Talk:Henrietta Lacks/Archive 1

Archive 1

older entries

Note to self (or anyone else having the time to incorporate it): the cell line is regarded as a new species, called Helacyton Gartleri. [1] [2] arj 15:51, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

If anyone does add this, be careful with the uppercase: it seems to be Helacyton gartleri, or at least that s what google has, and what s on the HeLa cell article. PaulDehaye 10:13, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That's standard binomial name form: Genus species. --FOo 07:24, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Change devolution to evolution. There is no such thing as devolution. See: devolution

Helacyton gartleri

Helacyton gartleri is thought of by some an example of the creation of a new species. The cells were transformed by infection with HPV and are replicating without the hayflick limit of most eucaryotic animal cells. They have a different chromosome number from human cells, and are genetically stable, but still evolving. The same could be said for other immortal cell lines that are chromosomally stable, and no longer have the same number of chromosomes of humans. Another example may be the infectious cancer cells found in Tasmanian devil that can be transmitted through bites. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 21:41, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Date of Birth?

The article says "August 18, 1920". The box below the picture says "October 20, 1911". --Robert Stevens 16:13, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

The article still says August 18, 1920 (which appears to be the most common date given elsewhere on the web, but that may be an echo of this article) -- but the box now says August 8, 1920. I'm going to unify as the 18th with a (?). Gojomo (talk) 22:08, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Date of death?

Along the same lines of the previous post, has anyone else noticed that the approximate date of the picture is 1945-50, but her date of death is 1940? I'd fix it, but not sure what exactly to fix it to....Banpei 00:59, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Children?

Same lines again -the article says she had 5 children, but only four names are given in the box below the picture

I would also like to add that the article stats "Eliza died giving birth to her tenth child in 1924", but later on in the article is states that she only had 5 children and died from a medical condition which was believed to be cervical cancer (in stark contrast to the original claim of death by child-birth). So which is correct? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.74.129.241 (talk) 21:26, August 24, 2007 (UTC) Eliza was the mother of Henrietta Lacks. Eliza died giving birth, and Eliza had ten children, not Henrietta. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.56.204.237 (talk) 04:59, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Tumorigenesis is not (ever) an evolutionary process?

As of July 20, 2007, this article recites in part, “With near unanimity, evolutionary scientists and biologists hold that a chimeric human cell line is not a distinct species, and that tumorigenesis is not an evolutionary process.” However, I could not find support for this assertion in the cited reference. Moreover, the assertion of this sentence seems to be contradicted by the hypothesized origins of at least two transmissible cancers:

• Devil facial tumor disease (DFTD) is a transmittable parasitic cancer of the Tasmanian Devil, first described in the scientific literature in 1995; and
• Canine transmissible venereal tumor (CTVT) is a sexually transmitted cancer among dogs, of which a single malignant clone of CTVT cells has colonized infected dogs worldwide—it represents the oldest known malignant cell line in continuous propagation.

For this reason, I am rewriting this sentence to omit the assertion that tumorigenesis is not regarded as an evolutionary process. --Ryanaxp 21:32, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Neither of the specified theories calls anything an "evolutionary process". - Nunh-huh 02:28, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Nonetheless, the above-noted sentence still finds no support in its original form, either. Further to this, while I also agree that "evolutionary process" is a poor descriptor, still, it seems that at least some somatic tumors may have in fact given rise to the parasitic cancers, DFTD and CTVT—i.e., tumorigenesis did lead at least to "speciation," which falls within the realm of an "evolutionary process" (no original research, yadda yadda yadda, notwithstanding). --Ryanaxp 15:31, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

While the material on the above diseases might not have included the specific phrase "evolutionary process," I think it seems obvious that infectious agents like these are under the same evolutionary pressures as any other. I think if you can imagine rabies is subject to the pressures of natural selection, then these must be too. They aren't magically exempt because they came from malignant tumors.

However, if you need to see the exact words in your source, then I'd refer you to the source provided for the April 11, 2008 edit by 168.7.245.220. The section in the book is entitled "Cancer as a Microevolutionary process" (and includes the subsection "Tumor Progression Involves Successive Rounds of Mutation and Natural Selection"). And this is in Molecular Biology of the Cell by Alberts et. al, one of the most widely used (and thus scientifically accepted) cell biology textbooks. Based on such definitive statements from such a reliable source, I'm removing the statement again.Qwerty0 (talk) 13:22, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that source has nothing to do with "Helacyton gartleri":it discusses cancer in general. If one uses it to "prove" that "Helacyton gartleri" is a species, one may also use it to "prove" that lung cancer is a species. In short, it doesn't say what the person who cited it thought it did. It simply makes the unremarkable claim that cancer cells compete. - Nunh-huh 23:50, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Biography?

This article no longer seems to be a biography but a tribute. The HeLa and Legacy sections now comprise the majority of this article's bulk which should not be the case: HeLa has its own article and the Legacy should be a quick summary of official or widely recognized honors. We do not really need to explain the reasoning for such honors because they are often verbose and, all too often, revisionist. In particular, to suggest that Lacks or her family made sacrifices or contributions to science is being nice but not honest and certainly not NPOV. What a biography is supposed to be is about the person's life. Another article with the same kinds of issues is the Terri Schiavo article: a "notable patient" whose importance was not recognized until after the onset of her brain damage. Maybe an RFC that includes those two and Rosalind Franklin would be good approach because Franklin also suffers from being a significant contributor to science who died too young, as compared to say, Marie Curie. An aid to achieving genuine NPOV is to state "just the facts" of what these people did and drain away the emotion that impels us to want make martyrs of them. We really need some guidelines about balance between NPOV fact and uniformity between these and other biographies.

The HeLa section does not have to establish the importance of HeLa, it should be restricted only to how it related to Lacks. Contrasting "mortality vs. immortality" is trite; it should only deal with how there was

• No permission or knowledge, which was and is legal
• How Lacks' name was released

In the current version, we are told about five time about how quickly the cells grow. That is repetitive: we only need to be told that it grew quickly in her and it grows quickly in the petri dish. How is the "(anthropomorphic) phrases increased in the narratives" a fact? It is just an insinuation of soft racism and sexism.--Tonycointoss 23:39, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

It is important to remember that a biography is about a person. The HeLa cultures are not the person of Lacks, even if they eventually lead to clones of her. From the moment the tumor/samples are removed, they cease to be an important part of the biography.--75.37.14.196 (talk) 10:09, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Cleanup Tag

Refers specifically to the sections "Early Life" and "Later Life." The paragraph structure is very confusing. Additionally, the part about John marrying a thirteen-year-old seems somewhat irrelevant. --aciel 20:09, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. She was infected at an early age with HPV, syphilis (which caused her second child's retardation) and gonorrhea. Her partner was also a first cousin, engaging in behavior that would be classified as incest or pedophilia today. --User:jenthr4 Aug 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.40.163.187 (talk) 19:52, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

This article needs to be greatly improved to meet current standards for GA. It needs to be copy-edited for prose. The references need to be in one consistent style. Some information, as noted above, is unnecessary. Please consider making these changes. I may help in the coming days, but I'd prefer to not be the only one working on it. Lara❤Love 15:24, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

African-American?

Is she an African-American? If so, I think it should be stated clearly in the article. sentausa (talk) 03:14, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I think there was a wave of removing ethnic tags on people a while ago. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:16, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

But if it's not stated clearly, Hannah Landecker's discussions will be confusing. So, is she an African-American or not? I still don't know for sure. sentausa (talk) 03:52, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

She was black. She died in a segregated hospital ward for blacks. Like most American blacks, the question is more interesting than "black-or-white". See <http://www.citypaper.com/news/story.asp?id=3426> - Nunh-huh 03:55, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Essay

I have moved the following essay from the biography. It is a hybrid of information on the cell line and on her, and doesn't fit in cleanly with the chronological order in her biography. It has the style of a personal stand alone essay. Any suggestions? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:52, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

HeLa's immortality and Lacks' mortality

{{Cleanup|date=November 2007}} The HeLa cells or cell line is immortal. Today, HeLa cells are commonly used in research laboratories as a model for human cells. Since HeLa was cultivated to live outside the human body, this cell line has since been used in thousands of experiments, contributing to the understanding of disease processes. In the past HeLa was used in Jonas Salk's development of the polio vaccine.

Mrs. Lacks was the human source of HeLa cell line and of this cell line's name. The word "HeLa" was devised by Gey by using the first two letters of Lacks' first and last names to keep her real name a secret. This worked for a while, leading some to think the human source of HeLa was "Harriet Lane", "Helen Lane", and others.

Various accounts on HeLa and Mrs. Henrietta Lacks differ over why and how she died, over whether or not (1) her cancer was metastasizing at an abnormal rate, faster than any other cancer; (2) whether she or her her husband were asked about the cultivation of her cells, or the future use of them; (3) over how her husband and her children were treated by physicians, researchers, scientists and science writers after her death, especially when the family members, now all past the age of twenty, were told that a sample of the cells could be studied to isolate genetic factors and to prevent cancer deaths in future generations; and (4) when her husband and her children actually learned about HeLa and the research using HeLa, and related issues involving the family's loss of privacy and anonymity.

When it came to informing Lacks or her husband (three of her five children were under the age of five years old) of the potential use of the cells, then as now there was no necessity to inform or ask for consent from a patient or relatives because discarded material, or material obtained during surgery, diagnosis or therapy, was and is the property of the physician or medical institution. Years later, this was the decision of the Supreme Court of California in the case of John Moore vs. the Regents of the University of California. The court ruled that a person's discarded tissue and cells are not his or her property and can be commercialized without permission or recompense.

In the 1971 article cited above, it was reported that Mrs. Lacks was misdiagnosed with the slower-metastasizing epidermoid carcinoma, when in reality she had adenocarcinoma, a fast-metastasizing cancer. The article reported on this discovery, how they discovered this misdiagnosis, and stated further that researchers may in the future discover what Gey had thought he discovered nearly twenty years. Some articles say that the HeLa cell line was originally cultured due to its tremendous proliferation rate, abnormally rapid even compared to other cancer cells. It is stated that it was this remarkably speedy proliferation which sealed Henrietta Lacks' fate. This misdiagnosis, it is said, would not have affected her chances of survival by the oncological standards of the day, her cancer being so fast-moving.. Other authors point to a general inattention to the report of a misdiagnosis.

According to anthropologist Hannah Landecker in Culturing Life: How Cells Became Technologies (2007), in "Between Beneficence and Chattel: The Human Biological in Law and Science" in Science in Context (1999), and in a chapter of Biotechnology and Culture: Bodies, Anxieties, Ethics (2000), narratives on Mrs. Lacks and HeLa have changed over time. In the earlier 1950's narratives, Lacks was portrayed as the "angelic", "beneficent", "heroic" and "self-sacrificing" donor of HeLa, which was considered to be a "standard" or a "universal", and Mrs. Lacks was "assumed to be white". (2000,64)

After 1966, argues Landecker, when it was found that HeLa was contaminating other cell lines (2007, 171), and after her gender and race were also confirmed, the following adjectives, nouns, and phrases increased in the narratives: "voracious","vigorous", "aggressive", "malicious", "male-volent", "malignant", "surreptitious", "indefatigable", "renegade", "catastropic", "luxuriant", "undeflatable", "contaminating", "promiscuity", "wild proliferative tendencies," "colorful laboratory life", and even "a monster among the Pyrex". Some wrote about "world domination by HeLa" or about "HeLa taking over the world." Landecker, in addition, writes about narratives that "took on a racial grammar of miscegenation and heredity pollution" and that depicted HeLa cells as "racialized threats to scientific order".

