Talk:HIV/AIDS

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former featured article HIV/AIDS is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Good article HIV/AIDS has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on June 15, 2006.
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team / v0.5 / Vital / Supplemental
WikiProject icon This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Taskforce icon
This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.
WikiProject Medicine / Translation / Reproductive medicine (Rated GA-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that this article follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Translation task force (marked as Top-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Reproductive medicine task force.
 
Note icon
This article was selected on the Medicine portal as one of Wikipedia's best articles related to Medicine.
Note icon
This article was previously a Medicine Collaboration of the Week.
WikiProject Africa (Rated GA-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Africa 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.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject International development (Rated GA-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject International development, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of international development, including such areas as appropriate technology, microfinance and social issues, 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.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.
 
WikiProject Microbiology (Rated GA-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Microbiology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Microbiology 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.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.
 
WikiProject Viruses (Rated GA-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Viruses, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of viruses 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.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Alternative[edit]

In the alternative section, maybe a mention should be made of this Tibetan herbal doctor

http://yeshidhonden.com/

who claimed to have successfully treated AIDS patients. Of course no evidence was presented. 81.156.243.180 (talk) 01:48, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Not notable for this page. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:12, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Mother-to-child transmission greatly reduced by short-term medication, need more facts, specifics and references.[edit]

Just to lay it out there. I AM NOT A PHYSICIAN. I am a pretty good health researcher and try to accurately summarize references. I have a couple of questions.

We say:

"With appropriate treatment the risk of mother-to-child infection can be reduced to about 1%.[55]" Are we talking about what's theoretically achievable? Or what's currently achieved given limitations in finances, the fact that patients following instructions is often good but not perfect, realities in access, etc.? And I think sometimes medical publications talk about this distinction.

We say:

"Preventive treatment involves the mother taking antiretroviral during pregnancy and delivery, an elective caesarean section, avoiding breastfeeding, and administering antiretroviral drugs to the newborn.[57] Many of these measures are however not available in the developing world."

I distinctly remember that WHO recommended that HIV+ moms continue to breastfeed their children as both mom and child take the antiviral medication. And the reasoning was that continued breastfeeding put the overall odds more in the baby's favor, greater nutrition and less chance of diarrheal diseases from questionable water, and this is especially the case for women and children from resource-limited countries.

Let's please check this reference one more time to see if we're doing a good job summarizing and/or let's be open to references which take the other side of the breastfeeding question.


The following reference may not directly address either of the above, but it looks interesting and I don't want to lose it:

J.A. Stockman. (2012) Antiretroviral Treatment for Children with Peripartum Nevirapine Exposure. Yearbook of Pediatrics 2012, 274-276.

posted by Cool Nerd (talk) 02:24, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
Actually, the 2013 WHO recommendations are that HIV+ mothers in high income nations not breast feed their children, but that HIV+ mothers in low and middle income nations should breastfeed their children and continue on antiretroviral therapy at least until the children are weaned (and longer if economically feasible). There's an overview of the history of the changing recommendations on the AVERT breastfeeding page, and the references there would be useful for anyone who feels moved to rewrite the pertinent sections of this article. - Nunh-huh 04:24, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for the lead, although I'm working through another reference right now. And yes, if this is the current recommendation, I think we should include it. Cool Nerd (talk) 17:47, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

[1]

• "Exclusive breastfeeding for up to six months was associated with a three to four fold decreased risk of transmission of HIV compared to non-exclusive breastfeeding[7] in three large cohort studies conducted in Côte d’Ivoire, South Africa and Zimbabwe."
.
.

• "In settings where antiretroviral prophylaxis and free infant formula were provided, the combined risk of HIV infection and death by 18 months of age was similar in infants who were replacement fed from birth and infants breastfed for 3 to 6 months (Botswana and Côte d'Ivoire).

• "Early cessation of breastfeeding (before 6 months) was associated with an increased risk of infant morbidity (especially diarrhoea) and mortality in HIV-exposed children[8] in completed (Malawi) and ongoing studies (Kenya, Uganda and Zambia)."
.
.

• "Exclusive breastfeeding is recommended for HIV-infected women for the first 6 months of life unless replacement feeding is acceptable, feasible, affordable, sustainable and safe for them and their infants before that time.

• "When replacement feeding is acceptable, feasible, affordable, sustainable and safe, avoidance of all breastfeeding by HIV-infected women is recommended."
.
.

• "Governments and other stakeholders should re-vitalize breastfeeding protection, promotion and support in the general population. They should also actively support HIV-infected mothers who choose to exclusively breastfeed, and take measures to make replacement feeding safer for HIV-infected women who choose that option."

