Talk:HIV/AIDS denialism/FAQ: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
add "what about scientist X" FAQ |
added fourth question |
||
| Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
|q=Q3: What about the famous and respectable scientists who dispute the role of HIV in causing AIDS? |
|q=Q3: What about the famous and respectable scientists who dispute the role of HIV in causing AIDS? |
||
|a='''A3:''' The scientists most often cited by the AIDS denialism movements are usually speaking outside their field of expertise. For instance, [[Peter Duesberg]] is a groundbreaking cancer researcher and [[Kary Mullis]] invented [[Polymerase chain reaction|PCR]]. Within the HIV-AIDS research community, however, there is no longer any doubt that HIV causes AIDS. |
|a='''A3:''' The scientists most often cited by the AIDS denialism movements are usually speaking outside their field of expertise. For instance, [[Peter Duesberg]] is a groundbreaking cancer researcher and [[Kary Mullis]] invented [[Polymerase chain reaction|PCR]]. Within the HIV-AIDS research community, however, there is no longer any doubt that HIV causes AIDS. |
||
}} |
|||
{{FAQ row |
|||
|q=Q4: Doesn't Wikipedia's policy on "neutrality" require a neutral treatment? |
|||
|a='''A4:''' Wikipedia's policy on [[WP:NPOV|neutrality]] does not require all hypotheses be treated as equal or valid, nor is neutrality decided by the opinions of editors. On Wikipedia, neutrality is represented by a fair summary of the opinion found within the relevant scholarly, academic, or otherwise expert community. If that community rejects a hypothesis with unanimity or near-unanimity, if a hypothesis is not credible within that community, it should be clearly labelled as such and [[WP:UNDUE|due weight]] should be given to the mainstream opinion rather than the [[WP:FRINGE|fringe hypothesis]]. |
|||
}} |
}} |
||
Revision as of 14:38, 2 October 2010
 | Below are answers to frequently asked questions about the corresponding page HIV/AIDS denialism. They address concerns, questions, and misconceptions which have repeatedly arisen on the talk page. Please update this material when needed. |
Q1: Why does this article dismiss AIDS denialism as a valid scientific hypothesis?
A1: Wikipedia relies on reliable sources that have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. The Neutral point of view policy, especially the sections 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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia articles should use the most widely accepted in the most reliable sources.
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. For instance, Peter Duesberg is a groundbreaking cancer researcher and Kary Mullis invented PCR. Within the HIV-AIDS research community, however, there is no longer any doubt that HIV causes AIDS.
Q4: Doesn't Wikipedia's policy on "neutrality" require a neutral treatment?
A4: Wikipedia's policy on neutrality does not require all hypotheses be treated as equal or valid, nor is neutrality decided by the opinions of editors. On Wikipedia, neutrality is represented by a fair summary of the opinion found within the relevant scholarly, academic, or otherwise expert community. If that community rejects a hypothesis with unanimity or near-unanimity, if a hypothesis is not credible within that community, it should be clearly labelled as such and due weight should be given to the mainstream opinion rather than the fringe hypothesis.