Talk:HIV/AIDS denialism: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 17:40, 9 April 2018

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the HIV/AIDS denialism article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to pseudoscience and fringe science, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

There have been attempts to recruit editors of specific viewpoints to this article, in a manner that does not comply with Wikipedia's policies. Editors are encouraged to use neutral mechanisms for requesting outside input (e.g. a "request for comment", a third opinion or other noticeboard post, or neutral criteria: "pinging all editors who have edited this page in the last 48 hours"). If someone has asked you to provide your opinion here, examine the arguments, not the editors who have made them. Reminder: disputes are resolved by consensus, not by majority vote.

HIV/AIDS denialism received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

view · edit

Frequently asked questions

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 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; 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 Wikipedia's policy on "neutrality" require a neutral treatment?

A4: No. Wikipedia'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 Wikipedia, 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.

Skepticism B‑class High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles 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.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Alternative Views B‑class Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative ViewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative ViewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative ViewsAlternative Views articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

AIDS B‑class Top‑importance

	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.AIDSWikipedia:WikiProject AIDSTemplate:WikiProject AIDSAIDS articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Medicine B‑class Low‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Pharmacology B‑class Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pharmacology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pharmacology 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.PharmacologyWikipedia:WikiProject PharmacologyTemplate:WikiProject Pharmacologypharmacology articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by when more than 5 sections are present.

Lead

The first sentence of the lead currently reads, "HIV/AIDS denialism is the belief, contradicted by conclusive medical and scientific evidence, that human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) does not cause acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS)." The words, "contradicted by conclusive medical and scientific evidence" are unnecessary. The lead already made it absolutely clear that AIDS denialism is wrong before that addition, so the added clause is absolutely pointless. There never was a good reason for that addition, and I believe it should now be removed. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:22, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think the clause makes it clear why it is a form of "denialism" as opposed to some other belief. It is succinct, and makes a clear definition in the very first sentence. I see no reason to remove it. Yobol (talk) 03:28, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. It's just adding words that equate to "AIDS denialism is wrong" to an article that already said "AIDS denialism is wrong." If it makes clear that AIDS denialism is "denialism", then so did the information already in the lead. So, it is unnecessary. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:33, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It needs to be made clear from the jump that the denialists are factually wrong. The mere fact that the name of the article uses the term "denialism" in it's title (which is a psychological/sociological concept) does not eliminate our responsibility to add plain language clarity to our lead. Similarly, I see no justification for removal, but I will wait for others to chime in. Supaflyrobby (talk) 03:41, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What is necessary is that the lead not insult the intelligence of its readers by containing needless repetition, which is what your pointless addition amounts to. The lead was already perfectly "plain language" clear. Anyone who reads the lead, even without the addition, will see that AIDS denialism is wrong. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:46, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Yobol and Supaflyrobiy. Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:11, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Yobol and Supaflyrobby as well. I think it's important to make it clear from the opening why it is a form of "denialism."Dustinlull (talk) 18:31, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The lead is the "opening" of the article and already made it clear that AIDS denialism is wrong. It's strange to see so many people supporting the current version of the lead without giving any real reasons. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 18:43, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The first sentence needs to establish this belief as incorrect. That is missing without the additional phrase. It is fine for it to be explained in more detail later in the lede and again in the body of the article. VQuakr (talk) 20:31, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I do not agree that the first sentence needs to establish that AIDS denialism is wrong, and the page you linked to does not support your position in any way, rather the reverse. It states, "The first sentence should tell the nonspecialist reader what, or who, the subject is". In other words, the first sentence should simply explain what "AIDS denialism" is, not make any comment about its correctness or lack of it.