In the 1980s and 1990s, according to Landecker, economic and monetary considerations began to be stressed, and there was a focus on "economic injustice", "economic exploitation", economic value, and "economic power and privilege". In the last instance, the poverty or educational levels of those at Johns Hopkins or such institutions is contrasted to the wealth, or educational level of the members of the Lacks' family. Three conventions, however, persist in these narratives: inclinations (1) to emphasize HeLa's immortality; (2), to "obscure" (2007, 171) and "mask" (2007,64) Lacks' death or misdiagnosis; and (3), to use her photographs, "as was the case" with the tissue from a biopsy as well, "without any indication that permission was sought or given for its use, either from Lacks or her family". (2000, fn 61,264).

Landecker states that "Although it is difficult to say whether an accurate diagnosis of adenocarcinoma would have helped in Lack's treatment", what was evident to her was a "total absence of questioning of the circumstances and adequacy of her medical treatment --- even with the clearly stated admission of misdiagnostic error published in 1971" among scientists and journalists. To Landecker this "absence of questioning ... indicates the power of the concepts of immortality produced by the life of these cells." The "death of a person who was Henrietta Lacks has been obscured by the personification of her cells as an immortal entity".(2000,55)

The identification of HeLa has not just revealed the death of a specific human being, it has also focussed attention on the interactions between this and other American families with science writers and the media in general; with researchers, whether those in the social and natural sciences or the humanities; with scientists, including social scientists and government officials, including the military. Questions have also been raised regarding the education of Americans vis-a-vis the storage and use of human genetic material, including research and legislation issues. Public education on the subject has been recommended, but no measures have been implemented.

The problem as outlined by Landecker can be viewed as part of a larger issue identified by science writer Michael Gold that has yet to be addressed. Neither Henrietta Lacks nor HeLa is the main subject of Gold's Conspiracy of Cells: One Woman's Immortal Legacy and the Medical Scandal It Caused. He focuses most of his attention on Nelson Rees and his many, and probably career-ending, efforts to identify the contamination, which was occurring in the best medical and research institutions in the USA and abroad, and in the laboratories of the best physicians, scientists, and researchers, including Jonas Salk, as a problem that he named HeLa. He did not, however, mention an occurrence of a HeLa contamination problem in the laboratories run by either Rees himself or by Gey and his wife, nurse Margaret Gey. Gold states that this problem almost led to a cold war incident. Gold's concern was how much time, money and energy had been wasted in the war against cancer, not so much because of a HeLa contamination problem, but because of a problem he and others called "HeLa".

In his epilogue, Gold writes about the contamination problem: "There is more to the problem than a tenacious and hardy cell culture.... HeLa cells persist because they have always been helped along by a certain human element in science, an element connected to emotions, egos, a reluctance to admit mistakes...." Gold continues, "It's all human - an unwillingness to throw away hours and hours of what was thought to be good research...worries about jeopardizing another grant that's being applied for, the hurrying to come out with a paper first. And it isn't limited to biology and cancer research. Scientists in many endeavors all make mistakes, and they all have the same problems".

Gold ends his book with the following statement of a virologist who discovered another contamination problem: "A 'HeLa' ... is a scientific claim that sucks people into a line of work for a while, a line that is later refuted or shown to be a waste of time. It's a type of error in science that occurs fairly often. And it will continue to exist". Rather than recognize or focus on the problem of HeLa and on how to resolve it, many scientists, researchers and science writers continue to document this problem as a contamination problem, or as a problem caused by the hardiness, tenacity, proliferating or overpowering nature or other characteristic of HeLa, the cell line created by Gey, discovered by Mary Kubicek, a laboratory assistant, and named in this laboratory run by his nurse wife after this husband and wife team had engaged in almost two decades of research.

Other authors continue to focus on the issues surrounding the widespread HeLa contamination of cell lines used in research from the 1950s through at least the early 1980s as the major problem of HeLa in science. Recent data suggest that cross contaminations are still a major ongoing problem with modern cell cultures.

Author Rebecca Skloot has completed the first full length book focusing on the story of Henrietta Lacks and her family, which is being published by Crown Publishers.

Uniqueness of cells

It suggests at the end of the article that Lack's cells were unique in remaining alive. Shouldn't this be given greater relevance, or at least included much earlier in the text? Otherwise the reader is left wondering why this particular woman's cells were chosen.--86.14.45.250 (talk) 15:25, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I removed that section, since the idea that HeLa cells represent some kind of new species seems to be regarded as somewhat silly by the scientific community at large; a nearly identical section remains in the HeLa article, however. Ms. Lacks is notable with regard to the degree to which her cells were used in cancer research, but cells have been cultured from hundreds or thousands of tumors from dozens of species. The primary reason for her cells being so commonly used, as far as I can tell, is most likely that HeLa cells were one of the first established cell lines. Also, I can tell you from my own experience that HeLa cells grow very quickly, which can be very useful when you're working on a schedule. – ClockworkSoul 22:10, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

This still creeps back in the article. The HeLa cell line WERE unique, then. The immortal property of the cells is because they are cancer tells. Telomerare is not the only answer but a huge part. It's no mystery. And no, HeLa cells are not the only cells where the telomeres don't get shorter with each cell division. It's a common cancer mechanism which I assume every med student learns about. I'll try to remove some of the weird things. --Siden (talk) 18:32, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Helacyton gartleri

Hello, all. I hope I didn't step on any toes by removing the section about Leigh Van Valen's HeLa speciation proposal. Although my original thinking was that the assertion isn't notable because it isn't widely accepted by the scientific community, this is thoroughly negated by the fact that the article is widely cited as a counter to creationist arguments.

Organizationally, though, the mention is a bit out of place here, since this is a bio article about Ms. Lacks, and not her cells. Those have their own article, in which Dr. Van Valen's idea is already thoroughly described, rendering the mention here not only out of place, but redundant.

I would be very interested to read the article in its entirely. Would anybody happen to have an electronic copy of it available? I've been unable to track it down, and I fear that the journal may no longer be in print. – ClockworkSoul 12:07, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with your arguments, and have removed the section again. Let's hope it's not re-added again—as it was—without further discussion. - Nunh-huh 22:40, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

In order to uphold the quality of Wikipedia:Good articles, all articles listed as Good articles are being reviewed against the GA criteria as part of the GA project quality task force. While all the hard work that has gone into this article is appreciated, unfortunately, as of May 13, 2009, this article fails to satisfy the criteria, as detailed below. For that reason, the article has been delisted from WP:GA. However, if improvements are made bringing the article up to standards, the article may be nominated at WP:GAN. If you feel this decision has been made in error, you may seek remediation at WP:GAR.

Article has a few issues:

• The lead does not adequatly summarize the article.
• The article is missing inline citations, especially the Legacy section.
• The "Early life" section seems more about her family background then her early life.
• She was treated but died on October 4, 1951 at the age of thirty-one.

Needs elaboration.

• Wheras "Legacy" talks about the application of her cancerous tumor, it is never mentioned in the sections describing her life.
• File:Henrietta Lacks (1920-1951).jpg needs a fair-use tag for the article.

ResMar 17:15, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

By all means delist the article if you want, but I do find some of your criticisms unfathomable, particularly "Wher(e)as "Legacy" talks about the application of her cancerous tumor, it is never mentioned in the sections describing her life." Would you care to be specific? Do you want the posthumous uses of her tissue discussed as if they were part of her life? I also think you are wrong in your assessment of the early life section; naming the subject's parents and mentioning the death of the subject's mother when she was four certainly seems to me to fit the heading. - Nunh-huh 17:33, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Defense

You have a point, but my issue stands. The article should breifly (1 to 2 lines) describe the cell line before going on about her legacy connected to that. Yes, I understand this has come under attack before, but you can't just start a section refering to something that was mentioned breifly in the openning. I recommend placing them at the very beggining of the Legacy section.

The Early life section is not actually about her early life. It would be more fittingly retitled "Family background." The section doesn't mention anything about her, just her parents. For example:What school did she go to? What was her childhood like? What kind of an environment did she grow up in? etc. etc. ResMar

In addition, several more, minor issues:

• ...which were cultured by George Otto Gey to create an immortal cell line for medical research.

What do you mean by "immortal?" Resolved my me. ResMar 00:08, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

• The couple had five children: Deborah Lacks (born 1948), who married a Pullum; David Lacks II; Lawrence Lacks; Zakariyya Lacks; and another daughter.

Shouldn't you give the name of "another daughter"?

• On February 1, 1951, just days after a march for a cure for polio in New York City, according to Michael Rogers of the Detroit Free Press and Rolling Stone Magazine, Henrietta Lacks visited Johns Hopkins Hospital because of a vaginal discharge.

"according to Michael Rogers of the Detroit Free Press and Rolling Stone Magazine" should be removed or otherwise modified because it disrupts the flow of the text and is irrelevant to the article. ResMar 18:25, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

• There is information here about how her family didn't even know about the cells until many years later. This is an important aspect of the story that the article misses.ResMar 19:28, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

"Immortal" means "able to divide indefinitely". It's a dictionary definition; insert it if you think it's needed.

Sources and attributions are not irrelevant.