Distinctions between HIV and AIDS[edit]

We need to make an effort to clarify that HIV and AIDS are not one in the same. The opening line (I just corrected the full name of AIDS in this article) is: "Human immunodeficiency virus infection and acquired immune deficiency syndrome (HIV/AIDS) is a disease of the human immune system..." This seems to imply otherwise. While the article is discussing HIV disease (with AIDS being the final stage of HIV disease), an HIV-positive individual has not necessarily progressed to having AIDS. I find that the wording of the opening sentence (and perhaps the opening paragraph at large) should be reconfigured in the interest of both clarity and accuracy. While I fully understand the nature of this particular article, and its intent to discuss the entire range of an HIV infection and the patient's progression to AIDS, I am a proponent of greater clarity. I suspect that, to someone with a limited familiarity with the topic, there may be ambiguity as to whether an HIV-infection is the same thing as AIDS. MichaelKovich (talk) 02:19, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

HIV/AIDS is a spectrum of disease. This is the term prefered by UNAID among many others. We make this distinction clear in the article.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:38, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
MichaelKovich, distinguishing HIV from AIDS has been discussed at this talk page more than once before; see Talk:HIV/AIDS/Archive 22#Requested move, where I linked to past discussions about this matter. WP:Consensus is against distinguishing them in the way that you propose, except for the existence of the HIV article. Flyer22 (talk) 02:45, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
I agree that the article fails to adequately make the distinction in the lead. It opens with a very awkwardly worded introduction that is hard to correct without a massive rewrite. SInce when is a needle stick by an HIV+ "HIV/.AIDS. It is just lousy writing IMHO. I won't be having it. I don't care if yoiu cite someone using the term that way one time or a hundred there are hu dreds of thousands and it is OR to try to assert that HIV/AIDS as a term neans bare niminimal HIV positive status. It See my edit,thanks. Yes I tagged it. Wikidgood (talk) 02:08, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
This ref discusses that HIV/AIDS is both HIV infection and AIDS [1] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:03, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
If anyone cares that WP do no harm, please follow the edit warring against my informed, grammatically proper and sWP - compliant edits attempting to modify the horrible lede which implies that HIV positivity is somehow AIDS. It does not overtly equate them but it implies them with the second sentence which is really gratuitous. I have now re-edited it to present the salient truth of the matter for laity. Something can be technically true and correct but be utterly misleading. For example, if an article opened "All gay people have many germs." it would be technically true and one could even cite Reliable Sources to prove it. In a nutshell, the old lede which the Revert-Warrior is trying to preserve is along those lines.
As posted on his Talk Page: Your revert pointlessly stigmatizes HIV+ people with the appellation "HIV/AIDS". It is an unduly circumstantial piece of useless verbiage which harms patients. If you are a medical professional you should be ashamed of yourself for stigmatizing and harming millions of HIV+ people. WP is an encyclopedia not a dictionary and by opening the article with an entirely uneccessary application of the term to the broadest possible category you are mere stating the obvious from a pointlessly destruction POV which sheds no light on the topic. The talk page of the article is seeking a means to do the exact opposite. Shameful. Wikidgood (talk) 23:37, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

No one is claiming that HIV infection is the same as AIDS. How is "stating the obvious" wrong? Sure we can have that AIDS justs refer to the late symptoms. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:25, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Page number or better yet the relevant "discussion". This is a matter of usage. HIV is not AIDS and like I said above even if a thousand people use the term interchangably it is still rank demagoguery to impose it as Holy Writ. Usage varies around the planet anyway. Buuut if your source actually discusses the matter of usage, and if that has been vetted by some debate and discussion over theusage, it is something lke ethnic slur words, something we have to put up with. But I think that your link wil not actually say what needs to be said to justify the assertion. BTW it is not "obvious" that HIV is AIDS disease, nor is ten pounds overweight obesity and if you think that there is never anything wrong with stating the obvious, you are probably on WP as much as you are because you have no friennds (ONLY JOKING). Realy do you tell your fat friends they look fat? Wikidgood (talk) 02:35, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
Yes I agree 100% that HIV infection is not AIDS. We never say in this article that HIV infection is AIDS. There however is a term called HIV/AIDS that does refer to the spectrum of disease. HIV infection is all three stages of disease. AIDS is only the last end stage of disease. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:39, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
Two issues there. First, the WP:RS needs to discuss the term and the usage. If you merely encounter some sources using the term in such and such manner it is WP:OR violation to merely extrapolate. At least in this case where you are stigmatizing millions of people and putting their life at risk by confusing lay readers. But even if SOME RS use the term and even if they justify it with a discussion of the term I would hope there are sources which dispute the use. But it would be the use out of context that would be problematic and the article is really off on a bad footing by launching into a justification for its use because the usage is predicated on professional use of the term and readers will be using it in a different way and many will conflate it. DId you know you have cancer cells in your body right now? It is true. But we don't say you have cancer. Essentially what you are doing is stigmatizing millions of HIV positive people by interjection an uneccessary and confusing bit of verbiage about the use of a term in other contexts.AlAS.\

