|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
Kimiko, you recently edited the page so that all "ACT UP"s read "ACT-UP", which I've seen to be the most common spelling (in the news and such), but the ACT UP/New York site does not use this spelling. What do we do?-Hyacinth 20:35, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I think the following paragraph should just be deleted, because it's obvious and to the extent that it's not obvious it's unencyclopedic. Please reinsert with explanation if you disagree.
- Because ACT UP and its affinity groups organized so many diverse actions in a relatively short period of time, it is difficult and perhaps counter-productive to classify them in any particular way. As such, the actions are presented chronologically with no particular weight given. Accounts of the actions are drawn from Douglas Crimp's history of ACT UP as well as the ACT UP Oral History Project.
Aroundthewayboy 15:07, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
So, I just added "Stop the Church" under actions - I think this is an appropriate place for it b/c it was a major action taken by the organization. Now, though, there's duplicate info in this new section and "Criticisms and controversy". Perhaps, the best bet is to merge info from the Criticisms section into the Stop the Church section and add new, more inclusive text to the Criticisms section, as that section currently really only speaks of criticism of the one action. What do ya think? ZueJay (talk) 20:09, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
- Agreed. Some material is repeated, and avoiding/minimizing a "Criticisms" section or the like, while incorporating the relevant content, is a good thing. I would try to incorporate other criticisms into other sections in an integrative fashion. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 19:09, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
- I just did this; the protest is coming back into the public eye because of the Moscow Pussy Riot trial, where, alas, they are facing a lot more than community service.
Life site news
I don't think Lifesitenews qualifies as a reliable source, and I can find no other source for the claim that activists threw used condoms at the altar. Plus, it's a throw-away line in an unrelated article almost twenty years later, so I’ve taken that out and replaced it. -- Irn (talk) 04:33, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
- In Don't ask, don't tell on 2011-03-17 13:39:20, 404 Not Found
- In Ernst Burchard on 2011-03-18 08:26:11, 404 Not Found
- In Gerry Studds on 2011-03-19 23:23:39, 404 Not Found
- In Gerry Studds on 2011-03-22 05:01:29, 404 Not Found
- In Harden–Eulenburg Affair on 2011-03-22 21:23:19, 404 Not Found
- In AIDS Coalition to Unleash Power on 2011-06-20 00:33:18, 404 Not Found
longevity drugs as part of treatment
There are published studies of longevity improving drugs. Deprenyl, metformin, resveratrol, rapamycin There are also a number of popular articles on longevity science at Scientific American.
What is the right way to suggest to the Treatment Action Group that all hiv persons should be prescribed a longevizing drug as a standard part of their treatment. The "psychology" of this is that if hiv changes lifespan a longevity drug restores full lifespan as a kind of treatment right.
Some longevity drugs that have been published as effective at two or more mammal species. The medical rationale to prescribe experimental drugs that are unapproved is they they may save a persons life. The many years of life saved per person on a longevity drug then may have similar "quantity of life years gained" that goes with a person being cured of cancer, justifying the prescription of only partially researched preFDA longevity compounds to hiv patients.
further, the voluntary use of longevity drugs among hiv persons screens these drugs to benefit everybody.
File:Uganda Anti-Homosexuality Bill protest.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion
|An image used in this article, File:Uganda Anti-Homosexuality Bill protest.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Other speedy deletions
Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
"Stop the Church"
I've redirected the Stop the Church article here for now. This isn't meant to be a vote against having it, just that it's not big enough at the moment to be worth bothering. The version I redirected, and some previous versions, have a few minor bits in them that are unsourced but perhaps worth looking into at some point, but for now I think it's more productive just to look for new sources directly. Wnt (talk) 16:23, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
Removed some sourced text
I just removed the following sourced text, added by another editor:
- Eric Pollard, founder of the Washington D.C. branch of ACT UP, asserted that "some of us" in ACT UP used Adolph Hitler's autobiography Mein Kampf as a "working model" for their protests and direct actions.
It was not on-topic in the section "Structure of ACT-UP". I'm also skeptical about including a citation like this: why source to what seems to be essentially an attack piece rather than to the original Blade op-ed (which unfortunately I can't find online)? Also, does anyone happen to know if Linacre Quarterly is a WP:RS? (I've not heard of it before, and I was curious whether it's been discussed anywhere.) --JBL (talk) 21:03, 18 October 2012 (UTC)