Besides that, even if you were right and the first sentence did need to say that AIDS denialism is wrong, there would still be no justification for the repetition in the lead. It would be easy to rewrite the lead so that it explains that AIDS denialism is wrong in the first sentence, without saying again that AIDS denialism is wrong later in the lead. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:35, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"In other words, the first sentence should simply explain what "AIDS denialism" is, not make any comment about its correctness or lack of it." I hear what you're saying, but with a "denialism" topic, the "incorrectness" is part of the subject's definition. The fact that HIV denialism contradicts scientific consensus is precisely what makes it "denialism" as opposed to "skepticism" or some other position.Dustinlull (talk) 12:38, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, I think this is what we are all saying 'It's strange to see so many people supporting the current version of the lead without giving any real reasons' We've pretty much all given the same reason. Dbrodbeck (talk) 13:25, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to establish the incorrectness of AIDS denialism in the first sentence, then all you need to do is to say, "AIDS denialism is the erroneous belief that..." The clause about AIDS denialism being contradicted by conclusive scientific evidence is not necessary and needlessly repeats other material in the lead. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 07:44, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The core basis and defining attribute of HIV/AIDS denialism is that it is a belief, which is contradicted by scientific principals. For this reason this article is part of a category which groups it with other articles of this nature. The reason it is in this category needs to be explicitly mentioned in the lead. In the past attempts have been made, by the subjects cited in this article (some of whom have a great deal of public influence) to convince others that the subject of this article is supported by medical science. These claims are false, they have been proved false. The proof of this is by necessity part (I would say the large part) of the article's content. The text in the lead is simply providing a summary of the article's full body, exactly as if should do. Other articles on pseudo-science are also written in this manner (compare homeopathy). There's no need to remove anything from the lead that clarifies the medical position on this medical related subject. The words "non-scientific" or "contradicted by medical science" or any phrasing of that nature will stay in the Lead. This article is not comparable to creationism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.246.77.14 (talk) 08:34, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

Does this article reference a study that proves the causal link between HIV and aides ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.188.115.27 (talk) 03:44, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Several. More can be found at HIV/AIDS, the focus of which is on the actual science instead of the denialism. VQuakr (talk) 04:36, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.188.115.27 (talk) 05:23, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly you haven't read the article or verified the references. MrBill3 (talk) 11:46, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on HIV/AIDS denialism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.aegis.com/pubs/atu/1996/ATU4004.html
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090616194132/http://tac.org.za/Documents/ErrorsInFarberArticle.pdf to http://www.tac.org.za/Documents/ErrorsInFarberArticle.pdf
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.healtoronto.com/10reasons.html
Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.kaisernetwork.org/health_cast/uploaded_files/081306_ias_sat_journalism.pdf
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110604155409/http://www.aegis.com/topics/mdelaney.html to http://www.aegis.com/topics/mdelaney.html
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.aidstruth.org/denialism/sonnabend
Corrected formatting/usage for http://medicine.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371%2Fjournal.pmed.0040256&ct=1&SESSID=3d4baa1a64e57d8ff33e9d41eb2335a1
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.mg.co.za/articlepage.aspx?area=%2Fbreaking_news%2Fbreaking_news__national%2F&articleid=280903
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/main.jhtml?view=DETAILS&grid=&xml=%2Fhealth%2F2006%2F12%2F11%2Fwsa10.xml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:21, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Flat earthers can't be convinced

because it takes too much $$$ to send them to space. On the other hand, for these people, why don't they just inject themselves with HIV? Just a drop of blood from a HIV person it cost no $$$. Money is tight (talk) 12:37, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This really doesn't concern article improvement, which is what talk pages are for. Also, conspiracy theorists gonna conspiracy theorize, and they'd just argue that the HIV patient's blood contains /something besides HIV/ which they attribute AIDS to (like drugs or something). Ian.thomson (talk) 14:28, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

People have known that the Earth is round since Ancient Greece. It's something that anybody can check by looking at the horizon and noticing that it's not straight, but curved. HIV denialism, on the other hand, is right on some account. Some people believe the HIV theory to be right just because propaganda says so, and also out of fear. So it's logical to doubt. The flat Earth conspiracy is just crazy. Now, what does it have to do with article improvement? I guess the Original Poster meant that the conspiray theories divulged by HIV denialists are garbage just like the flat Earth conspiracy. But they are not in the same level. So they deserve to be mentioned in this article. 190.173.227.182 (talk) 18:51, 5 April 2018 (UTC) Ezequiel[reply]

Wikipedia summarizes professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources, giving different views the weight given by sources.

