| Revision as of 01:13, 28 January 2006 editNrets (talk | contribs)1,701 edits →Insertion of unsourced material: stop the attacks← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 15:28, 17 July 2024 edit undoQwerfjkl (bot) (talk | contribs)Bots, Mass message senders4,013,279 editsm Removed deprecated parameters in {{Talk header}} that are now handled automatically (Task 30)Tag: paws [2.2] |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
{{controversial}} |
|
{{Talkheader}} |
|
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
|
| algo = old(365d) |
|
|
| archive = Talk:HIV/AIDS denialism/Archive %(counter)d |
|
|
| counter = 13 |
|
|
| maxarchivesize = 150K |
|
|
| archiveheader = {{aan}} |
|
|
| minthreadstoarchive = 1 |
|
|
| minthreadsleft = 2 |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{Pseudoscience sanctions}} |
|
|
{{Canvass warning|short=yes}} |
|
|
{{FAQ|collapsed=no}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes|class=B|1= |
|
|
{{WikiProject Skepticism|importance=High}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Alternative Views|importance=mid}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject AIDS |importance=Top}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject LGBT}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Medicine|importance=low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Pharmacology|importance=low}} |
|
|
}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== "Erroneous belief" discussion == |
|
{| class="infobox" width="270px" |
|
|
|- |
|
|
!align="center"|]<br>] |
|
|
---- |
|
|
|- |
|
|
| |
|
|
* ] |
|
|
* ] |
|
|
|}<!--Template:Talkarchives--> |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I am opening this discussion after the recent series of back-and-forth reverts that started as a result of my addition of the word "erroneous" into the first sentence of this article. Per the scientific consensus on the HIV pathogen, it does indeed cause AIDS if left untreated, and denying said fact is by definition erroneous, since denialists do not have any factual or scientific basis at all for their claims and are repeating incorrect statements, which I have clarified in my edit summaries. The definition of "erroneous" is also clear according to the Oxford English Dictionary: |
|
== Article Problems == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Wrong; incorrect." |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So why were my edits still reverted in spite of my explanation and the fact it didn't damage the article? Even when I cited ] to hopefully end this edit war, Antandrus swiftly came in and rolled it back with the same reasoning of "no improvement", even though the very page I have cited contradicts said reasoning, as it states: |
|
Like the other ], the very nature of this subject makes it almost impossible to find a neutral treatment of it . |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Do not revert an edit because that edit is unnecessary, i.e. the edit does not improve the article. '''For a reversion to be appropriate, the reverted edit must actually make the article worse.''' Misplaced Pages does not have a bias toward the status quo (except in cases of fully developed disputes, while they are being resolved). In fact, Misplaced Pages has a bias toward change, as a means of maximizing quality by maximizing participation." |
|
The disagreements generally seem to be about (1) what terminology to use, (2) what constitutes fact, and (3) what constitutes a valid line of reasoning. The matter of terminology can be most easily resolved by an introductory statement explicitly designed to explain the choice of terminology used in the article . Make it by stating at the outset that "We call it the HIV theory, but this should not be taken to imply the correctness of any particular viewpoint" or some such. |
|
|
|
] (]) 00:59, 13 November 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
:The proposed edit makes the article worse. Good revert. ] (]) 01:02, 13 November 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
::The first proposed edit, which only adds in "erroneous" to the first sentence while leaving everything else unchanged, does not make the article worse (As in compromising the factual accuracy of information, violating Misplaced Pages policy, or disrupting its tone), especially since the word "erroneous" is describing statements or beliefs that are false, misleading, or incorrect, which denialism of scientific facts represents. A clarification as to why would said edit worsen the quality of this article would be appropriate in this case. ] (]) 01:10, 13 November 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
:::The phrasing, "HIV/AIDS denialism is the belief, contradicted by conclusive evidence..." adequately communicates the status of HIV denialism. Additional negative modifiers are unnecessarily repetitive. Unnecessary repetition makes the article worse. ] (]) 01:15, 13 November 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
*Yes, your addition made the article worse, as I explained twice in my edit summaries, ]: "{{tq|'Erroneous' and 'contradicted by conclusive evidence' is the same thing. No need for tautology}}" and "{{tq|it does make the prose style less encyclopedic and less grownup}}". Yet you simply continued to revert, referring (with I suppose unintentional humor) to ]. I don't really see how I can "clarify" it further than I already did, but I'll try one more time: making the style less grownup damages the article. ] | ] 11:56, 13 November 2019 (UTC). |
