Talk:ACT UP

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject AIDS
WikiProject icon This article is part of WikiProject AIDS, an attempt to build a comprehensive, detailed, and accessible guide to AIDS, HIV, and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate in the project, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.
 
WikiProject LGBT studies (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 
WikiProject Sociology / Social Movements  (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the social movements task force.
 
WikiProject Organizations  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Organizations. If you would like to participate please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 

Name[edit]

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)

Actions introduction[edit]

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.

Actions
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)

Article organization[edit]

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.

Critisism[edit]

The criticism section mentions ACT-UP saying something about some protest with a wafer, yet none is mentioned. 72.93.215.79 (talk) 02:57, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Life site news[edit]

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)

Dead link[edit]

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!

--JeffGBot (talk) 00:34, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

longevity drugs as part of treatment[edit]

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.

from a wikipedia perspective the Treatment Action Group should have an online link to treatmentactiongroup.org — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.223.120.163 (talk) 21:50, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Uganda Anti-Homosexuality Bill protest.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion[edit]

Image-x-generic.svg 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
What should I do?

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.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 10:44, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

"Stop the Church"[edit]

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)

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Move. Cúchullain t/c 16:27, 11 October 2012 (UTC)



AIDS Coalition to Unleash PowerACT UPAct up/ACT UP already redirect here and most sources refer to the AIDS Coalition to Unleash Power almost exclusively as ACT UP, sometimes not even mentioning the backronym. Individual chapters are named ACT UP/x, making it the WP:COMMONNAME. Relisted. BDD (talk) 21:37, 19 September 2012 (UTC) Gobōnobo + c 13:03, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

  • Oppose per MOS:TM and WP:ALLCAPS. The current title is in use[1] (not creating a new one), so I see no reason to move. --Labattblueboy (talk) 13:50, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Support per WP:COMMONNAME. The ostensible name "AIDS Coalition to Unleash Power" is merely a backronym, and is obscure and unfamiliar. Similar to Patriot Act, where we have the title at the name that is in actual use, not the highly contrived backronym "Uniting (and) Strengthening America (by) Providing Appropriate Tools Required (to) Intercept (and) Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001" or "USA PATRIOT". — P.T. Aufrette (talk) 16:39, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
    There is nothing in the article to indicate that this is a backronym. Can you provide a reliable source to this affect?--Labattblueboy (talk) 17:26, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
    Seems self-evident. Regardless, it's not worth debating this point, since the actual policy-based argument is WP:COMMONNAME. In particular, the common name is well-known and official name is highly obscure. — P.T. Aufrette (talk) 22:09, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
    There may be cases where a name is self evident, this however is not one of them. No shortage or news hits on the current title[2] and a google search of the current title, with wikipedia removed (search term "AIDS Coalition to Unleash Power" -wikipedia) produces 180K hits. No doubt ACT UP may produce more hits but its still an acronym, still in all caps. Further, We only use an acronym for a page name when its almost exclusively known by that name (WP:ACRONYMTITLE), and that's obviously not the case here.--Labattblueboy (talk) 02:26, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
    I am not saying "the name is self-evident" (whatever that means), only that it seems like an obvious backronym. You are misquoting WP:ACRONYMTITLE, which does not say we should only use an acronym for a title if it is almost exclusively known by that title. Nothing there is inconsistent with WP:COMMONNAME. — P.T. Aufrette (talk) 05:07, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose as long as Act-up and ACT-UP both redirect here I see no reason to change this international group's title. And I don't know where the backronym is coming from unless the claim, which isn't presently in the article, is that "ACT UP" preceded AIDS Coalition To Unleash Power, which I think is false. My understanding is that a call went forth to create a direct action group and by consensus the title was chosen knowing the acronym would be used by the media and at events. In reporting I generally see both presented. In short renaming is a very bad idea that does not serve our readers. Insomesia (talk) 17:40, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
"the title was chosen knowing the acronym would be used" is exactly the meaning of backronym. --JBL (talk) 15:13, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
I believe backronyms can be thought of at the same time, this doesn't supersede the name of the group. Insomesia (talk) 21:49, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Support as the common name -- it's self-evident that this is the name that was intended to be used, and indeed it's the one by which the organization is commonly known. --JBL (talk) 15:18, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
    • No, the name of the group has always been the AIDS Coalition To Unleash Power, the acronym has also been used since the beginning. I see no benefit in this move at all, especially as the two common acronyms already direct here. Insomesia (talk) 21:49, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Support as the most common and widely known name of the organization. Yes, it is an initialism but ACT UP itself usually used/uses ACT UP and not AIDS Coalition to Unleash Power. FWIW I've had a look in about a dozen books I own that are used across Wikipedia as reliable sources and none of them refer to ACT UP by the spelled out name on first usage, and that includes ACT UP co-founder Larry Kramer in his Reports from the Holocaust. Buck Winston (talk) 19:32, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Removed some sourced text[edit]

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.[1]

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)

  1. ^ Satinover, Jeffrey (1999). Neither Scientific nor Democractic The Linacre Quarterly, Vol 60, May 1999, p. 87; citing Pollard's op-ed "Time to Give Up Fascist Tactics" in the Washington Blade, 31 January 1991, p. 39