In the case of medical topics, Wikipedia focuses on secondary or tertiary sources from medical professionals in the relevant field. Those sources reject HIV denialism. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:12, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Transmission by sex

Hello. There is something on the first part of this article that could be changed. The HIV/AIDS dissent also claims that HIV is not sexually transmited. Now, in this article, it says "insofar as [HIV denialists] acknowledge AIDS as a real disease, they attribute it to some combination of sexual behavior (...)". This is misleading. Very misleading. I think it's important to mention that nowhere in this article does it mention the scientific conclusion about the transmission by sex of HIV. Now, denialists are in no good place to say that this microorganism doesn't exist; I have never put my eyes in a microscope in my life, so I can't speak about what the medical researchers have isolated, replicated, etcetera. But that theory, the "transmission by sex" theory, sounds fake. It just does. Whoever wrote this article has gone out of their way to not include this theory, because it's the weakest one in the whole HIV propaganda, and the one in which dissenters could be right. Now: what should it read? I think the best is to erase the sexual behavior part and leave the rest. Why? Because the rest of the things, that is, drugs, malnutrition, and so forth, actually can ruin someone's body. But how can "sexual behavior" do this? I mean, does sex between two people who are free of STD 's can provoke AIDS, in the denialists opinion? This doesn't make sense. There could also be a section showing arguments against the "transmission by sex" theory: it's important in the dissent community, and in the HIV Wikipedia article it says "HIV is a sexually transmitted infection", so I don't see why it doesn't have it's counterpart in the HIV/AIDS denialism article. 190.173.207.99 (talk) 19:48, 7 April 2018 (UTC) Ezequiel[reply]

Wikipedia summarizes professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources (in the case of medical articles, secondary or tertiary sources from medical professionals in the relevant field. Wikipedia does not use original research, especially original research based on what a user doesn't know or understand.

Some denialists assume that AIDS is a consequence of anal sex, rather than HIV being a real microorganism that causes AIDS.

The HIV microorganism has been proven to exist, HIV has been proven to cause AIDS, and AIDS has been proven to only be caused by HIV. To deny that or even entertain the notion that it's a "weak link" requires pretending that medical science isn't a thing, period. It's not propaganda, it's scientific fact, and we will not create artificial validity for reality-denying pseudoscience for the benefit of lunatic charlatans. If you want sources, there's plenty in the HIV and HIV/AIDS articles.

The denialists who believe that AIDS is caused by anal sex tend to reject science and believe that health is linked to morality. They might try to pretend that their ideas are science, but they simply are not. Nevertheless, they are a type of AIDS denialist. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:10, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, of course... I wasn't implying that HIV doesn't exist, I was only saying that denialists aren't in a place to prove if it does or does not exist. But now that you mention transmission by *anal* sex, it's a good starting point to wonder if that microorganism isn't actually present in feces. That would mean that vaginal intercourse doesn't propagate the virus. The "weak link" notion that I'm entretaining is that one. Keep in mind that the very same Wikipedia article talks about sub-types of HIV, and that could indicate different origins.

Again, I acknowledge that I haven't really any proof of it. And since Wikipedia has a rule against original research, all the material I can provide against the "transmission by sex" theory wouldn't be admissible because it comes from my own research (looking at web pages, reading books, talking to people). But I still wonder why, in the whole article, there is no mention of any denialist challenging that theory, like a Peter Duesberg of the "not-transmited-by-vaginal-sex" camp. 190.173.207.99 (talk) 22:26, 7 April 2018 (UTC) Ezequiel.[reply]

I went ahead and made the proposed changes. I gave a source for one of the things I added, which is an actual study conducted by scientists. 190.173.207.99 (talk) 22:38, 8 April 2018 (UTC) Ezequiel[reply]

To discuss this, we need have a source discussing this topic in the context of what denialists claim. As constructed, the source itself does not seem to mention what denialists claim. Yobol (talk) 17:40, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 90: / Line 90: @@
 :: Again, I acknowledge that I haven't really any proof of it. And since Wikipedia has a rule against original research, all the material I can provide against the "transmission by sex" theory wouldn't be admissible because it comes from my own research (looking at web pages, reading books, talking to people). But I still wonder why, in the whole article, there is no mention of any denialist challenging that theory, like a Peter Duesberg of the "not-transmited-by-vaginal-sex" camp. [[Special:Contributions/190.173.207.99|190.173.207.99]] ([[User talk:190.173.207.99|talk]]) 22:26, 7 April 2018 (UTC) Ezequiel.
 I went ahead and made the proposed changes. I gave a source for one of the things I added, which is an actual study conducted by scientists. [[Special:Contributions/190.173.207.99|190.173.207.99]] ([[User talk:190.173.207.99|talk]]) 22:38, 8 April 2018 (UTC) Ezequiel
+:To discuss this, we need have a source discussing this topic in the context of what denialists claim. As constructed, the source itself does not seem to mention what denialists claim. [[User:Yobol|Yobol]] ([[User talk:Yobol|talk]]) 17:40, 9 April 2018 (UTC)