As for the other objections, feel free to delist the article. - Nunh-huh 18:38, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Linked "immortal to Biological immortality. I disagree about the mags. Why are you so eager to close this? Either way, you are not the one who originally sent it to GAN; Richard Arthur Norton is. I will not close this until either he has given his consent, all of the issues are fixed, or the 7-day period expires. ResMar 18:50, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

You miss my point; I don't care what you do; using GA status as a cudgel for getting your desired changes implemented is a distasteful enterprise. And, please: if you're going to present your editorial preferences as ultimata, get the spelling correct: it's "consent", "death", "whereas" , "briefly", and "adequately". Fairly or not, your frequent misspellings do tend to diminish other's opinions of your editorial judgement. - Nunh-huh 18:58, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

First of all, let me say that you're really starting to piss me off. I run IE&, not Firefox. Secondly, have you ever heard of this? You know, the reason I'm here? ResMar 19:21, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I am fully aware of what you're doing here. What does that have to do with Internet Explorer (presumably you meant Internet Explorer 7, not IE&) or Firefox??? Or your "pissed-offness"? Your opinions are your own; if the price of disagreeing with them is "demotion" from GA, such is life. - Nunh-huh 20:08, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

You have a point; so be it. ResMar 20:05, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Failed

User has been active lately, but has yet to respond to the GAR after five days. Sorry, but I'm failing this article. ResMar 22:26, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

About time. The idea that a user who has nominated an article for GA somehow "owns" it in perpetuity goes against the basic principles of Wikipedia. - Nunh-huh 22:52, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Question about bizarre tone of this article

Before I change them, I will at least ask if there is a reason for such terms as "involuntary donor" and "sacrifice". Would it not be more accurate to describe her as the host or victim of a cancerous tumor, which after removal was the source of cells that were cultured and became the first immortal human cell line? The purpose of the surgery was to save her life from the cancer. For centuries, tissue removed during surgery, if not simply incinerated or stored in preservative after pathology exam, has often been used for medical research. In the last couple of decades there has been a cultural shift by doctors toward asking patients for permission to use removed tissue for research, as well as some increasing awareness of the profit potential for products derived from human tissue or genes, but this was not the practice at the time nor a concern. Whoever wrote the lead section makes it sound like she was cheated out of something or that the tumor was removed against her will ("involuntary"). In what way was this use of her cancer cells a "sacrifice" by her and her family? This reads like a fairly naive attempt to anachronistically scold her doctors for not following a custom of 2 generations later, but out of respect for the editors who put the effort into writing the article, I will wait a bit for explanation in case there are angles here I do not understand. alteripse (talk) 17:25, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I think your analysis is pretty accurate.... the intent seems to be to depict her as exploited. And I think you're right that that is anachronistic and should be corrected. The wording for the Morehouse commendation should be used, if possible to describe what she was commended for, if anyone can obtain the original language: it's possible it used the word "sacrifices" even though it doesn't particularly obtain. - Nunh-huh 19:40, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

By all means delist the article if you want, but I do find some of your criticisms unfathomable, particularly "Wher(e)as "Legacy" talks about the application of her cancerous tumor, it is never mentioned in the sections describing her life." Would you care to be specific? Do you want the posthumous uses of her tissue discussed as if they were part of her life? I also think you are wrong in your assessment of the early life section; naming the subject's parents and mentioning the death of the subject's mother when she was four certainly seems to me to fit the heading. - Nunh-huh 17:33, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Gap in chronology

The article explains that Henrietta Lacks had a cancer, then she died, and a scientist used some of her tumor cells for polio research.

But how did that come about? Why was Mrs Lacks cancer cells chosen? Or for that matter, deemed acceptable? Were they extracted pre-death or post mortem? Was there consent on the part of the patient?

Then the article jumps ahead to the present day and what they are now used for in medical research. The End!

It's a huge jump. It's akin to being told Enzo Ferrari had a garage. He built racing cars. His sport car business is now one of the best in the world.

The point to what contribution Mrs Lacks was a concious donor, is the key point in the story, and it's completely missing from the story. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.130.135.125 (talk) 12:54, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

No, she was not approached for specific consent, and so she gave none. She did sign a consent for "any operative procedure" deemed necessary for treatment. Henrietta Lacks was diagnosed with cervical cancer by performing a biopsy. She was told the results on 5 February 1951 (she was in fact misdiagnosed), and she went in for treatment the next day. She was treated with radium: the procedure was to take the patient to an operating room, administer a general anaesthetic, dilate the cervix, insert a tube filled with radium into the cervix, and sew it in place. However, Dr. Richard Wesley TeLinde, who was studying the relationship between carcinoma in situ and invasive carcinoma - uncertain at that time - had asked that tissue specimens be collected from all women undergoing treatment for cervical carcinoma at Johns Hopkins Hospital. The tissue was given to Dr. George Gey, who was working on developing immortal human cell lines. Henrietta died eight months later on 4 October 1951. As far as can be determined, Gey and Lacks never met, and Henrietta died without knowing anything about her tissue being grown in a lab. Her name was first published as the origin of the cells in 1971. The first time Henrietta's family found out her cells had been used was in 1973. - Nunh-huh 05:22, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Testing against cancer cells

My question as a layperson-after reading the "Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks" is the testing of other viruses, cosmetics, space changes--on abnormally growing cancer cells. Seems to me one would want healthy cell lines for research.66.129.59.55 (talk) 17:33, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

That's a great question, and one that we scientists discuss quite a bit. There are a number of reasons why immortalized cells (including cancerous cells) are used over non-cancerous ones. Sometimes whatever is being studied isn't much affected by whether the cells are immortalized (the investigators might have to convince any reviewers of that though). Often though, researchers use immortalized cells as a first step before moving on to non-cancerous cells (called "primary cells", since they usually have to be taken from a living source). Primary cells are much more complicated to work with for a number of reasons. They're usually harder to grow and generally divide only a few times before becoming senescent, so they have to be obtained regularly. Also, there are a number of ethical and legal issues associated with harvesting primary cells, especially human ones. Hope that helps. – ClockworkSoul 21:52, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

G6PDH

Some years ago when i was working in a medical research lab i needed to look for a 'marker' which indicated the origin of the DNA being expressed by a hybrid cell. I was 'making hybrid calls' by injecting HeLa (Henrietta Lack's) DNA into Physarum polycephalum. The most obvious marker - because it is a 'housekeeping' enzyme possessed by all cells is one which has the name G6PDH (glucose -6-phosphate dehydrogenase, it is an enzyme of glycolysis - a process which nearly all cells have to perform). G6PDHs from different sources vary in size and electrical charge and perform differently when made to migrate through a gel medium in an electric field (a process known as electrophoresis) The amount by which they migrate is characteristic of their origin. As a preliminary experiment to check the technique i prepared G6PDH from my own blood (i am a white European male), HeLa cells and Physarum. When i ran the test i expected to se my G6PDH 'run' at the same 'speed' as Henrietta Lacks' and the physarum test run differently. I was surprised to see that HeLa G6PDH 'ran faster' than my own. I researched the result. G6PDH derived from individuals of West African ancestry commonly exhibits a 'very fast moving subunit' (The G6PDH 'trace' can be double or, more rarely, quadruple.) So HeLa cells retain the indelible trace of Henrietta Lack's African origin. The story of Henrietta Lacks and the fact that her DNA still carries this marker after all this time and the millions of generations and passages of cells causes me to wonder, in bleaker moments, whether she is still kept in slavery. In another register, though, one might say that she still retains her proud and unconquerable heritage. i prefer the second. THANK YOU Mrs Lacks - we should celebrate your contribution!! Wattbob (talk) 11:30, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Fifty years?

Having just read the article, I was confused by one particular sentence in the "Legacy" section:

For their part, members of the Lacks family were kept in the dark about the existence of the tissue line, and when its existence was revealed in a 1976 Rolling Stone article by Michael Rogers, family members were confused about how Henrietta's cells could have been taken without consent and how they could still be alive 50 years after her death.

How in the world do you get 1976 as 50 years after her death? She was born in 1920 and died in 1951, or so the article claims -- 1976 is 25 years after her death. While multiplying by two makes it more dramatic, it does not make it more accurate. --OldManInACoffeeCan (talk) 14:33, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Later Life and Death

The final 5 paragraphs of the Later Life & Death section need more than a bit of work and some, at least in their current form, should disappear.

Starting from the bottom paragraph of the 5 (final paragraph of the section): The discussion of interaction between the black and white branches of the family, the spelling of the name, etc, have no particular relevance to Later Life & Death. The material is 'nice to know' background. Not sure where to place it or how to title it, but this is not where it belongs.

Next up (2nd paragraph from bottom of the section: The listing of cancers and causative factors is also not pertinent to her Later Life & Death. Same comments apply as above, in addition to which the in-line citationing appears contrary to practice.

The next 3 (3rd, 4th, & 5th paragraphs from bottom of the page): All are speculative, unsourced, and make it sound as though every instance of asbestosis, mesothelioma, etc in the US was traceable to Bethlehem Steel and, in particular, to the site at which her husband worked - hardly the case. Irish Melkite (talk) 05:07, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I totally agree. I can't judge the validity of the science, but the 2nd through 5th paragraphs sound like original research to me. I was bold and removed them. The last paragraph makes sense now because it is about the location of her gravesite, Lackstown. Squandermania (talk)

Citation does not support statement in text

In the second to the last paragraph of "Diagnosis and Death" the second sentence reads as follows:

Lacks returned to Hopkins demanding to be admitted on August 8 and remained until her death.[1]

The reference cited, f.n. 1, does not support the above statement. Here is what the source says:

On Aug. 8, shortly after her 31st birthday, she was readmitted to Johns Hopkins for what would be the last time.

Please find a better source for the statement that she returned to Hopkins demanding to be admitted or reword this sentence. Ileanadu (talk) 17:46, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Update - I found the exact language in the article in a book review of Skloot's book at jima.imana.org:

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:4BAKIJkgw1YJ:jima.imana.org/article/download/8609/43-2_10+&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESgSAMidHYJJjFGVF401GM-O_JD6PL52HXlVCb4juTFmzlHtKVMaKOju1HvbP6szyHJItqcCp3CiTmxedRM7IMZlFeacC5yaytd5A4Nnwm7oB2YbJtHqTz7ytyt3VG5zyIkCfjeK&sig=AHIEtbS6HGhbEnrY2Kf8OfptvuJJJH9F-w

But Skloot's book merely says:

"On August 8th, just one week after her thirty-first birthday, Henrietta arrived at Hopkins for her treatment, but this time she said she wanted to stay."

In other words, rather than receive treatment and go home, she wanted to be admitted to the hospital. There's nothing there about demanding. Therefore, I am editing the language in the article. Ileanadu (talk) 17:46, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

youngest or newest

The article describes Turner Station as one of the "youngest" African-American communities. Does this mean the youngest residents? Or does it mean the newest neighborhood? Ego White Tray (talk) 19:21, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Headstone

It is confusing as to who provided the headstone for Henrietta Lacks. Was it Dr. Roland Pattillo, the individual, or the Morehouse School of Medicine, the institution?

First reference: In 2010, however, Dr. Roland Pattillo of the Morehouse School of Medicine donated a headstone for Lacks after reading The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks.[13] The headstone, which is shaped like a book…

The second reads: In May 2010, The Virginian-Pilot published two articles on Lacks, HeLa, and her family,[1][32] which mentions that the Morehouse School of Medicine has donated the money for Henrietta's grave as well as her daughter Elsie, who died in 1955, to finally have headstones. 85.53.130.166 (talk) 19:34, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

African American

An editor using at least two IPs has removed Ms Lacks' race from the article. I have restored it as my understanding of the story makes it very clear that this is a relevant piece of the story. Comments/concerns? - SummerPhD (talk) 13:57, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Is Dr. Gey mentioned too prominently?

The cell culture work of Dr. Gey was certainly important, however I see that he is mentioned (and linked to) twice in this article while the name of the physician who removed Mrs. Lacks' cells was not mentioned specifically once here (though was mentioned in the page for Dr. Gey). My concern is that the way it is written may cause some readers to erroneously conclude that Dr. Gey himself removed the cancerous cells from Mrs. Lacks. It does not appear that the physician has a wikipedia entry yet (although he might not necessarily warrant one) but his name probably should be brought up to make it clear that Dr. Gey did not himself remove the cells from Mrs. Lacks.