|
As for what constitutes fact, at least regarding the "facts" about how the disease is caused and develops, we could just stick with facts about viewpoints. Duesberg observed X, which he believes indicates Y, but Kary Mullis thinks Z. Making purportedly factual claims about the disease itself is where the trouble begins. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
::: "I am opening this discussion after the recent series of back-and-forth reverts that started as a result of my addition of the word "erroneous" into the first sentence of this article. Per the scientific consensus on the HIV pathogen, it does indeed cause AIDS if left untreated, and denying said fact is by definition erroneous, since denialists do not have any factual or scientific basis at all for their claims and are repeating incorrect statements, which I have clarified in my edit summaries." The problem with that unsourced statement, is that it erroneously presumes that 'denialists' (an emotive word) only believe that HIV doesn't cause AIDS. The problem is that there are many more problems with the orthodox view of HIV/AIDS. First, the prosaic origin story of the 'Bush Meat' origin of the epidemic and the subsequent building epidemic escaping from the jungle; or the gay flight attendant Gaetan Dugas being 'patient zero', while in fact it was Merck's (hepatitis B) vaccine which was the origin of SIV in the gay communities of New York, LA and San Francisco; IV drug users; prostitutes and Haitian immigrants exposed to bad water. Then, there is the extent of the epidemic, also known as 'AIDS in Africa', which is completely based on modeling, and is not supported by predictions made about population growth or mortality. ] (]) 08:21, 28 May 2020 (UTC) |
|
The third point, what constitutes a valid line of reasoning, is probably just as easily resolved. Again, the article should present information ''about'' those who hold these particular viewpoints; the article itself should not hold these viewpoints. Misplaced Pages articles can't hope to resolve the deeply philosophical matter of what approach to understanding "reality" is the most appropriate or valid. In general, science prevails around here, but since there is disagreement on what even qualifies as scientific, it's probably best to let the players speak for themselves, and let readers do their own reasoning. |
|
|
|
::::The fact that denialists believe other loony crap does not make their erroneous belief that HIV does not cause AIDS less erroneous, so this is irrelevant. --] (]) 11:07, 11 July 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Recent IP vandalism and 2018 sock == |
|
All of the above is simply a re-statement of Misplaced Pages's ] policy, of course. We all gotta cooperate or we'll get nowhere. We know it can be done, since it has been done with so many other controversial topics. -- ] 22:31, 3 Nov 2003 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hi Ezequiel, ¿cómo sos vos? ¿Todo bien? {{br}}{{u|GorillaWarfare}}, fyi and for the record: the recent IP vandalism at the article is highly reminiscent of indeffed {{user|EzequielBelaus}} (sock: {{user|Riveronthemountains}}) and a slew of IP addresses, many of which are enumerated at ]. <small>See also: ], ], ], and ].</small> I tried my best to bring Ezequiel (in 2018, a minor child) back into the fold, but was unable to. Sad to see he's still at it. {{u|Ian.thomson}} was heavily involved and may want a ping; as was {{u|Bishonen}} who was very helpful; so were a lot of other admins, notably Huon, Kudpung, Yamla, 331dot, and others. ] (]) 22:07, 1 February 2021 (UTC) |
|
==Protected== |
|
|
|
:Appreciate the history, Mathglot. I remembered there was an LTA who focused on this page, though it was escaping me who it was — I don't have a great memory for those things. ] <small>]</small> 22:13, 1 February 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Yes, it's absolutely him. I've followed for a while. FYI he also typically simultaneously vandalizes Simple and the Spanish wikis. ] ] 22:20, 1 February 2021 (UTC) |
|
Ok, first of all, I've protected the page against an on-going edit war. I'm not going to take sides, and I think you both need to read ] and ]. I suggest you resolve the dispute on the talk page to prevent further edit warring. If you want, you can take your case to the ] or through the formal ] processes. - ] 19:17, 19 January 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
:: {{re|Antandrus}} thanks for that. Convenience links: |
|
|
|
|
|
::* ] (<span class="plainlinks"></span>, ]){{snd}}some vandalism |
|
==Preparing replacement content offline== |
|
|
|
::* ] (<span class="plainlinks"></span>, ]){{snd}}clean so far |
|
I'm preparing a neutral, NPOV, referenced, wikified article. ] 22:17, 19 January 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
::* ] (<span class="plainlinks"></span>, ]){{snd}}some vandalism |
|
|
|
|
|
:: {{u|Wutsje}} also includes (]) this wmflabs guc link for , showing him vandalizing ], ], ], ], and ] (]) wikis. Cheers, ] (]) 23:24, 1 February 2021 (UTC) |
|
