this post was submitted on 19 Nov 2024
49 points (98.0% liked)

Creepy Wikipedia

3955 readers
47 users here now

A fediverse community for curating Wikipedia articles that are oddly fascinating, eerily unsettling, or make you shiver with fear and disgust

image

Guidelines:
  1. Follow the Code of Conduct

  2. Do NOT report posts YOU don't consider creepy

  3. Strictly Wikipedia submissions only

  4. Please follow the post naming convention: Wikipedia Article Title - Short Synopsis

  5. Tick the NSFW box for submissions with inappropriate thumbnails.

  6. Please refrain from any offensive language/profanities in the posts titles, unless necessary (e.g. it's in the original article's title).

Mandatory:

If you didn't find an article "creepy," you must announce it in the thread so everyone will know that you didn't find it creepy

image

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
top 5 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 13 points 1 day ago

In his memoir, Stanley stated that "The right to bear children will in time be reserved to the fit."

He died at the age of 90, with no children.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 day ago

He was a strong supporter of testicles grafting. The now-debunked theory that testicular transplant could cause male rejuvenation and age reversal was first proposed in 1889 and grew popular during the 1920s.[5] Stanley performed grafting experiments on prisoners, transplanting testicles from executed prisoners to other inmates. Animal testicles (from goats, boars, rams, and deer) were also used, if testicles could not be procured from executed prisoners.

Bruh

[–] pdxfed 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Thought this was going to be a Trump HHS appointment to replace RFK article

[–] Plum 1 points 1 day ago

My money is on Dr Phil.

[–] kamenlady 3 points 1 day ago

He was also known for doing plastic surgery on inmates that were deformed or had visible injuries, before their release. He thought that it would help them to integrate easier into society again.

This is a very biased article, considering where it was published. It paints a very positive picture of him.

It acknowledges the experiments, but keeps it light on the details.

Whereas this article seems to paint a more realistic picture of the "beloved" doctor.