I don't know when the previous was added. As of 2014, her John Hopkins physician does have a wikipedia entry, so I added the wikilink.Jweaver28 (talk) 21:26, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that. I wrote the Jones entry and I try to be good about establishing wikilinks, but I missed this obvious one. In regard to the previous question, the reliable sources that I've seen often describe Gey's role in the most detail of any player in this story. EricEnfermero ^HOWDY! 01:58, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Henrietta Lacks. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110417143427/http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8448974573505946013 to https://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8448974573505946013

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

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:41, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Stuff I just removed

FYI I just removed a chunk from the In the media section that was essentially a list of newspaper mentions that didn't elaborate on any substance or why those particular articles were especially noteworthy. IMHO there are enough really important media mentions of Lacks that we don't need to take up space with ones that weren't a big deal. One of the sentences I removed said Lacks was honored by the Smithsonian, but it didn't say that in the source. It was just an article in the Smithsonian Magazine about Lacks with an interview with Skloot. PermStrump(talk) 07:37, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Erroneous names in lead

Before this edit, the parenthetical citation in the first sentence of lead also said, "Henrietta Lacks (1 August 1920 – 4 October 1951;[2] sometimes erroneously called Henrietta Lakes, Helen Lane, or Helen Larson)". I removed the erroneous names (temporarily?) b/c it doesn't conform MOS:INTRO which states that the lead should be a summary of content from the body of the article and there wasn't any explanation about the erroneous names in the body. I think it's worth noting, but I'm not sure where it fits best. I'm pretty sure WP:BOLDTITLE doesn't apply to wrong names, especially ones that aren't the commonly used name for the subject. IMHO, the erroneous names aren't notable enough to warrant mention in the lead anyway, but I wouldn't necessarily argue if someone else wanted to put an explanation about it in the lead (without bolding) after it's added to the body. PermStrump(talk) 16:01, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Kurzgesagt Video

I added the following:

In 2016, a Kurzgesagt video mentioned HeLa cells, raising the question of how much of Henrietta Lacks is still alive in her immortal cells.

And it was reverted by User:Permstrump due to "undue weight". I can hardly understand why it's undue weight, considering that the video was viewed over **3 million** times on Youtube, and the Kurzgesagt channel has 2.7 million subscriptions, making it one of the biggest youtube channels.

Wladston (talk) 02:03, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

References

"Per MOS:POPCULT and WP:INDISCRIMINATE, we don't want to list every piece of media that ever made passing mention of Lacks and this video hardly discusses her. Also, youtube is not considered a reliable source because it's usergenerated. I looked for reliable sources to add as a reference, but the video apparently wasn't noteworthy enough to be mentioned by outside sources. Noteworthiness is the bare minimum criteria for including anything in an article. The number of views on youtube is not an indicator of cultural significance as far as WP's concerned. —PermStrump(talk) 08:32, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Revisions

The statement about Henrietta's family calling Elsie "deaf and dumb" in the Personal Life section is not accurate of the article it was cited from. The article says that "some" call her that and not her family directly. I would change the formatting of this sentence so that it represents the citation better.

The link for uremic poisoning goes to a page about acute kidney injury which is not the same thing. This can be fixed by adjusting the link so that it goes to the uremia definition.

The third paragraph in the Personal Life section needs a reference for all of sentences that talk about Fred Garrett's influence on their life. The citations listed are for the facts about Turner Station, there is nothing about the Lacks family in the citations listed.

MadisonWilson (talk) 12:40, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

References

I would like to make a change to some of the references. References number 11, “Smith, Van (2002-04-17). "Wonder Woman: The Life, Death, and Life After Death of Henrietta Lacks, Unwitting Heroine of Modern Medical Science". Baltimore City Paper. Retrieved 2012-08-19” has been removed from the internet. Because of this, I would like to use a more recent article to replace the lack of support for this information. I would like to use “Zielinski, Sarah. "Henrietta Lacks' 'Immortal' Cells." Smithsonian Magazine. Smithsonian, n.d. Web. 19 Sept. 2016” as a replacement reference. For reference number 13, “Skloot, Rebecca (2010-05-29). "A Historic Day: Henrietta Lacks's Long Unmarked Grave Finally Gets a Headstone – Culture Dish". Scienceblogs.com. Retrieved 2012-12-21.” I want to find another article to support the information presented. I cannot find where the writer found the sources used in the blog post and want to make a change to a supported source. This source, “By Denise M. Watson The Virginian-Pilot© May 30, 2010. "After 60 Years of Anonymity, Henrietta Lacks Has a Headstone." The Virginian-Pilot. N.p., n.d. Web. 19 Sept. 2016.” would be an appropriate replacement for this reference.

Boomerc (talk) 01:54, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

I think that references that existed before Skloot's 2010 book and are independent of her work are important to retain within the timeline of the historical understanding of Henrietta Lack's life, death, & what happened to her cells. I have no idea why Van Smith's important 2002 article has been apparently deleted from The City Paper website. I was able to find an archived copy via the wayback machine (https://archive.org): https://web.archive.org/web/20040814160109/http://www.citypaper.com/news/story.asp?id=3426. The article dates to 2002, and the oldest archived copy I could find is dated 2004. I've replaced the dead link with the webarchive version.

The Denise Watson/Virginia-Pilot reference is fine and is actually already in the article. The reference you want to replace was written by Rebecca Skloot, the author who wrote The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks so perhaps she didn't feel the need to source what she had written a book on... What I find distressing is that the photo of the gravesite wouldn't load for me, so using the "vpbio2" ref to replace it is fine.

I know you're a new editor, you can check the differences to see how I did all that. When you need to do something similar, use what we did to this article as instructions or as a template. (Cut&Paste is your friend!) I've left some tips/instructions on your talk page. Happy Editing! Shearonink (talk) 04:09, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Pattillo

Shearonink: According to this article, Pattillo was the one spearheading the event in 1996 when Lacks was recognized for the first time. The current wording makes it sound like he just picked up after someone else started it.

• Current: In 1996, the Morehouse School of Medicine and the mayor of Atlanta recognized Lacks's family for her posthumous contributions to medicine and health research.[25] Since then, Morehouse faculty member Dr. Roland Pattillo, who had worked with George Gey at Johns Hopkins, continues to bring recognition to Lacks's name by holding annual conferences in her honor.[13][26]
• Previous: In 1996, physician Roland Pattillo with the Morehouse School of Medicine in Atlanta, Georgia, and the mayor of Atlanta recognized Lacks's family for her posthumous contributions to medicine and health research.[25] Since then, Pattillo, who previously worked with George Gey at Johns Hopkins, continues to bring recognition to Lacks's name by holding annual conferences in her honor.[13][26]

—PermStrump(talk) 10:05, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Honestly I'm not fond of the phrasing in either version - they both seem somewhat clunky or inelegant to me. I think that that the institutional sponsoring of the conference by the Mayor & the Morehouse School of Medicine was what I was going for in the Previous version...that it wasn't a one-time event with no institutional muscle behind it. Despite what the Pilot Online article seems to state, to say that Pattillo alone was holding the conferences isn't quite what I am getting at. He spearheaded the conferences but he wasn't doing it all by himself, that's all. Unfortunately the best write-up I can find about the first conference is behind a ScienceDirect paywall -

Pattillo, Roland, A. “Morehouse School of Medicine First Annual Women’s Health Conference: The HeLa Cancer Control Symposium.” American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, June 1997, pp. 2258-2268. here, also the cited reference (Ref 25) has gone bad (so I've removed it from the reader's view). I thought maybe MSM had changed their URLs but I can't find Ref 25's info anywhere on the MSM.edu's website. I am fairly certain the first conference was held at the Martin Luther King Jr Chapel in Atlanta but right now I can't find anything that says the mayor's office was involved. If someone has access to Science Direct/AJOG that would probably be very helpful. I went ahead and changed the phrasing accordingly, maybe this latest version is better. (One note - I thought it would be redundant to mention again that Pattillo had known George Gey since that fact was already stated in the Death and burial section.) Shearonink (talk) 15:41, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Feel free to adjust the wording etc of my latest version...I'm not holding tight to it. Shearonink (talk) 15:59, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Permstrump: Pattillo is the one who introduced Rebecca Skloot to the Lacks family. If he hadn't done those introductions, I doubt that Skloot would have been able to tell the HeLa story. See here and, most importantly, on page 231 of The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks. Shearonink (talk) 20:46, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Oh, ok. I couldn't figure out which source that came from, because it wasn't in the one there. I read the book probably 5 years ago, so I didn't remember he introduced Skloot to the family. His name didn't even sound familiar to me. :) I've also been thinking I must have lent my copy to someone, because I haven't been able to find it to use as a source when I've edited this article in the past. I just now remembered that I bought the ebook, not the real book, so now I have it again. Yay! I can access most things behind paywalls too, so I read the ScienceDirect article you linked. It says his title is/was Symposium Director and some other interesting tidbits about the HeLa cells and their impact on medicine that I'm going to look to see if they might fit in the article. —PermStrump(talk) 23:26, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for finding that other source for the Dundalk Eagle. I finally read that article (it's not even behind a paywall at the original source anymore - http://www.dundalkeagle.com/telling-the-story-in-their-own-words/article_71ced089-50cb-5b10-b091-c68e571ab321.html ...mysteries of the internet age...) Anyway, I read that "in their own words" article and there's nothing in it about Henrietta Lacks. It mentions that there is an organization called "the Henrietta Lacks Legacy Group" but no details about the group etc - just that it exists. And certainly nothing about the Lacks family's stories, keeping "the youngest children out of unsafe living environments following their mother's death" etc. I'm going to remove the ref because it's not really referencing/sourcing/proving anything pertinent to the article at this point. Shearonink (talk) 01:16, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Moved as POV

There is controversy, however, concerning the use of her cells without her permission, particularly since she was an African-American woman, a historically disempowered group in the United States (especially during the 1950s).— Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk • contribs) 16:55, 23 January 2007 (UTC) (UTC)

Confusion on classism versus deliberate misleading.

These two lines seem to be misleading in that the only reason the Lacks family is unaware of HeLa is for racial issues.

Suspicions fueled by racial issues prevalent in the South were compounded by issues of class and education. For their part, members of the Lacks family were kept in the dark about the existence of the tissue line, and when its existence was revealed, family members were confused about how Henrietta's cells could have been taken without consent and how they could still be alive 50 years after her death.

But in the main article of the entry, it is stated that not receiving consent for testing has been a long term medical practice.

Prior to receiving treatment for the tumor, cells from the carcinoma were removed for research purposes without her knowledge or permission, which was standard procedure at that time.

It seems there has been quite a bit of confusion by the family due to lack of understanding than being deliberately lied to.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.249.4.54 (talk • contribs) 16:49, 28 April 2010 (UTC) (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Henrietta Lacks/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Shudde (talk · contribs) 14:06, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

I'll take this. -- Shudde ^talk 14:06, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

I usually just add comments as I read the article. They may or may not be crucial to whether the article meets the GA criteria, but usually I'll need them addressed one way or another. I'll do a source-review at the end. If I find any evidence of close-paraphrasing or copyright violations I usually fail the article immediately rather than giving it an opportunity to be corrected (unless it's very minor); this is just because it indicates there may be more serious problems, and I prefer the article to then be carefully checked before renomination. -- Shudde ^talk 14:10, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Personal life

• It is "Lack's" or "Lacks'" ? A genuine question!
  • I also see "Lacks's" was used later!