Please let us know about how long your effort might take. That will help us decide whether to wait for your proposal or to petition for this page to be unlocked in the meantime. ] 18:07, 20 January 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
:: {{re|Wutsje}} could you run the guc tool run on the IP ranges indicated? There may be more than one range; see above. ] (]) 23:47, 1 February 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
==Proposed AIDS reappraisal criticism content== |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:In 1994 the journal ''Science'' conducted a 3-month investigation to examine the validity of the dissident claims. They interviewed AIDS supporters and detractors, examined the primary AIDS literature including Duesberg’s publications. This investigation found that “...although the Berkeley virologist raises provocative questions, few researchers find his basic contention that HIV is not the cause of AIDS persuasive. Mainstream AIDS researchers argue that Duesberg’s arguments are constructed by selective reading of the scientific literature, dismissing evidence that contradicts his theses, requiring impossibly definitive proof, and dismissing outright studies marked by inconsequential weaknesses.” The ''Science'' investigation also found that although Duesberg and the dissident movement have garnered support from some prominent mainstream scientists, most of this support is related to Duesberg’s right to hold a dissenting opinion, rather than support of his claims that HIV does not cause AIDS. |
|
|
|
|
|
What do you think? ] 02:41, 20 January 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
That version does a good job of only making citable claims. ] 04:26, 20 January 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
I propose that we move the above paragraph from the introduction to a new "Criticisms" section after the main points of the article. ] 20:13, 27 January 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:I agree the paragraph should be moved to a new "Criticisms" section. Side note: the journal "Science" doesn't appear to be following the scientific method in its purported debunking of AIDS dissidents' claims. ] ] 21:05, 27 January 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Source request == |
|
|
|
|
|
Could someone find a source for this sentence: "AIDS dissidents have little or nothing in common with those who view AIDS as a government or military conspiracy"? Seems in opposition to reality. Some segment of the media, due to their portrayal of AIDS, would have to be at least inadvertantly complicit in vast error should the highly buttressed "mainstream view" of AIDS be incorrect. ] ] 00:53, 20 January 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Should this article call AZT an antiretroviral drug? == |
|
|
|
|
|
Mainstream science classifies ] (AZT) as an ], but the AIDS reappraisal movement specifically disputes its effectiveness and thus does not similarly classify it. So, '''how should this article classify AZT?''' I suggest that this article only needs to refer to "antiretroviral drug" in its terminology section, e.g.: |
|
|
: '''AIDS terminology''' |
|
|
: ... |
|
|
: The AIDS reappraisal disputes the mainstream classification of ] (AZT) as an ]. |
|
|
: ... |
|
|
The rest of the article could then refer to AZT without saying "antiretroviral", except to make explicit claims about its effectiveness. How does that sound? ] 01:11, 20 January 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
it sounds wrong. Dissidents argue that calling AZT, and other drugs like it, "anti-retroviral" is a symptom of what is wrong with the AIDS orthodoxy. the drug what the orthodoxy calls it is no solution . So lots of the problems caused by the AIDS orthodoxy in fact revolve around using terms that don't actually match . is to put in orthodox POV. ] 01:36, 20 January 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Hardly any dissidents???== |
|
|
|
|
|
] 04:47, 20 January 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:That is a good source. It would be inaccurate to refer to the purported mainstream view of AIDS as something approaching a consensus scientific view. ] ] 09:18, 20 January 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::Hey, I'd like to remind people that if you wish you can seek mediation from the ], I won't be your mediator as I am involved (I locked the page), but I'm sure one of our competant mediators will be able to help you resolve your dispute. As an aside, please remember that the talk page of an article is for discussing the article in question, I don't see much of that going on. - ] 10:41, 21 January 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Insertion of unsourced material == |
|
|
|
|
|
Dear ], please stop inserting POV material. If you want to legitimately edit this article you have to insert sourced claims. If you think ''Science'' did not call for a close examination of Duesberg's claims and that the article's author was "out to get" Duesberg, then you must find an actual source for that. This is not a matter of MY POV versus YOUR POV, it is a matter of neutrality, which is achieved by using external sources. ] 21:18, 27 January 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