The deeper flaw, and pardon the auto-indent, is that the [[verbiage] is just that, words about the words. It bmistakes signifier for signified. This is nt an article on Medical nnomenclature or Terminology in the war on AIDSmit is about the phenomena signified by the term. On that basis alone it dpoes not belong. For the same reason, Automobile does not begin with a statement "Automobile can refer to any device which is utilized to transport...." it talks about Cars! Wikidgood (talk) 02:49, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
New development. You prove my point when you reverted an edit in which someone used a WHO link - which meets your legalistic fix on WP:RS. He was proposing that WHO usage trumps the old usage but you came in with the bald assertion that "CDC" still uses the old usage. Reasonable people can disagree on that, but he is making the same mistake with Ebola VIrus Disease/Ebola Hemoraghic Fever EVD/EHF that you are making with HIV/AIDS - taking bureacratic medicine at the level of international bureacracy {some would rail "world government" but that is not my bag) and making that usage into an object of idolatry and mimicry. Yes they are RS for what they are talking about in the context they are talking. But for lay encyclopedia readers the usage of World Health Org bureacracies is not the ONLY consideration. You yourself dismissed the WHO-cited edit on the [Ebola Virus Disease] page. This proves my point that just because you can cite a usage of a given part of the bureacracies, even if they are basically RS, does not trump the discussion. If it good enough for you to use in dismissing the EHF/EVD edit then I have to ask you not to be so cavalier in your dismissal of my concerns by the easy means of pointing to the UNAID bureacratese. There is a lot more to it and FYI I will be taking this argument to the RS talk page because obviously much of this needs to be worked out on that level. Plese not I am engaging an issue, not making a personal attack and I will ask you to stick to the issues and refrain from edits you are not capable of articulating a rationale for. THank you in advance for your kind consideration hereof. Remaining yours very truly, Wikidgood. Wikidgood (talk) 04:24, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
Regarding this edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ebola_virus_disease&diff=630185368&oldid=630179580 at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ebola_virus_disease&diff=630185368&oldid=630179580 in which you yourself dismiss global English language usage of World Health Organization as irrelevant. All I ask is that the same standards apply to HIV and AIDS. I am not some kind of conspiracy theorist who denies that HIV and AiDS are causally linked so please stop tryingto dismiss me as if I were. You yourself discard the international bureacracies when it suits you and so I consider the matter settled by your own de facto admission. I will transpose these insights into the relevant RS guidelines and you are free to discuss or ignore but not to revert withoutdiscussion. Ciao. Wikidgood (talk) 04:31, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
Bottom line: MichaelKovich (talk) made a good point and the current state of the article is much better. A groundwork has been laid for discussion of possible future split. Doc James, while making allegations of bad faith etc. nevertheless made some good points which assisted in focusing the article improvement which Michael pointed out and with which ultimately I think we all concurred. Some good lines of development of WP policy on RS has been suggested. No one has reverted the stuff that counts most in the article despite contentiousness. Hence I personally feel comfortable, and I hope Michael won't object, if I mark this at least, for now, reselved. Michael can remove it if he so wishes.
Resolved: every dispute should end this way
Wikidgood (talk) 04:38, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Propose to merge sections: Misconceptions and Denial[edit]

This topic should not be dignified with two short sections one medium section will do nicely.There is a notablity issue IMHO as well. In an aricle on solar geophysics we don't have a separate section for flat earth theories. Nor do we have a section for the theory of bodily humours in articles on pathophysiology. I think consensus is achievable on this issue as the sections are pretty minimal and arguably don't belonghere in the first place. Wikidgood (talk)

Agree and done. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:55, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
"All's well that ends well." Wikidgood (talk) 05:07, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
Yep, a logical progression of the discussion at Talk:HIV/AIDS/Archive_22#Conspiracy_theories_etc_edit. Adrian J. Hunter(talkcontribs) 08:26, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
POINT of PROCESS That was a nice post and in an abstract sense yes the edit may be a logical progression of that separate discussion. I want however to make it clear that the edit was not a direct extension of that discussion but was actually a bit more unilateralist than might have been ideal. No one objects to the content edit but I object to the process. It seems like the edit is made because one page owner decided he was in agreemnent. The implication is that however if in the future I have an editorial approach it will again be up to that one page owner to either implement or thwart my idea and indeed it seems that I am not the only editor who is finding even the most routine edits obstructed by that page ownership attitude. So this is in legal terms what is called "taking exception" to the process while not wishing to revert the edit, which was indeed my proposal anyway~~

Awkward opening sentences[edit]

The two opening sentences are awkward and difficult to understand.

The semantic problems are as follows: 1. Although the normal practice in wiki appears to be to expand acronyms such as "HIV" or "AIDS", the acronym "HIV/AIDS" itself is not expanded in normal use. Trying to do so just looks clumsy. 2. HIV/AIDS is a disease, not a virus and not itself an infection. It is caused by an infection by a virus. 3. Many readers will need clarification of what HIV/AIDS refers to, compared to what AIDS refers to.

I would rewrite as follows:

HIV/AIDS is a disease of the human immune system caused by infection with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV).[1] The term HIV/AIDS represents the entire range of the disease caused by infection with HIV, while the term AIDS (acquired immune deficiency syndrome) refers to the late stages of that disease.[2][3]

Does that read more clearly and logically? On A Leash (talk) 23:50, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Am happy with that. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:02, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
Yeah that's great. I'd use quotation marks to produce

HIV/AIDS is a disease of the human immune system caused by infection with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV).[1] "HIV/AIDS" represents the entire range of the disease caused by infection with HIV, whereas "AIDS" (acquired immune deficiency syndrome) refers to the late stages of that disease.[2][3]