Last names that end is an s and possessives...one of the perennial arguments around WP. That particular usage in the article is when the usage is referring to Henrietta as a singular possessive. I am comfortable with most of the usage, have adjusted a few to try to avoid being too repetitious. Even though it might look odd, in my opinion the usage is not incorrect. Shearonink (talk) 17:25, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

• "owned by Lacks' white" -- unclear which "Lack's" is being referred to here, Henrietta or Tommy
• Garrett or Garret -- I see both spellings

The last name is "Lacks". The plural possessive would be Lacks', which is the same as the singular Lacks'

They were cousins and so the familial relationships would be the same, but the sense of the sentence was the article-subject so have adjusted the words.

Garrett is correct. Shearonink (talk) 15:21, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Illness

• I would try and add a laypersons description of "squamous cell carcinoma", for example, "Soon after, Lacks was told that she had a malignant epidermoid carcinoma of the cervix–a form of skin cancer."
• As above, "and actually had an adenocarcinoma of the cervix–which is a quite different form (type?) or cancer."
• Again I would have something for "cell line" -- a small description that can be easily understood by the layperson. Not many people will be familiar with what exactly a cell line is. I understand that people could click on the link, but in this case it is so crucial to understanding Lacks' notability and why we have an article on her. If it was peripheral then sure don't do it, but it's central so I think we should.
• I would just use "Acute kidney injury" instead of "Uremic poisoning" -- again this is just a case of trying to reduce any jargon.

I will have to think about how to do add definitions to the article...will have to construct a notes section and those can get complicated coding-wise.

Looked at both of the references following "uremic poisoning". Even though an autopsy was done, neither ref states what killed her - though, obviously, if she hadn't had the cancer she would't have died then - deleted term "uremic poisoning".Shearonink (talk) 15:21, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

General

• Probably a few cases of overlinking. Eg. World War II, Black people, American Civil War, German
• A few duplicate links, Halifax County, Virginia, Clover, Virginia, George Otto Gey, HeLa, cell line, Morehouse School of Medicine

• I disagree on WWII. People who come to Wikipedia can have a limited knowledge of world history. If you go out on the street and ask 20 random people "What is World War II? Tell me what you know." I would bet a significant number of them wouldn't get the facts at all right. I am comfortable with leaving that linked.
• Agree on black people & have delinked it - African-American is linked and that is enough.
• Disagree on Civil War (which is linked once). Again, I think it is important. besides, in different areas of the world that conflict is called by different names. In the US, it is known as "the Civil War" but also as "The War Between the States", worldwide it is known as "the American Civil War". I am comfortable leaving it linked.
• Have unlinked German. Shearonink (talk) 15:46, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
• Re "duplicate links": Per WP:DUPLINK a link may be repeated in infoboxes & at the first occurrence within the article. Have removed the linkage in "Death & burial". Removed the second occurrence of Halifax County. Re: George Otto Gey - 1st occurrence after lede may be retained, so have retained that second one (in Illness section), have deleted linkage in "Medical and scientific research" section. Have done the same with HeLa, retaining the occurrence in the image caption and in the footnote (again, per WP:DUPLINK). Removed second occurrence of cell line & of Morehouse. Shearonink (talk) 15:46, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

• I used User:Ucucha/duplinks which is a great tool. I highly recommend it. It ignores links from infoboxes and the lead, so once should only see duplicates from the main body. -- Shudde ^talk 16:20, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Will add more soon. -- Shudde ^talk 14:33, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Medical and scientific research

• "at a higher rate " -- than what?

Agreed

• "could be divided multiple times without dying", is this the best language, would "could divide multiple times without dying" better?

Agreed

• What is the "roller-tube technique" and why is it important?

This is too complicated to put into the body of the article. Per my above comment re: a Notes section, creating a Notes section can get complicated and will take some time for me to create. I will combine all the jargon type concerns into a single Notes section when I am finished with the other concerns of this Review.

• Is "the same cell" correct here? Is "identical cells" better?

No, it was actually the same cell that divided and then divided and then...the HeLa cells are duplicates of the original cells, they are clones.

• "was using HeLa cells" --> "used HeLa cells" ?

He was using them when he was developing the polio vaccine, the verb-tense is correct. Shearonink (talk) 17:25, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Ethical issues raised

• I'm not sure if I like this section title, it seems a bit vague ("issues"?). Why not be more specific. Such as "Consent and privacy concerns" or something along those lines?

Agreed. Changed section title.

• Could you be more specific regarding the commercialisation of the cells? In what way were they commercialized?

Agreed. Added refs, adjusted wording.

• Why did the family only raise concerns in 2013, was that specific publication significant, and if so why?

Within the article's timeline, it is clear that the family raised concerns before 2013, but as the article states with its quotes from one of Henrietta Lacks's grandchildren: "the biggest concern was privacy - what information was actually going to be out there about our grandmother, and what information they can obtain from her sequencing that will tell them about her children and grandchildren and going down the line"

• "cells' DNA code " -- is "genetic material" more suitable, or is the agreement only regarding DNA code?

No, it is the actual code that is under consideration here.

• How significant is the NIH agreement? I thought I read some time ago that this is only really going to influence NIH related work. Are there any other funding/regulatory bodies that are going to regulate the use of HeLa, or is it just the NIH?

At the present time, this agreement concerns only researchers who want to use the DNA code/genetic information that is in the NIH database will have to "apply for access and will [also] have to submit annual reports about their research". Have adjusted the text & placement of refs to reflect that. Shearonink (talk) 17:25, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

-- More to come soon. -- Shudde ^talk 14:49, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Recognition

• "In 1996, the Morehouse School of Medicine held the first of its HeLa Women's Health Conferences, honoring Henrietta Lacks, the cell line named for her, and "in recognition of the valuable contribution made by African Americans to medical research and clinical practice"[28][29] with Dr. Roland Pattillo continuing to spearhead the annual events." -- this sentence should probably be split up to aid readability.

Agreed. Have adjusted. Shearonink (talk) 17:25, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

In popular culture

• We have a lot of one sentence paragraphs here. Could this be addressed?
• "begin in the summer" -- which summer, northern or southern! Should this not have started already?
• I think this section could probably be condensed a little bit. Some of it is barely notable, so for example you could have one sentence on music released about her, one about visual media (films, documentaries), and maybe a couple on the print media.
• "released Enhanced Methods of Questioning" --> "released the EP Enhanced Methods of Questioning"

consolidated & adjusted per your recommendations. Shearonink (talk) 19:00, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Images

• File:Henrietta Lacks (1920-1951).jpg
  • According to this the image was published in The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks -- does this book have any more information on the providence of the photo? Probably meets fair use but I'd like to see if more information can be found on the source.

Insofar as the linkage provided at File:Henrietta Lacks (1920-1951).jpg, the first publication of this photo was in 2001 which predates Skloot's book (though it did appear between her first article for Johns Hopkins and her article in the New York Times. It is one of the only known photos of the subject and I was unable to find its exact provenance beyond its first appearance in the Harvard University Gazette. I was only able to find one other photo of Henrietta online, a photo of her & her husband standing side-by-side. If memory serves me correctly, that particular photo is not available because the rights have been retained by the Lacks family so did not qualify to be able to be used by WP. Shearonink (talk) 16:11, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

The photo does turn up elsewhere with the proviso "Henrietta Lacks in the 1940s. Credit Lacks Family, via The Henrietta Lacks Foundation" (2013/New York Times) and "Photo courtesy the Lacks family" (2004/Baltimore City Paper) but it is still the only photo of her so WP:NFCI's #10 & WP:NFCCP apply. I am unsure which proviso, if any, should be used in this article. I will poke around the images pages and get an opinion from one of WP's editor images-experts.

• File:Lacks Town Road; Clover, VA; 2013-07-14.JPG -- no problem here.
• File:Cell culture (HeLa cells) (261 18) Cell culture (HeLa cells) - metaphase, telophase.jpg -- Fine, but I would change the caption to "The cells can be seen in different stages of cell division."

Adjusted. Shearonink (talk) 16:11, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

• File:Henrietta Lacks historical marker; Clover, VA; 2013-07-14.JPG -- No problems.

-- Nearly done! -- Shudde ^talk 15:06, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Lead

I always do the lead last. I think it is a bit brief. I think a couple of sentences could be mentioned about her life (and particularly death), and also something added on the continuing questions of consent and privacy. As well a sentence on the importance of the cell line in medical research, as well as recognition of Lacks should be added. Also, is there a reason that the fact she was African American mentioned so prominently? The issue of her race is barely mentioned in the main article.

Have added some content. Per WP:LEADLENGTH a one or two-paragraph lead is appropriate for an article of this size.

The reasons for her notability and for the notability of the HeLa cell line should be the most prominent part of the lead but have adjusted the wording to include more details.

Disagree that it is barely mentioned. Besides American society's perceptions about race are important and central to our understanding of this person. African, African-American, black, and white are used a total of 9 times to discuss the facts of Henrietta Lacks's daily existence and the years since her death.

I think the fact that she was African-American is important to understand some of the care she received and for the white privilege exhibited by the medical personnel at the time and for the notoriety her cell line engenders to this day. I doubt that a white person who came into the main doors at JHU's hospital in the same circumstances would have languished in the obscurity that the woman Henrietta Lacks languished in for so many decades. Shearonink (talk) 18:17, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Sources

• Is there a reason "23" lacks a page number?
• There is a bit of inconsistency regarding formatting, some web sources use YYYY-MM-DD format while others use Month Day, Year.

All dates where possible have been converted to YYYY-MM-DD, some were published as "Spring YYYY" or "Year" - those have been left alone.Shearonink (talk) 19:44, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

too funny, I changed all the "date="s but didn't touch the "accessdate="s...facepalm. Shearonink (talk) 17:29, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

• Is youtube a reliable source?

Yes, in this case it is. This is a link to a Documentary & has interviews with people who knew Henrietta including her gynecologist, friends and family-members. Invaluable resource. Shearonink (talk) 04:37, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

• Some of the sources lack publishers (such as 41, 49)
• Many of the sources are in fact The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks -- could these be standardised. E.g. number 20?
• Random spotchecks:
  • [4] -- Print source, will WP:AGF
  • [11] Looks reliable. a) I can't see how it supports the previous statement? Have I missed it, please paste the relevant text from the source to help me, sorry! b) source supports this. c) source supports this d) supports quoted text, but not the first part of the sentence. "After they were put into mass production" implies that they were in high demand because they had been put into mass production, but it was in fact the other way around.

I'm a little confused by what statements you are referring to^^...

Agree that the term mass production not quite fitting - adjusted.Shearonink (talk) 04:37, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

• • [13] -- only supports the he knew the Lacks family. Also could this ref be merged with [1]?

I am going to try to amalgamate the various links to Skloot's book, see notes for Ref#20

• • [20] -- AGF because print source, but can this be merged also?

This ref is to a specific page in a paperback edition, I do not have access to that version and hesitate to change it but it does seem like the pagination is the same as the other refs. Also, some of the sourcing is done in a Harvard style which always gives me fits. I'll try to figure out how to link all the Skloot/2010 refs but would also like to include an URL when possible - some of the book is available through Google books, some content is available through that excerpt.Shearonink (talk) 19:44, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

• • [29] -- Doesn't support quote, supports next part about Roland Pattillo organising the annual conference.

