Talk:Holmesburg Prison

• ... that the ‘’ Holmesburg Prison was the site of human clinical trials in the 1900s.

5x expanded by Amohan12 (talk). Self-nominated at 14:33, 21 April 2017 (UTC).Reply

  This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Acewind88, Amohan12, Adwowk1. Peer reviewers: Ccoope52, Krahaman1.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 23:46, 16 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

This appears to be a significant work in progress with the ability to be notable, why don't we leave it alone for a bit and see what the author (and others) come up with. I would like to see some more claims to notability, but lets not delete it right off the bat. Frmatt (talk) 08:36, 9 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Based on my review of CSD guidelines, notability is a non-criteria (it does not by itself qualify for CSD flagging). Also I clearly stated and sourced two notable aspects of this entry, and feel that any 19th century prison still standing in a major US city is notable as a historic building if nothing else. Please remove the flag so I may continue with the article. Thank you! RBHendrick (talk) 09:08, 9 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Wrong, that didn't allow anything, money or not doesn't matter, doesn't increase any quality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lyhendy (talk • contribs) 04:51, 21 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hi! I'm planning on adding information about the Holmesburg Prison skin experiments to this article for a class I'm taking called History of Modern Medicine. I was thinking of writing sections on the origins of the experiments, details/procedures of the experiments themselves, the post-experiment controversy over using human subjects in the ways they did, and results of the experiments (such as creation of the acne cream called Retin-A). Does anyone have any comments, tips, or suggestions? Thanks! Acewind88 (talk) 17:51, 7 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I really enjoyed reading the edits you made to the article! Overall, you did a great job of adding information on the background of the experiments done at this prison. My recommendations would definitely be watching and formatting the longer quotations on this page. It may be useful to make a few of the longer quotes into block quotes since some could go on for a few lines. Overall, really enjoyed the content and it's great to see what you have done to the article.Krahaman1 (talk) 03:42, 4 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hi! I found the additional information that you added to be very thorough, presenting the reader with a wide variety of experiments that were conducted. I'm glad that there was a division established between trials at the prisons and experiments conducted. The context was also presented well, using the Nuremberg code and the plethora of ethical questions that arose from both the trials and experiments. Really enjoyed this article! Ccoope52 (talk) 19:39, 4 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hey, I thought this was an interesting, I also wrote an article on the Holmesburg Prison experiments. You've added most of the information, maybe add a detailed list of all of the experiments which happened which are also listed in "Acres of Skin". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adwowk1 (talk • contribs) 14:13, 4 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

This article is citing a 1998 book which is not available in Google Preview. However, a 2013 edition is available for anyone who wishes to check for page numbers. Yoninah (talk) 02:30, 17 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

After reading through this article, I noted some factual inconsistencies in the "types of experiments" section. In particular, the sentence "Studies infecting prisoners with long ultraviolet rays and different species of bacteria, such as candida albicans. (1965-1971)" does not make any sense - Candida albicans is a yeast, not a bacteria. Additionally, it is not possible to "infect" with light rays - that would be termed radiation. I do not have access to the linked reference, and will therefore refrain from editing; however, someone with access to it should correct the wikipedia entry. Thank you. Aarnoman (talk) 16:01, 29 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Cullen328: I have made substantial edits to the article in the hope of removing the template. Would you please look it over and provide me some more suggestions. I am sure that I missed quite a bit. I was thinking of adding a section on famous inmates for instance the bank robber Willie Sutton escaped from Holmesburg with a ladder.Oldperson (talk) 02:07, 2 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

Oldperson, there is an unreferenced section that begins: "Although Holmesburg has a horrific history, it remained a model of excellence to the correctional staff who worked there in its latter years, right before its closing. It was there that the department began moving towards modern correctional practices that featured reentry and positive developmental and educational programs." That is a pretty extraordinary claim that might hypothetically be true but it cannot possibly remain in the article, in my view, without a citation to a reliable source. I see many similar problems with the article. Why would we want to remove the tag from the article when glaring shortcomings remain? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:40, 2 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

Cullen328 I've got plenty of time, I am using this as a training exercise, especially since there is no personal investment,except attempts to clean it up. I'll see what I can do about finding citations, but the medical experimentation stuff is beyond my ken.Oldperson (talk) 02:45, 2 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