Adrian J. Hunter(talkcontribs) 03:30, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
It is still awkward, inaccurate and misleading in a way which is harmful to PWA's and helpful to willful demagogues or the ignorant stampede-prone. Specifically, "HIV" is not a "disease" it is a designation for a retrovirus and in this conjoined double acronynm "HIV/AIDS" it really is intended to mean "infection with HIV". However, asymptomatic infection can occur with zero pathology and thus is not a "disease" state at all. Everyone has "cancer" cells and a wide variety of bacterial, viral and other microfauna in their bodies whether or not they are HIV+. To characterize a person who is HIV+ as "diseased" is really a projection of a colonialist, deprecating and in some cases dehumanizing point of view. Even if SOME sources use this Frankenstein acronym, not ALL RS discussing the spectrum of HIV-related pathology and public health management issues do so in lockstep, and there is a substantial body of 1/2/3rd degree RS which discusses it in other terms, specifically in terms distinguishing HIV+ status from full blown AIDS in a very clear manner. In any case, not very many sources go around referring to "HIV/AIDS" in the vast majority of RS people refer to AIDS when they mean AIDS and when they refer to HIV+ status they refer to HIV positive status. Only on this Wikipedia article does there seem to be a tenacious, almost compulsive controlling desire to glom together these separate and distinct concepts (HIV+ nstatus and AIDS pathology). Perhaps that is due to a WP:AGF consistent intention to prophylax against HIV denialism but forcing an unhelpful neologism, or neo-acronym, down readers throats accomplishes similar evils. Somewhere in the ENglish speaking world people are going to be reading about "HIV/AIDS" and conflating the distinctions and the result may be repression against PWA"s perhaps even causing premature death through the effects of stigmatization which in some part the controlling editors of this article will be culpable for. To be blunt. Don't kid yourself that there is consensus on the whole approach of this article, there is not. Wikidgood (talk) 18:10, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

A simple way to resolve the primary disagreement[edit]

On an interim basis I am fine with changing the one word "is" as per this edit which stops the Wikipedia voice from imparting a disease status onto HIV positivity by distinguishing between ontological pathology and the usage of some health care actors. If you can live with this very simple edit, which should not be controversial, I will not be crusading for perfection as the edit takes the reification out of the picture. Wikidgood (talk) 18:52, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Reverted here and here, per the WP:Refers essay. And it doesn't matter that WP:Refers is an essay; it should be followed.
Also, don't bring this matter to my talk page. Flyer22 (talk) 19:01, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
As seen here, you senselessly WP:Edit war. A person does not have to state something on the talk page to revert you. And when a person does revert you, he or she likely intends to take the matter to the talk page. Regardless in this case, with the way you have acted at the HIV/AIDS article and talk page, and at Doc James's talk page and now mine, it should be easy for others to see why I am not the least bit interested in discussing a thing with you. Flyer22 (talk) 19:16, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
You are just making an ad hominen personal attack and trying to create a voting bloc. Please read WP:OSE and review WP:AGF. If you are not willing to justify your reversion with reference to WP policies then you are admitting to a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality. You are frankly and unashamedly trying to create a boycott by enlisting other users on a basis of WP:IDONTLIKEIT and as such you are the one who is creating a problem. You seem experienced enough to know that just saying that you find the wording nin question , "HIV/AIDS refers to..": somehow "tacky" does not constitute a legitimate cause for reversion, and this undiluted personal attack you now make is irrelevant, to say the least. Wikidgood (talk) 19:21, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
Look at your inappropriate posts to Doc James's talk page and your inappropriate post to mine. You don't seem to understand Wikipedia's policies and guidelines well at all, despite editing Wikipedia since 2005. And now look at your silly characterization of me above. Yes, indeed, there are some Wikipedia editors I'd rather not engage with. After seeing your inappropriate posts to Doc James's talk page, you became one of those editors for me. This is the end of discussion as far as my interaction with you goes on this topic, and perhaps ever. Flyer22 (talk) 19:42, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
Would you take a deep breath for a moment. I read your threat ("see what happens") and also the links you provided and find nothing in them to support your indignant assertions of impropriety on my part. I see some differences of opinion regarding subject matter and process. This is no big deal for anyone and I have already collaborated quite productively with that other editor. It is flatly inappropriate for you to keep pointing to some past dialogue as somehow pertinent. If you think you have identified some kind of actionable pattern of misconduct then you are free to take it to ANI where you will enhance your lititigious reputation and learn about WP:BOOMERANG.
To however assume salvagable good faith as per WP:AGF I do ask in the interest of collaborative encyclopedia building that you review the links which I have provided especially WP:OSE which you do not seem to be implementing in your practices. Yes, "other stuff exists" - I have engaged in dialogue often with sharp disagreement and so what then?
Please note also that with regard to your strident demand to be insulated from collaborative feedback on your talk page that if you have not pinged me you cannot expect to enforce a timestamp on your requests and demands. I apologize if you were annoyed or inconvenienced but you did revert without explanation and ignored the request to go to so as I apologetically explained I felt that you needed to engage the WP:BRD. This is Wikipedia after all so please don't get so riled up if you have to engage in discussion with people who do not agree with your premises, even if you think that their edit as "tacky", whatever exactly you mean by that.
(Additional paragraph on my Talk Page, subject heading "Frequent Flyer")Wikidgood (talk) 20:40, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Taking a deep, cleansing breath...[edit]