Deleted extraneous reference,adjusted.

• • [35] -- link is dead, do we have an archive url?

replaced that source, wayback machine not working for some reason.

• • [36] -- Source supports sentence.
  • [41] -- Better description of source needed. Publisher? This doesn't support the statement.

Fixed. I am certain that Curtis' documentary received an award, but I can't find a ref for it so have deleted the mention. Shearonink (talk) 04:37, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Other

• The External links section seems quite long to me, are all links neccessary (per WP:EXTERNAL. I'm particualrly thinking of those that violate WP:ELNO criteria 1. For example we have a link to the doco The Way Of All Flesh, yet there is a link to this in the references.

Done.

• I would also ask the nominator to review the further reading section, and make sure it meets like criteria laid out at WP:FURTHER (I'll leave this up to you).

Perhaps it is too long but I am uncomfortable deleting any of the titles. They re not utilized in the article, are published in a wide range of publications and possibly provide information or opinions not referenced by this article. Shearonink (talk) 19:00, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Overall

Overall I think the article is in good shape. Many of my comments are rather picky. The big things for me are the lead (which needs expansion), the popular culture section, some important questions about the Ethical issues raised, and the sources (which is very important). So my main issues are with criteria 1 and 2. I really enjoyed the article -- it's on a very important subject. The "Medical and scientific research" was particularly clear and well written, and was free of jargon which made it quite easy to read! I'll check back in about a week (it's a busy time of year for me), but if you have any questions do ping me. I'll try to answer them, but it may take a few days. Thanks. -- Shudde ^talk 15:49, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

User:Shudde: I think have answered your major concerns. If there's something I've missed, would you mind putting it down here at the end of your review so I can figure out what is fixed and what is not. I think the major thing is possibly amalgamating all the Skloot book-references into a single ref. I am not sure it is possible. Some of the links I think go to online excerpts - it's nice to make more material available to the reader who might not have access to the actual source. Cheers, Shearonink (talk) 06:14, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

I'll leave all my comments here, to try and make things a bit easier for you.

• I see that you added notes. These are probably more detail than I was thinking (which is okay), but I do think they solve the problem I envisaged.

Good. Shearonink (talk) 17:29, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

• I disagree on the overlinking but can live with it.
• " that they reproduced at a higher rate" -- than what? Other tissues, other cancerous cells?

Fixed. And, yeah, these cells are immortal - they do not die. They are the first to do so...I don't think any other cell lines even come close to their vigor. Next to the single celled mitochondria that developed on the Earth some billion of years past, these cells are some of the most important cells in human history. Shearonink (talk) 17:29, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

• Again about the "roller-tube technique", what is this, could we have an appropriate wiki-link if it's important enough to keep in the article?

The roller-tube technique gets extensive mentions in Ref#21, but you want more of an explanation... There is no WP article about it, there is no section that I can find within WP's pages that would suffice for what you are asking for. Placed content within Notes section - that should do. Shearonink (talk) 17:29, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

• Was the publication in 2013 the first that published HeLa genetic information? If so this should be stated, if not then why were objections raised only then rather than about previous publications?

? Ummm...yeah. The researchers were going to publish the complete genetic information of Henrietta Lacks', that type of technology, to be able to figure out the complete genetic code of something or someone has only recently become available. Her descendants objected, since, of course, they possess some of that genetic information themselves. It's as if someone broke in to your house and stole something that the family shares in common...the family-members would object. If someone published the genetic information of one of your parents, and this information is clearly identified as your parent's, then they would be stealing information from you without your consent...you possess some of the same genetic information as your ancestors, especially a close relative such as a parent or grandparent.Shearonink (talk) 17:29, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

I think you're missing my point. Which was, why in 2013? You mention a specific paper, but fail to mention that it was the first to publish the genome. This explains why the issue was raised then, because it hadn't been sequenced before. -- Shudde ^talk 10:39, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

It was the first complete genome, but not the first public disclosure of genetic information [3] (" researchers have been generating and publishing genetic data on HeLa cells for decades"). -- Shudde ^talk 11:17, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

• The sentence in the article under consideration is "In March 2013, German researchers published the DNA code, or genome, of a strain of HeLa cells without permission from the Lacks family." Is that statement unverified? No, it is not. The researchers were going to publish the genome of that cell line and the family objected. I am not sure if it really matters if the publication was the first of the complete genome or not...1)the information was published. 2) The Lacks family objected. 3)An agreement was reached about access to this particular HeLa cell-line's genome. Indeed, regarding if this was there first or not is immaterial...the reference and the article itself don't state that it was. What's important is that the family objected', their concerns were acknowledged and certain policies were put into place to control access to the genome's database. Shearonink (talk) 07:24, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

• So if researchers do not use the NIH database then they are free to ignore any of the conditions the NIH would otherwise impose? This may be worth mentioning (even in a note).

You are sort of asking me to make a conclusion about something that the article does not mention... I think the facts are laid out in the sentence, that's what the refs say. At this point, I think if people want more information about the HeLa cell line & databases etc. then perhaps they can go to that article. Shearonink (talk) 17:29, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm not asking you to come to that conclusion, I'm wondering if someone else has (and published this in reliable source)? -- Shudde ^talk 11:17, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

• I don't know. Maybe someone has. There is a multitude of research out in the world about the various HeLa cell lines, about their genetics...this Good Article nominated article cannot deal with them all. It is dealing with the one that the family has some measure of control over, the line that is held in the NIH database. In any case, perhaps that level of detail would be more appropriate in the HeLa article. Shearonink (talk) 07:24, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

• "In 2016, HBO announced production on the film that began the summer of 2016." -- still have "summer" (MOS:SEASON). As a New Zealander I particularly dislike this! Also this information is kind of misleading. The reference was from before filming was supposed to have started. If it has started, we need a reference.

Point taken. Have found a source that mentions more specific information and adjusted the sentence to remove the mention of "summer" that troubled you. Shearonink (talk) 17:29, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

• I disagree with the lead. This is particularly important to me. LEADLENGTH is a suggestion, and not a rule. The guideline itself says The length of the lead should conform to readers' expectations of a short, but useful and complete, summary of the topic. A lead that is too short leaves the reader unsatisfied; a lead that is too long is intimidating, difficult to read, and may cause the reader to lose interest halfway. -- At the moment I find the lead too short (unsatisfying) and don't believe it summarises the topic. I'm also not suggesting that it be extended to the point where it's long and intimidating! At the moment it has no information on several large sections of the article (Personal life, and Recognition) and very little on the Illness section. I agree with you 100% that the HeLa cell line should be the most prominent part of the lead and don't want that to change, but that doesn't mean we can't have any other information on other aspects of her life in there. In my opinion a reader would want the important information on HeLa and the consent issues summarised in the lead, but may actually want to know something about the woman Henietta Lacks as well (otherwise they'd probably just read HeLa). I know that's what I would want.

@Shudde: Please take a look at the present lead. I re-crafted it and think the present version will fulfill your points above. Shearonink (talk) 15:11, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

• The African American point also confuses me. The fact that she is African American is mentioned many times in the Personal life section, but other than mentioning the fact that only one hospital in the area treated African American patients, how does anything in there express what you stated above: "I think the fact that she was African-American is important to understand some of the care she received and for the white privilege exhibited by the medical personnel at the time and for the notoriety her cell line engenders to this day. I doubt that a white person who came into the main doors at JHU's hospital in the same circumstances would have languished in the obscurity that the woman Henrietta Lacks languished in for so many decades."

This is not explicit in the article at all, even reading between the lines I couldn't come to this conclusion. Maybe it should be more explicitly mentioned? You've convinced me it's vital to the subject (criteria 3a). There seem to be publications in the Further reading section that discuss this, could they not be used to add something explicit?

@Shudde: I think the added lead addresses your concerns about why African American is important to the article. I realize that other editors might differ on this issue, and not many WP:BIOs contains the person's ethnic/race descriptor in the lead sentence, but this is why it is important:

• her being black or African-American is mentioned in the Personal life section (where they lived...you don't think in 1940s Baltimore that they could live anywhere they wanted, do you?), mentioned 4 times in the Illness section (she couldn't have gone to the University of Maryland Hospital or Mercy Hospital or Sinai/Hebrew Hospital or The Hospital for the Women of Maryland/Greater Baltimore Medical Center or the Deaton Specialty Hospital/Home or Maryland General Hospital - she was only allowed to go to one hospital in Baltimore...because of the color of her skin. Her care there was the same as she would have gotten anywhere else but just the same...when you are only allowed to go to one hospital for your healthcare, that's an important fact, especially so because there were so many other hospitals in and around 1950s Baltimore), and mentioned once in the Recognition section. Shearonink (talk) 15:11, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Like I said above the fact she was African American was mentioned in places, but nowhere at all does it make clear that (in your own words) I think the fact that she was African-American is important to understand some of the care she received and for the white privilege exhibited by the medical personnel at the time and for the notoriety her cell line engenders to this day. I doubt that a white person who came into the main doors at JHU's hospital in the same circumstances would have languished in the obscurity that the woman Henrietta Lacks languished in for so many decades. If there is good reason to believe that her tissue samples would not have been removed, or that she would have been given greater recognition, or that the whole HeLa story would have proceeded very differently were she white, then this is very important and should be explicitly mentioned. At the moment it's not explicitly mentioned at all (unless I've overlooked something, in which case please just copy and paste the quoted text from the article.). -- Shudde ^talk 11:30, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

@Shudde: This seems to be the last bullet-point left (I think...at this point I am not sure.)

You are concerned with the descriptor "African-American" as referring to the person Henrietta Lacks. Is your issue where the adjective appears in that sentence? Or is your issue with the adjective appearing at all within the lead? Some other articles about African-Americans do describe them as African-American in the lead sentence (including Malcolm X, Lena Horne, and Guion Bluford) while some others do not (like Martin Luther King Jr., Bill Cosby, and Katherine Johnson). It seems to be something that is left up to the individual article and its contributors. I need to understand your specific objection, if your objection is to including it in the lead sentence or if you think the information shouldn't be mentioned in the lead section at all and let the various mentions - of black members of the Lacks family/black patients/African American communities/African Americans - stand on their own merit. Shearonink (talk) 23:05, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

• Ok. Here's the deal... My comments above, that you highlighted in green, are part of my musings in answer to your question about the Lead: "Also, is there a reason that the fact she was African American mentioned so prominently? The issue of her race is barely mentioned in the main article." I was answering your question about why African-American should be part of the subject's description in the lead - the information was already present in the article - that's all, but it seems like you trying to make me put my own words into the article. Tissues are taken from patients all the time, the ethnic background or the perceived race of the donor frankly doesn't seem to matter all that much. (To see what I mean, take a look at the Wikipedia List-article about contaminated cell lines - we know virtually nothing about the progenitors of those lines.) Once the tissues are taken the doctor/hospital/research facility retains ownership for the most part. (See the new! improved! Ref 27 for further information.) But, this is about an African-American historical figure and people's perceptions and thoughts about the issue and on all of this will differ. Shearonink (talk) 07:24, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

It seems to me that what you are asking me to do is explicitly delve into very deep subject matter, all sorts of sociological/political/moral/ethical/human rights issues. I am thinking that these issues are already dealt with within the present article content but you are not satisfied with its present state regarding these various issues...ok. Well I will get to it when I can, might be a while. Shearonink (talk) 17:29, 31 December 2016 (UTC) Content is now adjusted per my replies elsewhere. Shearonink (talk) 15:11, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

• Could you please update the source information for File:Henrietta Lacks (1920-1951).jpg with what you've found?