As for Willie Sutton, if he actually escaped from this prison, then that deserves to be mentioned. Referenced, of course, to a reliable source that is not WillieSutton.com. Joke. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:49, 2 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

David Biddulph Given that I respect you and your skills, I do not want to revert your edits. I noticed that you changed the spelling of Trustees to trusties, is that an English (Brit) thing? Here in America a prisoner endowed with trust by the warden is called a trustee and plural would be trustees. Trustee also has other uses. I am assuming that the plural of trustee is trustees, it might not be because the plural of cannon is cannon. Might I revert your edit without prejudice? https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=trusteeOldperson (talk) 16:21, 2 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

Cullen328 On one of your edits you changed "is" to"was" as regards the location of the facility. The physical building (facility) is still located on Torresdale Ave, but it no longer functions as a prison. To my mind using the word "was" is stating that the facility itself was demolished. "Nearby" Camp Happy which was located at Linden Ave and Torresdale Ave. It closed in 1951 and the area is now the site of a Freeway on/off ramp and the Torresdale Boys Club and athletic field. Still working on the article. Tempted to move the medical experiment stuff to Acres of Skin but thought better of it.Oldperson (talk) 16:36, 2 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Oldperson: I don't think that the use of the term "trusty" in the prison usage is a particularly British thing. Trusty system (prison) is written very much from an American point of view, as is (for example) the first external link in that article (http://www.capitalcentury.com/1930.html). One of the references from the Trustee article is http://grammarguide.copydesk.org/2008/06/28/word-usage-trustee-and-trusty/, which talks (again in an American context) of the confusion between the two similar words. --David Biddulph (talk) 17:22, 2 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

@David Biddulph:Truth is I am more confused than ever. All of my reading life, I'm 80 now, I have seen in print the use of the word trustee as it applies to trusted prisoners. Never trusty. I just word searched trusty and indeed it is a noun for a trusted prisoner, so your usage of it is correct, apparently trustees is also correct.I have never in my whole life seen the word Trusty or plural Trusties used as nouns. I would imagine that the majority of readers would also be familiar with the term trustees and feel that trusties is incorrect. But thanks for the education. I saved some heartburn by asking first instead of reverting.Oldperson (talk) 17:32, 2 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

The following has been accomplished. There might be some minor oversight.

• This article may require copy editing for grammar, style, cohesion, tone, or spelling. (June 2019)  Done
• This article needs additional citations for verification. (June 2019)  Done
• This article contains content that is written like an advertisement. (June 2019)  DoneNot anymore is it an advert.Oldperson (talk) 21:30, 2 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

The article still needs citations in several places. I removed the other two tags. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:25, 2 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

  This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 18 January 2022 and 6 May 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): CaitlinEder, Meganmariat (article contribs).

"Richard P. Strong at Harvard University went as far as to say that TCDD was the most toxic and most carcinogenic compound known to man."

• ref:Journal of Zoophily 16 (1907): 94
  • the reference is from:
    • Hornblum, Allen M. (13 May 2013). "Three". Acres of Skin: Human Experiments at Holmesburg Prison. Routledge. ISBN 978-1-134-00165-1. In 1906, Dr. Richard P. Strong, an American who was the director of the Biological Laboratory of the Philippine Bureau of Science, performed a series of experiments with the cholera virus upon the inmates of the Bilibid prison in Manila.
  • dioxins post-1962:
    • Institute of Medicine (US) Committee to Review the Health Effects in Vietnam Veterans of Exposure to Herbicides. Veterans and Agent Orange: Health Effects of Herbicides Used in Vietnam. Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US); 1994. 2, History of the Controversy Over the Use of Herbicides. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK236351/

0mtwb9gd5wx (talk) 12:45, 21 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

I see you have removed the statement and citation; good move, this citation was clearly bogus. BTW, the statement and cite were added in this large 2017 edit, which started the prison experiments section. Probably much of that material continues in the article today. It might be worth it to check other parts of that addition to see if there are other falsehoods which were added and have survived to the present. --R. S. Shaw (talk) 06:21, 22 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

The intro to this article implies that the Nuremburg code was created in part because of the Tuskegee syphilis experiments. Tuskegee was not public knowledge at the time Nuremburg was drafted and wasn't ended until 1972. 70.245.42.45 (talk) 15:23, 14 February 2024 (UTC)Reply