I don't think this is controversial (see main page titles at CDC and WHO, for example). There is a broad consensus that HIV infection is a disease and should be treated with antiretroviral medications to prevent complications regardless of CD4 count, because all persons with HIV infection are at increased risk for certain complications (e.g. TB). Certainly there are some situations where this is difficult to recommend due to expense/logistics, but experts in the HIV/AIDS field are no longer deeply split on the benefits of treatment with current drugs (this wasn't so true a few years ago). HIV/AIDS is a disease. -- Scray (talk) 21:22, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Please see my below post which I posted before I saw your remark thanks.I don't know where you get this notion that "HIV is a disease" HIV is a virus. The disease you have in mind is AIDS and latent AIDS. Many people who are HIV positive do not have AIDS and this article title suggests otherwise to lay readers. The fact that someone in the information department at an agency titles an article in a certain manner in the USA in a particlar manner is suggestive I admit but does not in any way establish an RS that "HIV" is a disease or even that HIV infection is a disease. Ultimately we may need an article on HIV infection that would solve a lot of the problem, IMHO.Wikidgood (talk) 21:31, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
From the 8th (2015) edition of Mandell's Principles and Practice of Infectious Diseases (Elsevier, ed by Bennett, Dolin, and Blaser; ISBN 978-1-4557-4801-3), Chapter 124, "General Clinical Manifestations of Human Immunodeficiency Virus Infection" by Timothy Sterling (Vanderbilt University) and Richard Chaisson (Johns Hopkins University), section on "Classification of HIV Infection" paragraph 1, page 1542: "Although distinguishing between HIV infection and AIDS has been historically useful for epidemiologic purposes, the distinction is somewhat arbitrary and is less meaningful from a clinical perspective in an era of potent antiretroviral therapy (ART)." Reliable enough? -- Scray (talk) 21:47, 5 November 2014 (UTC)


Not at al. It is inapposite. He is speaking in the passive voice which George Orwell decried in his essay on the English language. What he is really saying is basically not even correct but his point is that he is going to have you prescribe antiretrovirals whether or not there is AIDS and also that as you monitor T cells there will not be a hard and fast line. But there certainly is a point at which you PCP prophylax and MTB prophylax etc and if you over-prescribe when the patient has good T cells and is does not exhibit signs and symptoms of disease then you do the patient a disservice. But he would probably agree with everything Ihave said because he was making a point that from a CLINICAL perspective the distinction is not critical.

− −

But he also admits that his off the cuff remark is not valid from an epidemiological perspective and so I can rest my case. And in fact the root cause of the disagreements between myself and our distinguished colleague(s) who have background in clinical practice is that I am more focused on epidemiology and public health management issues as opposed to clinical practice. But any clinician who comes onto WP expects everything to reflect their clinician point of view wherein lies the problem. It is all consistent with WP:AGF which is why I did NOT express any of this to Noam when he contacted me...so in summary that quote is taken out of context and wrongly and has nothing to do with WP:NAME.

Independently of your thoughtful research I notice however also that even the article itself proves my point by referning not to "HIV/AIDS" but rather to "AIDS". ROTFL!

− −

"AIDS was first recognized by the United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in 1981 and its cause—HIV infection—was identified in the early part of the decade."

− −

See? Everybody refers to this as AIDS not 'H-I-V-slash-A-I-D-S". It is in fact both the common name and also is technically correct to call it AIDS as per http://de.wikipedia.org, http://es.wikipedia.org etcetera,Wikidgood (talk) 22:02, 5 November 2014 (UTC)


And on review I notice he also qualifies his remark that the distinction is only "somewhat" arbitrary and less meaningful from a clinical perspective..

Exhibit B[edit]

.well and so here on a level of (LOL) I will show you yours if you show me mine: Clearly distinguishing the topics, to wit:

:Medical News Today
What Is AIDS? What Is HIV?
Last updated: 3 September 2014
Knowledge center
AIDS (Acquired immune deficiency syndrome or acquired immunodeficiency syndrome) is a disease caused by a virus called HIV (Human Immunodeficiency Virus). The illness alters the immune system, making people much more vulnerable to infections and diseases. This susceptibility worsens as the disease progresses.
Incidentally, I cannot validate the text quoted which rather ambiguously blurs the distinction between early illness associated with HIV infection and AIDS as a legitimate 2015 citation - it is still only November 2014!! LOL

Exhibit C[edit]

What Is the Difference between HIV and AIDS?
When a person is infected with the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) we say that he or she is "HIV positive," or "has HIV." A person who has HIV is classified as having AIDS if one of two things happens:
the CD4 count has dropped below 200/cc, or

an HIV-related infection or HIV-related cancer develops.

A CD4 count below 200 cells/cc is called AIDS by definition. A patient may have 200 CD4 cells or less and feel very healthy, but he or she still has AIDS by definition. The reason 200 was chosen as the cut-off for AIDS is that most HIV-related infections and cancers occur in patients with less than 200 CD4 cells
RS Validation of Exhibit C[edit]
Who Is HealthCommunities.com For?
HealthCommunities.com is a health website dedicated to educating users about diseases, conditions and overall well-being...
Our Founder: Stanley J. Swierzewski III, M.D.
Dr. Swierzewski was one of the first physicians to realize the value of using the Internet to enhance the doctor-patient relationship. In 1998, he founded HealthCommunities.com, Inc., a network of specialty-specific websites providing trustworthy, physician-developed and -monitored medical information.
Dr. Swierzewski received his bachelor's degree in business administration from the University of Massachusetts and his medical degree from Tufts University School of Medicine in Boston, where he served as associate clinical professor. He completed his residency at the University of Michigan Medical Center in Ann Arbor, where he received numerous awards for his research publications.
In addition to Dr. Swierzewski, HealthCommunities.com content has been reviewed by a variety of physician reviewers (see below).
In summary, people surfing into the HIVAIDS article will be confused from the beginning and many will leave Wikipedia clueless as to the distinction.ommon name of AIDS is in fact AIDS not HIVAIDS and the silly disregard of the naming convention by ENglish language WP only, and unlike all other WMF projects, is silly. Wikidgood (talk) 22:41, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Structural problem with Wikipedia.en HIV and AIDS issues, eventual solution ->Move/Rename ef Aquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome[edit]