I don't think I can do what you are asking me to. The source I am relying on predates any of the other ones I mentioned and there is no "courtesy of" mentioned there. I guess I'll have to add a note or something re: the fact that this photo appears elsewhere on the internet with the various provisos?... Shearonink (talk) 17:29, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Ok, I adjusted the File's information at its WP-Page and added the other "courtesy of"s there. Shearonink (talk) 17:29, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Other than sources (which I'll check again soon), if it's not mentioned in my bullet points above then I consider it resolved. Thanks for dealing with it so promptly. -- Shudde ^talk 10:45, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Sources:

• Yeah sorry it's [14]a that I had problems with. Couldn't find where in the source it supported the statement On August 8, 1951, Lacks, who was 31 years old, went to Johns Hopkins for a routine treatment session and asked to be admitted due to continued severe abdominal pain. She received blood transfusions and remained at the hospital until her death on October 4, 1951. -- just asking for clarification

I see your point. The way the refs were placed made it seem like they were referencing the individual sentences. All the information is contained within the 2 refs for that paragraph so I have placed them both at the end of the paragraph where they can both stand in and source the preceding statements.Shearonink (talk) 17:29, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

• There are some deadlinks per [4] -- these don't need to be fixed from memory (per WIAGA), but it's probably good to do so if possible.

Fixed. Shearonink (talk) 17:29, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

• Some of the sources still lack publishers [52]

Fixed. had to find the stated publisher on Amazon (and this is a link to the ebook's website). Shearonink (talk) 17:29, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

• [23] requires a page number

It has one. Shearonink (talk) 17:29, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

• The date format is still inconsistent but this isn't a GA criteria (but would be good to fix)

Fixed. See above. Shearonink (talk) 17:29, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

• The youtube link [45] looks like it's not an official channel from a reliable source. How confident are we that it's not a copyright violation? Probably violates WP:COPYVIOCITE. I would remove unless you are confident that it's not a violation.

It is not the filmmaker's official channel but it is the official channel for Dance-Tech TV. This 1998 documentary has been available from the dance-tech tv channel since 2012 but I have gone ahead and substituted the AdamCurtisFilms channel's link for it so it is now fixed. Shearonink (talk) 17:29, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

How sure are we this is an official channel? There is nothing indicating it's official. Does he link to it from [5]? I'm not confident that channel is official. -- Shudde ^talk 11:39, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

? I don't understand your aversion to using this YouTube reference...all it was doing was backing-up the fact that 1)Adam Curtis made a 2)BBC documentary called 3)The Way of All Flesh but I've changed the reference to Adam Curtis' blog on the BBC.Co.uk website. (By the way, this fact is also referenced in Curtis' article here on WP). I also found it cited elsewhere:

• on the BBC.co.uk website but the title is mangled etc and so did not use it: BBC "Genome".
• on Indiewire, a well-regarded source for film news and information: here. (The indiewire URL also provides the full documentary.)
• An additional point is that Rebecca Skloot mentions the documentary extensively in her book.

One last note on this: It is absolutely vital to include a viable link to the documentary somewhere within this article because it is the only audio-visual record we have of many of Henrietta's family and friends - the people who actually knew her - talking about her (since the movie was made, many of these people have died). And that is what the article is about, this woman. It is important to this article that the people who knew her get at least some historical say in her story, her narrative. I have therefore included the link under "External Links". Shearonink (talk) 16:34, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

@Shearonink: Think that's all. The main points are the lead, information on why her race is so important, and a couple of things with the sources. Otherwise we're basically done. Cheers. -- Shudde ^talk 11:05, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

@Shudde: I believe the issues you were concerned about have now been dealt-with. Shearonink (talk) 19:52, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

@Shudde: Left some additional responses re: your concerns. Please let me know if these various issues have been dealt with to your satisfaction. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 15:11, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

@Shearonink: Hey, just letting you know that I've seen your message. I haven't had a chance to go through everything, but I did read the lead (which looks very good). The only other thing is citation 27 doesn't have a page number -- I knew there was a ref somewhere without one! I'll get this done just as soon as I have an hour free to spend on-wiki. Thanks for bearing with me. -- Shudde ^talk 10:23, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

• Ref 27 has been changed. Shearonink (talk) 07:24, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Okay I've made some more comments. See page history for my comments. -- Shudde ^talk 11:40, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Responses above. Shearonink (talk) 07:24, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

@Shearonink: I'll just leave my comments here because it's probably easier for both of us. I think you've misinterpreted some of my comments, so they may not have been clear and I'll try and rephrase them.

• I asked why her race was so prominent in the lead, and you replied (see much earlier). Your reply indicated that her being African American was very important to the whole HeLa story (important enough to be mentioned in the first sentence) and you gave me a brief explanation for why you think so. I then asked for you to include this information more explicitly in the article, at no time was I asking you to insert your own words into the article, rather if this view was supported by reliable independent secondary sources then it should be included in the article (using such sources), if the view is not supported by them, then your original reply to me was not satisfactory. I hope this is clear. If her race is important then the article should state why. Other than the fact she could only attend one hospital, it still does not do this. I think it's something that could easily fall under criteria 3a.
• Why the privacy concerns were raised in 2013, 62 years after Lacks died, rather than earlier, is also something that could have been included. Yes there was a publication in 2013, at the moment the quote is In March 2013, German researchers published the DNA code, or genome, of a strain of HeLa cells without permission from the Lacks family. But this wasn't really unusual was it (publishing HeLa genetic information)? A lot of HeLa genetic information had been published before this, and without the families permission I assume. The last part of the sentence "without permission from the Lacks family" makes it seem this was somehow exceptional (not to have permission), when in fact it was normal. And is the fact that the researchers were German really important? I would seriously consider just adding a little bit more context to all this, even if it's already mentioned in the HeLa article.
• This is the only point that needs addressing before passing. Please read WP:COPYVIOCITE if you still have not. If you do you'll understand my objections to external links that may be copyright infringements. Here are selected quotes from the policy ... editors are restricted from linking to the following, without exception: ... material that violates the copyrights of others per contributors' rights and obligations should not be linked, whether in an external-links section or in a citation. External links to websites that display copyrighted works are acceptable as long as the website is manifestly run, maintained or owned by the copyright owner; the website has licensed the work from the owner; or it uses the work in a way compliant with fair use. (emphasis my own). So many of the points you've made are irrelevant. If it's a copyright violation we don't link to it, end of story, it doesn't matter how important we think the documentary is. If you can actual evidence that the youtube channel is official and not a copyright violation then please provide it, but at the moment www.youtube.com/user/AdamCurtisFilms/about doesn't say anything, and I haven't found any proof anywhere else (BBC "Genome" can be edited by anyone so is unreliable, and indiewire linking to it doesn't mean it's official either). This link should be removed or actual evidence the youtube channel is official provided. Do that and we are finished! -- Shudde ^talk 10:50, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

I see you've removed the youtube link, which I assume means you've not been able to find something verifiable that confirms the video is legally licensed. I'll pass the article now as that was my final objection. Thanks for your patience and hard work. The article is great and I think the review has improved it (hopefully you agree). Congratulations! -- Shudde ^talk 17:34, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

The documentary is posted in multiple places and from reliable sources but, sadly, Curtis apparently doesn't have a confirmed Official Channel. Regarding possible licensing problems, it is curious that Curtis has not issued any kind of takedown notice (which are fairly easy for creators to enact) for the postings on YouTube - for whatever reason, the licensing is simply not very strictly managed. Shearonink (talk) 17:55, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Comment. Why 2013? Because that's when the publication of the complete genome happened. You think the phrase "without the Lacks family permission" should be removed. Ok. Done (along with some additional c/e). Shearonink (talk) 17:55, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Comment. You consider the link to be a copyvio... Removed. By the way, in Ref 45 Mr. Curtis posts the complete documentary on his BBC blog. Shearonink (talk) 17:55, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

He doesn't link to the youtube video -- a different source is embedded. I think you're starting to flog a dead horse here -- there is no evidence it's a legally licensed video on youtube, and because of that we have no discretion over whether we can link to it. -- Shudde ^talk 18:04, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

I wasn't stating that the link/player Mr. Curtis used was to any of the various youtube videos of the documentary (that didn't have the needed & valid licensing for WP usage - point taken). I was just saying that I am happy Mr. Curtis himself has published the documentary online to his BBC blog so people can access its content (especially the important interviews with the people who knew Henrietta Lacks but who have died since the documentary was made). That's all. Shearonink (talk) 18:26, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

I've listed the article at Wikipedia:Good articles/Natural sciences#Medical people and institutions but if you think there is a more appropriate place please move it. -- Shudde ^talk 17:41, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

The Term "African American" as Used in this Article, and in General

On the "New Lacks Family" website, at no time does her family refer to her as "African American." Use of the term "African American" to refer to those who identify as "black" is a construct of American liberal politics and has no business being used in an ostensibly unbiased "free encyclopedia." Further, the term "African American" implies dual citizenship in both Africa and America and therefore can be misleading. Again, further, Wikipedia's article on Dame Shirley Bassey, a Welsh performer who happens to be black, at no time refers to her racial identity. Therefore, the term "African American" should be removed from this article, and indeed, from any article that does not refer to a person of dual African and American citizenship.184.101.80.46 (talk) 20:37, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

The article African American addresses this. See the section on terminology in particular. As with German American or Irish American, the term denotes ethnic background, not nationality. Additionally, you may note that it was first popularized by black Americans. You might have a point regarding whether we should even mention ethnicity or race in biographies, but that's not a topic for this talk page. clpo13_(talk) 21:26, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

How could someone have African citizenship when Africa is not a country? Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 03:07, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

I'll not touch on the usefulness of the term "African American" but certainly mentioning race in the lead section is not appropriate. It has nothing to do with why the topic is notable and so can seen as potentially racist to mention so prominently. I have moved that mention into the "Personal Life" section.--MC 141.131.2.3 (talk) 20:56, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

It is not racist. It is who she was, and at least arguably, it affected both her treatment and later recognition. Ignoring or burying it doesn't make it go away. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:28, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Numerous mainstream sources are found that consider her race relevant

• https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/henrietta-lacks-immortal-cells-6421299/
• https://www.nbcnews.com/news/nbcblk/oprah-film-introduces-henrietta-lacks-woman-who-changed-modern-medicine-n745741
• https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/mar/31/henrietta-lacks-cancer-research-genome

William Avery (talk) 13:12, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Again, mentioning somebody's race in the lead is inappropriate unless you expressly use it in a context explaining why it is notable. I don't have a big problem with mentioning the racism behind the HeLa line in the lead section but the lead section does not do so nor does it provide any context or reason for mentioning race.-- MC — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.131.2.3 (talk) 19:16, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

