Talk:Oslo study

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Rjjiii talk 21:38, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that the Oslo study withheld treatment from 2,000 patients with syphilis and influenced the researchers who conducted the Tuskegee Syphilis Study? Source: "In the period 1891 – 1910, about 2,000 people with syphilis were admitted to the dermatology department of the National Hospital. The head of the department, Cæsar Boeck (1845 – 1917), believed that one should wait for the natural course of the disease and refrain from drug treatment. He documented the diagnosis and clinical course in detail in all his patients." - "Bruusgaard's and Gjestland's research was important for the Tuskegee study in the USA. The Oslo study implicitly supported this research project"
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Flower

Created by Skinetchings (talk) and BuySomeApples (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 50 past nominations.

BuySomeApples (talk) 04:34, 11 May 2025 (UTC).

Hi @BuySomeApples: - this is a nice article, and an interesting fact. First of all, I have taken the liberty of moving this article to Oslo study rather than The Oslo Study, which I think makes them comply with WP:THE and WP:NCCAPS. As you'll see from this ngram: , sources generally don't capitalise "The" and more than half don't capitalise "study", which suggests it should be titled without the definite article and in sentence case. If you disagree we can revert and go to a formal RM, but I thought I'd be WP:BOLD on that one.

Anyway, on the substance of the review, I have two thoughts - firstly, I'm not sure where the number "2,000" is referenced. It's mentioned in the lead but I can't see that number in the body. And secondly, I think the hook might benefit from being shorter. Would you be open to removing the last part about it influencing the Tuskegee Syphilis Study and just leaving the withholding treatment part? I also think the latter half of the proposed hook might not be interesting to a broad audience, given that most people won't know what the Tuskegee Syhpilis Study is. So I'm proposing:

• ALT1: that the Oslo study withheld treatment from 2,000 patients with syphilis?

Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 22:09, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Thank you @Amakuru:! I added the 2,000 patients figure to the article with a ref. I like ALT1 and agree with the rename. BuySomeApples (talk) 03:37, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

OK that looks great, thanks BuySomeApples and Skinetchings. Approving ALT1.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:20, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Gjestland

'He had the intention of determining the affect of untreated early-stage syphilis on mortality, and the impact of late stage syphilis. Gjestland published his findings as a thesis in 1955.'

Well, what were his findings? It is strange that the article says what he wanted to find out, but not what he actually did find out, even more so as the conclusions of the earlier studies are given in the preceding paragraphs. 62.73.72.3 (talk) 07:10, 26 May 2025 (UTC)