Other users, albeit often an overuled minority, have previously expressed concerns with agglomeration of AIDS disease with Hum.Im.Virus and I would like to point out that this problem does not exist on other WMF projects.The problem is not because bad, controlling or inappropriate people edit here. The problem is that there are usages in English language RS which suggest the page name which itself is an endless fount of confusion and disagreements.

The previous thread got into an unpleasant edit battle as a direct and proximate result of the problem. Now I am going to go on faith here because I made a proposal on Ebola which someone who edits there a lot dislikes and rather than discuss my proposal in a manner I found to be serious and respectful he actually went out and modified OTHER pages which I had cited as precedent. I asked that he not make a habit of it and am going on faith that he will not do so.

So let us look at what other WMF projects do with this problem; do they glom HIV and AIDS into one article?

The answer is that they do not. And again, please do not now charge off onto other language projects and try to get them to change the name of their articles because I do believe that would be flatly unethical and I would use all lawful means to hold accountable anyone who unethically harms the world's PWA population.

SO here is some DATA:

Spain: Sida page and IVH page

Portugal: Same

Germany: AIDS page and HIV pageA

Czechoslovakia: AIDS page and HIV page

Russia: Синдром приобретённого иммунного дефицита (AIDS) Вирус иммунодефицита человека HIV

Italy: La sindrome da immunodeficienza acquisit AIDS page/ HIV page Il virus dell'immunodeficienza umana

Poland: Ludzki wirus niedoboru odporności, HIV Zespół nabytego niedoboru odpornościAIDS ' So it seems that this page is presenting a specifically Anglo-centric if not US-centric view and eventually should be subject to a MOVE discussion.

In the meantime, it might be helpful to bear in mind that it is only Eng Wikipedia which so stubbornly insists on stigmatizing PWAs and confusing readers by agglomerating HIV and AIDS into one title. Wikidgood (talk) 21:26, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi Wikidgood, looking at references it seems that pretty frequently HIV/AIDS is written about and researched in a way that covers the complete spectrum of the illness that happens when someone is infected with HIV. When doing so the subject is often called HIV/AIDS. And on Wikipedia English the previous discussions on naming have decided that using the inclusive subject title works best for the main article about HIV infection and AIDS. IMO there are good reasons to have one main article that discusses the full spectrum of the disease from infection to AIDS. It is reader-friendly to combine the most important information in one article rather than separating out the HIV infection illness into a separate article which would require people to read at least two articles to get complete information on the illness or have loads of repetitive information in which would also be a waste of time for the reader.
I see no evidence that the use of HIV/AIDS is stigmatizing to anyone or that it is a US-centric name. WHO uses the heading when discussing some of their latest work. [2].
And please reconsider frequently reverting the article and causing the content to be unstable. Instead try to gain clear consensus on the article talk page on this article which has a large number of page views. Sydney Poore/FloNight♥♥♥♥ 20:55, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
Sydney, is it, thank you for thoughtful consideration of these matters. However it seems that you overlook the evidence that it is only the English speakers who insist so stubbornly on conjoining the separate and distinct phenomena of HIV infection and the status of AIDS itself on Wikipedia mainspace. All of the other primary WMF projects do not do so. ANd it may indeed be true that CDC is unduly influential on WHO. It is simply the case that the Anglo-American viewpoint on page naming is not consistent with the international custom and that raises a serious question in terms of WMF policy: do we aspire to a global perspective or do we allow WMF projects to Balkanize?
As for your separate argument regarding user convenience and non-repetition, I don't think a broad intention like that really informs us on the questions before us which arise out of what IMHO opinion is a proclivity to tag team page ownership and an inertial preference for this so called "stable version" concept. If you peruse the various WP policy and guideline and essays and discussions you will realize that there is in fact no preference for stasis on WP, at all, and what keeps WP alive is that content is always subject to dynamic growth as new editors become active and the facts on the ground change.
I in no way insist nor have I insisted on any one particular fix such as a PAGE MOVE or specific wording. I have and continue to follow the suggested guideline of BRD and TRYSOMETHINGELSE as comments come into the dialogue. Unfortunately, there appears now to be a phenomena of reversions which igore the discussion and actually destroy the benefit of criticisms which have been incorporated. The process on this page is very poor because there is a kind of militant resistance to any change at all even changes which those who resist change themselves suggest. I am referring to the reversion by drjim back to the wording that uses "the term HIV/AIDS". It was two editors on this talk page who wanted to implement the concept of the essay on "Refers" in an inappropriately dogmatic way which I was just going along with. So actually by reverting my edit, jim is supporting my reluctance to worry about the matter with respect to their objection.
But then which is it? Is this just a situation of localized bureacratic resistance to change? It seems that the reverters just want to revert anything that Wikidgood comes up with just because it is a Wikidgood edit.
Of course, you are not party to that yourself; I just want to caution you that the ownership inertia on this page is something you may wish to be wary of supporting.Wikidgood (talk) 01:03, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Latent infection is never construed as equivalent to illness and disease it is merely a risk factor[edit]