We understand what you said. I disagree, and we will have to agree to disagree. Please sign your posts using four tiles ~~~~ 23:14, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Recent edit about informed consent

A recent edit removed sourced content re informed consent not being common around 1951 and added content & sources about informed consent being a more common practice. The informed consent that is mentioned in the additional sources is only concerned with treatment of individual patients, with experiments being done on their bodies without their knowledge, and that they need to be asked for consent for possible treatments or tests. The removal of the cervical cancer cells from Henrietta Lacks' body and their subsequent culture had nothing to do with her treatment, it had to do with research that was beyond the scope of her medical treatment and care. Perhaps I am wrong on this but it is my understanding that tissues can be removed today from patients' bodies and cultured and what results from those cultures does not belong to the patient but rather belongs to the researchers/physicians/institutions - the patient is not asked for consent for any possible testing or usage beyond the initial tests. For that reason I removed the new content and its sources for further discussion here on this talkpage. Perhaps we can all come to a consensus about what should or should not be included on this matter. Shearonink (talk) 20:03, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

I would say that the biopsy done on Henrietta Lacks was for the purposes of diagnosis, and thus was for the purposes of guiding her treatment. Have a look at [6] and see what you think. "Thus, if Henrietta Lacks were a patient in the United States today [i.e., 2016], biospecimens collected solely for her clinical care would not require her consent for use in research. Any part of such specimens remaining after all the analyses needed for her care were completed might be stored for generic teaching, quality assurance, and research purposes, as briefly disclosed in a general consent-to-treat form. Researchers seeking to study stored clinical specimens could do so without her consent if an IRB determines either that the proposed research does not involve human subjects (based primarily on their having no access to identifiers) or that it meets the criteria for exemption from the regulations or waiver of the requirement to obtain consent. An IRB-approved research protocol and informed consent (unless waived) would be required when researchers prospectively intend to use clinical specimens for a specific project, including plans for use of residual specimens as well as taking more tissue than is needed for clinical care (i.e., taking extra tissue for research purposes during a necessary clinical procedure). Collecting biospecimens from family members solely for research purposes would require an IRB-approved protocol and informed consent." - Nunh-huh 00:17, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Missing documentary (Tom Baker Narrated)

There was a documentary produced in the 1990s, I think, with Tom Baker narrating. I think it was on Channel 4 in the UK. But this isn't listed in the article or in Tom's IMDB or Wikipedia entry. It might pre-date the 1998 BBC Adam Curtis documentary. Maybe someone has access to this information and can add it to the article (and wherever else it should be). DavidFarmbrough (talk) 20:50, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

I was unable to find any 1990s Henrietta Lacks' documentary narrated by Mr. Baker. I was even unable to find any mentions of this Tom Baker narrated/1990s documentary. Frankly, I'm kind of thinking that if I can't find it, can't even find a mention of it?...then maybe it might not exist. The only thing I can think of is to contact Mr. Baker's agents or his management team - probably his voice/narration agent - to ask if he did the narration for a Henrietta Lacks documentary. Shearonink (talk) 03:47, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

10 ton womb

When I was doing biochemistry, there was gestimation done that suggests that globally there's about 10 ton of Hela cells. Which means that there is more of Henrietta Lacks now than when she was a living human being. That's a metaphysical question that needs answering, if there are more of her than she is as a person, she has outgrown her own physicality. And by that if she is "dead" how can there be more of her alive than when she was alive? 81.141.39.255 (talk) 19:10, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

"That's a metaphysical question that needs answering,"

Only if published reliable sources delve in-depth into the metaphysics of all those immortal cells. Shearonink (talk) 22:04, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

I've removed the following assertion: "Since the 1950s, scientists have grown as much as 50 million metric tons of her cells" - despite it being sourced (cite news | url=https://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/07/books/review/Margonelli-t.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 | title=Eternal Life | work=New York Times | date=2010-02-05| access-date=2014-04-23 | author=Margonelli, Lisa | location=New York) because it sounds like a units conversion error. 50 million grams (50 metric tons) might be a high estimate of the number of cells ever grown. But 50 million metric tons? That would be more biomass created from HeLa cells than in one billion humans. Unlikely. -ProhibitOnions ^(T) 22:15, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

User:ProhibitOnions I disgree. WP:Verifiability in WP:RS. Not WP:Truth. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 22:32, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

This is a tricky one, as this factoid appears in several reliable sources, but they all take it from Rebecca Skloot's 2010 book The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks - note that almost all retain the "metric tons" phrasing and the "more than 100 Empire State Buildings" comparison. Skloot also presents another figure using "feet" and number-of-times-round-the-earth that suggests another amount several orders of magnitude lower. (And note that the "more than 350 million feet" figure was almost certainly a backconversion from 100,000 km - which is actually somewhat less than three times around the earth.)

Ari Schulman, writing in the New Atlantis, challenged these assertions: "More importantly, however, if you try to make sense of these figures you will find that at least one and probably both are obviously false." [7] And after apparently being questioned about this many times,[8][9] Skloot defended these assertions in her FAQ:[10]

"People sometimes ask how that 50 million metric tons figure was determined: It came from calculating how many cells could have ever grown — it was a hypothetical calculation because that many cells couldn’t have been saved and put on a scale. That calculation was based on the way HeLa cells are known to divide (specifically how often they double their numbers) and the amount of time they’d been alive at the time the calculation was made. The details of who developed that calculation and how it worked are in the notes section of the book."

So it would be good if someone can have a look at the book and see how she arrives at this figure. Because there are several problems with this assertion - it's hypothetical, derived from a single source that is apparently more comfortable with US legacy measurements than with the metric system, challenged by reputable scientists, and it's old - from 2010. Imagine how much more biomass would have been produced since then, if this figure were already true ten years ago. And there's the smell test - where the hell did it all go?

We've had issues like this on Wikipedia before, such as Ich bin ein Berliner - in which numerous reliable sources repeated something that turned out to be a single source that had been misinterpreted. Interestingly, German Wikipedia quotes a NYT article that repeats the 50 million tons figure, but corrects it to 50 tons - one-millionth of the asserted amount - but still a staggering amount of biomass generated from a few cells. Hence, the best solution is to remove the assertion until it can be examined further. -ProhibitOnions ^(T) 07:32, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Tobacco farmer? Or not...

The article states in the infobox that Henrietta Lacks' occupation was that of being a tobacco farmer relying on the cited 2010 article in The Virginia Pilot that "Hennie and Day married in 1941, and the family left their life of farming tobacco to join the flood of blacks making their way to Baltimore and Washington, D.C., where wartime prosperity awaited in the shipyards and steel mills." That cite has been challenged as failing verification. So. The question now before us is...can Henrietta Lacks have her occupation be characterized as a tobacco farmer since that is the only occupation cited or is she not. Other references refer to Henrietta Lacks as a tobacco farmer:

• Toronto Star "How poor tobacco farmer Henrietta Lacks became a medical superstar after her death"
• Stanford Medicine News "African-American tobacco farmer and mother in the 1950s"
• Smithsonian Magazine "She was a black tobacco farmer from southern Virginia who got cervical cancer when she was 30"
• Rebecca Skloot's "The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks refers to the Lacks family farming tobacco repeatedly, take a look at Page 24: "So after their wedding, Day went back to gripping the splintered ends of his old wooden plow as Henrietta followed close behind, pushing a homemade wheelbarrow and dropping tobacco seedlings into holes in the freshly-turned red dirt."

Let's discuss. Shearonink (talk) 09:05, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. According to the book listed above "The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks" Page 26: "The morning after he came barreling into town, Fred bought Day a bus ticket to Baltimore. They agreed Henrietta would stay behind to care for the children and tobacco until Day made enough for a house of their own in Baltimore, and three tickets north. [...] Soon, with a child on each side, Henrietta boarded a coal-fueled train from the small wooden depot at the end of Clover's Main Street. She left tobacco fields of her youth [...] At the age of twenty-one, Henrietta stared through the train window at rolling hills and wide-open bodies of water for the first time, heading towards a new life". On Page 16: "Before examining her, he [Howard Jones] flipped through her chart - a quick sketch of her life [...]: six or seventh grade education; housewife and mother of five". On Page 27: "Henrietta went about life as usual, cleaning and cooking for Day, their children, and the many cousins who stopped by."

* Washington Post 25 June 2018 "The cells were retrieved from Henrietta Lacks, a housewife and young mother of five children"

* The Virginian Pilot "Sadie moved to Baltimore in the mid-1940s and often caught the No. 26 trolley to Turner Station, where Hennie had settled in as a housewife in the brick apartments built for the workers swelling the waterfront."

* Washington Post 8 Oct 2018 "Lacks was a young housewife when she went to Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore for bleeding."

* Nature "Henrietta Lacks loved to cook — spaghetti was a favourite — and she loved to dance, often with one of her five children in her arms. She dressed stylishly and wore red nail polish."

What I see is Henrietta had left tobacco farming since she moved to Baltimore to be a housewife for the last decade (one-third) of her life, furthermore, the description of her and her living in Baltimore looks far from a "poor tobacco farmer" characterized by other publications. --Now wiki (talk) 08:37, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

I see your point, I really do - yes she was a housewife for the latter part of her life (thanks for finding those sources) - but I don't think it is necessary to erase what Henrietta Lacks was for the majority of her life - a tobacco farmer. So far as I can tell, the reliable sources are stating that she had two "jobs" in her life, being a tobacco farmer *and* being a housewife. It makes sense for both occupations to be in the infobox, labeling one as failing verification seems somewhat unnecessary since that deletion is not borne out by the cited sources. The "vpbio" ref has both the housewife & tobacco farmer information so for now I've adjusted the infobox accordingly (I'll add Skloot cites as soon as I figure out what is going on to still engender so *many* Harv errors.) See what you think - Shearonink (talk) 18:19, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Harv cite issues

There are presently 12 Harvard cite errors in the article, all connected to Skloot's book. I'm posting about it here in the hopes that someone who isn't driven crazy by Harv cite nomenclature can figure out what is wrong with all these various references: Ref 2, 7, 8, 9, 13, 15, 17, 18, 19, 29, 30, 35. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 09:14, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

 Fixed 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:29, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Much thanks to the freakishly talented Wikipedian User:7&6=thirteen - I just couldn't figure out how to get it done and gave up. Shearonink (talk) 17:33, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

I've been perfecting this for years. Smith & Wesson was one I especially remember. It was a citation mess (whew!!) that I was able to cure – bringing order out of the chaos. That was a monumental job. It is a big encyclopedia, and we can't know it all. We have complementary skills. That is one of Wikipedia's strengths. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:50, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

7&6=thirteen Hmmmm...just took another look and realized that there are still 12 Harv cite errors, they are only 2x (as opposed to the previous 4x), plus there are also 11 Harv warnings. I'll poke around and see if I can figure out what is going on, but just in case I'm not successful... Shearonink (talk) 18:51, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Henrietta and David Lacks.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:49, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Henrietta Lacks Portrait.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:24, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Henrietta Lacks Portrait.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:23, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

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): Boomerc. Peer reviewers: Boomerc.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 23:20, 16 January 2022 (UTC)