckruschke (talk) 17:30, 18 July 2025 (UTC)Ckruschke[reply]
I'd say that it depends on how much you expect to write. If you want to write a thousand words, then I'd create the new page. But if you think that doubling the current section size would cover everything well enough, then I'd keep it all here. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:00, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
level-4 vital article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
.jpg?lang=en){kind=small}
.svg?lang=en){kind=small}
The redirect Lutz-Jeanselme syndrome has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 October 19 § Lutz-Jeanselme syndrome until a consensus is reached. —Myceteae🍄🟫(talk) 23:37, 19 October 2025 (UTC)