There is a basic confusion going on here in that people are tenaciously defending a straw concept. Obviously HIV infection is a medical concern a health concern it is not per se disease in many cases. Someone who seems educated enough to know better has posted on this page an egregious mistatement fueling the misconception but which refers only to SOME HIV positive people who have coinfection with HPV and yes some of them are ill and have a disease going on. Not ALL of them. HIV infection per se I don't see an RS stating that the bare fact of infection, asymptomatic infection if there is no decline in CDC cells that constitutes a disease state. THere are SOME but not ALL HIV positive who have disease JUST LIKE TB positive people are usually not in a disease state. Similarly almost everybody has numerous infections and cancer cells this is a plain medical fact no RS denies. Just because you happen to have say some pneumocystis pneuomonia in your sustem does not mean you have PCP pneumonia. Yes PCP is the name of a disease. This page just confuses readers and editors alike and that is in no small part because HIV and AIDS are very complex topics. It is not confusing because anyone on this page is evil. I answered Jim's question here.

BRD Outcome: Try something else/ meeting the objection four square[edit]

OK I will accept the criticism and modify my approach even though I think that the real point is being missed by some editors.

The objection to my original edit is based on a casual reading of this - couple of lines stating the obvious. It relies upon something called the [[use-mentiondistinction[[. I am fully aware of that issue. That is not really a sufficient basis to confuse people about the distincions between HIV positive status and AIDS.

However, I notice that the existing lede already did violate that concern anyway. It is silly therefore to assert it as a basis to revert the clarification edit which I had made But I will roll with it and spell all of this out for those who care about this issue.

I am now and have been keenly aware of the use-mention distinction which is the basis of cited rationale for reverting the original fix. I have always been even though when I studied philosophy I did not subscribe to the analytic school I respect it.

Please take notice that however I do not take issue with that concern. I have no beef with the use-mention distinction despite my lack of particular interest in that whole Anglo-American post-emnpiricist POV. I am going along with it on en.wikipedia.

However assuming that the use-mention distinction cited by the short paragraph in the "refer-to" is not in dispute and is controlling, (1) HIV/AIDS is IMO an exception because (a) it is a contrived term, actually a melding of two acronyms (b) it tends to create confusion which is contrary to the encyclopedic mission.

Moreover, (3) I have nevertheless gone along with the objection and purged the l lede of much of the language which treads on this use/mention worry. I took out the word "term" in particular, so, be happy. HIV/AIDS refers to the full spectrum from infection to AIDS itself. That works for me and it does address all concerns raised above by all other commentators.

The revision also is (4) more internally consistent because it does not contradict itself as it did before when it said BOTH that HIVAIDS is a "term" covering the spectrum,and also is, existentially and ontologically, a "disease". The current revised lede nicely avoids this inconsistency. Wikidgood (talk) 23:07, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

HIV infection is not a "spectrum of concern" as your most recent edit suggests. Even persons with no overt symptoms of HIV infection have increased CD4+ T cell turnover, loss of CD4+ T cell functions, reduced responsiveness to vaccines, increased susceptibility to tuberculosis, more rapid progression of liver disease if they also have HCV infection - in sum, HIV infection is a disease with a late stage called "AIDS". Thus, the designation HIV/AIDS. This is an accurate and widely-accepted terminology. BTW, you have not followed BRD, because you have not allowed the revert of your changes and instead you keep changing the lead; I am not going to edit-war with you, but I don't appreciate your editing pattern. Your walls of text above are also hard to follow. -- Scray (talk) 01:18, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
For those trying to follow along, I'd like to highlight this addition I made above which provides a reliable source for my position. -- Scray (talk) 01:22, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
Wikidgood, you seem to have some kind of objection to recognising that HIV/AIDS is the name of a disease. I’m not following what you objection is, precisely. You say, "Somewhere in the English speaking world people are going to be reading about "HIV/AIDS" and conflating the distinctions and the result may be repression against PWAs perhaps even causing premature death through the effects of stigmatization which in some part the controlling editors of this article will be culpable for."
The term HIV/AIDS encompasses the whole spectrum of disease caused by HIV infection: the initial primary disease, asymptomatic phases and the later symptomatic disease - which includes (but is not restricted to) AIDS. Can you explain how this stigmatises that subgroup of people with HIV/AIDS who have an AIDS diagnosis (PWAs)?
The term "HIV/AIDS" as the name of a disease is not controversial. It is the preferred term in the medical literature for the full spectrum of HIV-related disease, although the term "HIV disease" is sometimes used synonymously.
The distinction between AIDS and non-AIDS HIV disease is of diminishing medical relevance in the era of combination antiretroviral treatment for a number of reasons. One is that many people with an AIDS diagnosis who are receiving effective treatment enjoy very good health over a long period, which was not usually the case in the 1980s and early 90s when the onset of AIDS signalled a very grim prognosis. Another is that some of the most serious and even life-threatening manifestations of HIV/AIDS are not actually AIDS defining – many people who become seriously ill as a result of HIV/AIDS do not in fact have AIDS. A third reason is that different countries use different surveillance definitions that distinguish AIDS from non-AIDS HIV disease which makes the distinction ambiguous as well as not terribly relevant clinically. Many countries no longer even bother conducting epidemiological surveillance for AIDS - only for HIV/AIDS - thus the term AIDS is actually falling out of use in many parts of the world, at least in medical contexts. The US, if anything, is actually behind the rest of the world on this trend – mainly because the CDC’s 1993 epidemiological surveillance case definition changes to include CD4 parameters made US-style “AIDS” a more useful disease category for statistical purposes than the narrower case definitions used elsewhere.
Back to my original point:
Although the acronyms HIV and AIDS expand to Human Immunodeficiency Virus and Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome respectively, the term HIV/AIDS does not expand to "Human immunodeficiency virus infection and acquired immune deficiency syndrome". HIV infection is already implied in AIDS - it's like referring to mammals and primates or to humans and women.
HIV/AIDS (the topic of the article) is a disease. Why not say this, rather than using the vague and awkward circumlocution represents a spectrum of concern - especially as an introductory sentence? On A Leash (talk) 22:26, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
Have restored long standing version until consensus develops. HIV/AIDS is not a "spectrum of concern" but a spectrum of disease. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:51, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
Both the "refers to" and "spectrum of concern" aren't supported by the preponderance of the sources, object to their use as well. Zad68 02:56, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
I agree that "spectrum of concern" is confusing wording. It is vague and unclear what it means. I prefer the previous wording. Sydney Poore/FloNight♥♥♥♥ 20:18, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Reminder: the conflation of HIV and AIDS was objected to before[edit]