<s>Since you do not understand dissident or orthodox claims, you frequently use orthodox terms and don't even know it. Your insertion of an orthodox editorial, 8 pages long, is an attempt to discredit the AIDS reappraisal movement, isn't that right? Or are you going to pretend you are just putting it in there with no agenda? Admit your agenda, again...you already have before. You are here to censor dissidents as much as possible, and to promote your orthodox view about AIDS. And</s> every sentence I wrote is referenced now. <s>So stop inserting orthodox POV into this document, flawed as it already is.</s> ] 22:02, 27 January 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:Please refrain from personal attacks. ] 22:27, 27 January 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:I'm sorry Sgactorny that you are unable to hold a rational discussion without firing off insults. I have no agenda except accuracy. Also adding comments like "a mere eight page editorial" is a clear mis-representation of a thorough evaluation. Finally, if you want volume the scientific literature proving HIV causes AIDS is far more extensive and substantial that the dissident claims. I am tired of your personal attacks in this page and in your edit summaries and if this continues I will file an incident report for personal harrassment. ] 01:01, 28 January 2006 (UTC) |
|
I am opening this discussion after the recent series of back-and-forth reverts that started as a result of my addition of the word "erroneous" into the first sentence of this article. Per the scientific consensus on the HIV pathogen, it does indeed cause AIDS if left untreated, and denying said fact is by definition erroneous, since denialists do not have any factual or scientific basis at all for their claims and are repeating incorrect statements, which I have clarified in my edit summaries. The definition of "erroneous" is also clear according to the Oxford English Dictionary:
So why were my edits still reverted in spite of my explanation and the fact it didn't damage the article? Even when I cited WP:DONTREVERT to hopefully end this edit war, Antandrus swiftly came in and rolled it back with the same reasoning of "no improvement", even though the very page I have cited contradicts said reasoning, as it states:
"Do not revert an edit because that edit is unnecessary, i.e. the edit does not improve the article. For a reversion to be appropriate, the reverted edit must actually make the article worse. Misplaced Pages does not have a bias toward the status quo (except in cases of fully developed disputes, while they are being resolved). In fact, Misplaced Pages has a bias toward change, as a means of maximizing quality by maximizing participation."
Kaltionis (talk) 00:59, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
view · edit Frequently asked questions
Q1: Why does this article dismiss AIDS denialism as a valid scientific hypothesis?
A1: Misplaced Pages relies on reliable sources that have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. The neutral point of view policy, especially the sections on undue weight and equal validity, requires that editors not add their own editorial biases when writing text based on such sources. As the relevant academic field universally rejects the several hypotheses grouped under the umbrella of AIDS denialism, it would be a disservice to our readers to fail to report this as part of a full treatment of the topic. Further advice for how to treat topics such as this one may be found at the Fringe theories and Reliable sources (medicine-related articles) guidelines.
Q2: Why does this article use the term AIDS denialism? Why not AIDS dissent, AIDS reappraisal, or some similar term?
A2: There are several alternative terms describing the same constellation of ideas, and Misplaced Pages articles should use the most widely accepted in the most reliable sources; the word "denialism" is frequently used in the sociological and other professional literature on the topic. Furthermore, "AIDS denialism" adheres to both the neutral point of view policy and the "words to watch" guideline. It reflects the consensus among editors here and has been discussed several times in the past (see this archived discussion for such an example). Before starting another discussion about the article title, please consult the above policy and guideline, and read through the archives to see if your concern has already been addressed.
Q3: What about the famous and respectable scientists who dispute the role of HIV in causing AIDS?
A3: The scientists most often cited by the AIDS denialism movements are usually speaking outside their field of expertise, and generally have not published their disputes in reputable journals. For instance, Peter Duesberg is a groundbreaking cancer researcher and Kary Mullis invented PCR. Within the virology research community, however, there is no longer any doubt that HIV causes AIDS.
Q4: Doesn't Misplaced Pages's policy on "neutrality" require a neutral treatment?
A4: No. Misplaced Pages's policy on neutrality does not require that all hypotheses be treated as equal or valid, nor is neutrality decided by the opinions of editors. On Misplaced Pages, neutrality is represented by a fair summary of the opinion found in the relevant reliable, independent sources. If those sources reject an idea with unanimity or near-unanimity, due weight requires that that rejection be presented.