Note that in October this editor brought the problem up it was not something which I myself brought up. So far I have not seen much constructive collaboration toward fixing the problem he identified except that in some context DrJim introduced the term "spectrum". I worked that word into the text, but now that that term is associated with me because I so like it the trend of the Resist-Change/Defend-Stable-Version camp is to attack use of that term. That is quite similar to the reintroduction of "The term HIV/AIDS..." which my carefully crafted edit dispensed with. So this resistance against my edits is on two counts inconsistent - clearly personalized. Wikidgood (talk) 01:10, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Stable consensus: the word "spectrum" stays[edit]

Look Jim himself above emphasizes this and I concur. I think that his high level of training is a resource of great value and this is an instance in which you should follow his lead and stop complaining about being confused. HIV AIDS is a very complex topic and if you are easily confused or object to "walls" of text - what would be half a page in a pathology textbook = then you need to seriously reconsider whether this is a topic upon which you should be too involved. So please WP:PUTDOWNTHESTICK and build from what we do apparently agree with. Wikidgood (talk) 01:17, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

The distinction between HIV and AIDS is that one is a virus (a type of infectious particle) and the other is a disease (a type of abnormal bodily state). HIV/AIDS is simply the name of the entire disease caused by HIV infection. AIDS is one particular part of the disease HIV/AIDS (but far from the only one). What "problem" is there to be fixed?
Personally I think the word "spectrum" is redundant, but maybe that's just me. HIV/AIDS certainly represents a spectrum of clinical manifestations, but so do all diseases. On A Leash (talk) 13:59, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Edit request[edit]

Coukd someone weave in the following point which IMO should be introduced into the lead, and has not? (My edits did not really modify any assertions particularly the ones being debated, and were primarily stylistic. )

TO WIT:

HIV infection, and even AIDS itself, are treatable and far more managable in recent years with the introduction of new drugs such as protease inhibitors....


something on those lines, perhaps less detailed?

The salient point though I think that there is indeed no utter lack of hope, which an overly literalistic encyclopedic mission could perhaps overlook, doing violence to the higher instincts of intelligent beings.

THanks in advance any decent writer with knowledge of the subject matter can pull this off I would as soon let someone else take the lead and be bold on that point I don't want to take on too much. Wikidgood (talk) 02:24, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

We already say "There is no cure or vaccine; however,antiretroviral treatment can slow the course of the disease and may lead to a near-normal life expectancy." which means that there is a great deal of hope if one has treatment. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:07, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

History and criminalization of transmission of HIV[edit]

Shouldn't the section about the History of HIV/AIDS be the first part of this article? People searching for HIV on Wikipedia are probably looking for symptoms indeed but I think the part about history should come first so we have a well done peace of medical information. Either way I tried to do it and introduced also the "criminalization of transmission of HIV" but someone reverted the edition arguing lack of referencesDiogo sfreitas (talk) 22:22, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Diogo sfreitas For health articles the consensus is to say what diseases are and explain the disease itself before sharing the history. The presumption is that people want basic information before they want a cultural explanation. This is in the medical manual of style.
I just checked your edit and it seems correct that it was removed. You added information about criminal transmission without citing any source which talked about criminal transmission. On Wikipedia when you add information it is necessary to cite some source for the information so that other people can verify that it is correct.
I hope that you are happy with the outcome of this. People here at least are trying to follow the rules, and I hope you feel like you got fair treatment and the same result that anyone else would get. Blue Rasberry (talk) 23:08, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
Was not removed. I found a ref and put it here [3]Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:06, 25 November 2014 (UTC)