Jump to content

Talk:HIV dissent

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Initial Article Creation

[edit]

Just created this article to fill an obvious gap in the Wiki. The information on this page is NOT to be considered HIV Denialism, but HIV dissent. The information presented thus far is verifiable in scientific journals, and while it is not as of yet all inclusive, I intend on further edits to complete the article, unless of course there are those who are willing and able to assist. Researching each and every citation for accuracy, is as I am sure you will agree, time consuming, and as such, I have spent a considerable amount of it already. Further edits to come tomorrow. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Neuromancer (talk • contribs) 07:16, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is simply a content fork of AIDS denialism, it even reads like a critique of that article in the second paragraph. Go edit that article, and even propose a rename for it if there's reason to believe that denialism is a made up word. But you can't just start a new article on the same subject simply because you don't like how the other article reads. kmccoy (talk) 08:05, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is NOT a content fork of AIDS denialism. This content has NOTHING to do with AIDS. It is specific to HIV. AIDS denialism is just that. Those who deny that AIDS exists. The HIV dissent article is about those who argue the validity of HIV, HIV tests, and HIV having a causative role in AIDS. The second paragraph is to TRY and keep people from deleting the page without reading the content first. I fail to see how AIDS denialism and dissent regarding the validity of HIV and its isolation are the same thing. Neuromancer (talk) 08:19, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with kmccoy that this article seems like a clear violation of Wikipedia's policy against POV forks. What Neuromancer states as the subject of this article is essentially how the lead of the AIDS denialism article defines its subject. Aside from that critical point, this article is concerning for several reasons. The foremost reason is its plagiarism of a 1991 article by Peter Duesberg (which can be found at http://www.virusmyth.com/aids/hiv/pdpnas91.htm) in the first two sentences of the 'HIV Debate' section. I believe this type of seeming verbatim copying is a copyright violation even if it is cited to Duesberg (which it currently is not). Besides that, the article (and Neuromancer's comments on this Talk page) use all caps in several places, running contrary to guidelines for Talk pages and the manual of style. There are many other basic elements of encyclopedic style that don't seem to have been taken into account when this article was written, but I think kmccoy's rationale for making this page a redirect is sound and sufficient. Emw (talk) 08:49, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
kmccoy has since edited the article directly. Your concern regarding a potential copyright violation has been reworded, and were not an intentional infringement, merely an oversight as I have compiled a great deal of data regarding the subject these past few days. I made a mistake, and for that, I apologize. I think i capitalized "NOT" and "NOTHING." The last time I checked, "HIV" & "AIDS" are supposed to be capitalized.
As far as the article goes, did you read it? It contains information which is not relevant to AIDS denialism, and HIV and AIDS are not the same beast. The information contained in the article thus far is, I believe, unbiased, informative, verifiable, noteworthy, and worthy of being included in an encyclopedia. Granted, a printed encyclopedia may not have the budget for additional editors or printing costs. But this is digital, and I think we can afford the few extra kilobytes of storage space to pay closer attention to an article that would otherwise be neglected in a printed version. If you have some objection to the references, or feel that the article is in some way biased, please do share. Neuromancer (talk) 09:42, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I only edited it directly because I generally prefer to avoid reverting multiple times, and I wanted to certainly remove the self-referential stuff. I think this should be a redirect. kmccoy (talk) 22:36, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merger of HIV dissent to AIDS denialism

[edit]

Please discuss at Talk:AIDS denialism#HIV dissent. - 2/0 (cont.) 05:04, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've redirected it pending discussion. This is a textbook WP:POVFORK. It covers no information outside the purview of our existing article on AIDS denialism. Instead, it simply attempts to rewrite that article from a different (and policy-violating) viewpoint. The proper course of action is to seek consensus for the desired change in tone at the existing article. It's improper for a single editor to fork off their own pet spin on the subject under a different title - that's an end-run around the way Wikipedia is supposed to work. MastCell Talk 05:10, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
HIV and AIDS are not the same thing. While there are many who questions the existence of AIDS, those viewpoints are not connected to HIV dissent. The HIV dissent article is specifically regarding the questions surrounding HIV isolation, HIV testing procedures, HIV antibody response, etc. These do not fall into the AIDS denialism category.
There are some who question whether or not HIV causes AIDS, which in and of itself is not AIDS denialism. The scientists, researchers, and medical professionals who question the connection, do not, as a rule, question the existence of AIDS (I will concede that some do, but not a majority by any means).
Those who deny the existence of AIDS, and information concerning the political impact of that opinion are appropriately included in the AIDS denialism article. A brief scan of HIV dissent when compared to AIDS denialism will show that the two articles are not POV content forks, and should not be merged. Neuromancer (talk) 06:37, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retention of HIV dissent as an independent article

[edit]

There is currently a POV issue regarding the difference between HIV dissent and AIDS denialism, and whether or not to retain HIV dissent as a separate article.

Perhaps it would be best to gather opinions at Talk:AIDS denialism#HIV dissent. There's actually a rather robust discussion already underway there on the subject. MastCell Talk 05:37, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps the discussions in HIV have already suggested that this was the appropriate course of action, and your wholesale reverts of the article, prior to any consensus being reached, to a forward while there is a discussion pending, are clearly biased and unwarranted. Just because you do not agree with something, does not make it wrong, or unworthy of being included in the Wiki. Neuromancer (talk) 06:36, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with MastCell. The discussion should be kept in one place. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:51, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, Neuro, that argument works both ways. Just because you think something is right or neutral doesn't mean it has a place on Wikipedia. Everyone is entitled to their interpretation of policy, and yours seems to be in an extreme minority. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:53, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My viewpoint does not violate Wiki Policy. Furthermore, removing a users request for review is AGAINST policy. Multiple rfc are allowed. Check the rules. This topic includes Science, Politics, Social Issues, and History. Removing someone else's viewpoint simply because it does not conform with yours is wrong. What harm is there for this information to be included in the Wiki? It is reliably sourced, and just because you cannot refute it, means that it has the right to stay. Neuromancer (talk) 07:56, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You want proof...Well, when you throw out the one reference to the Perth group, which is unreliable, you don't have a single source that discusses "HIV dissent". The sources all talk about HIV, true, but do not contradict the mainstream opinion. Some of your sources even predate HIV FFS. And this is the third time I'm linking this to you, please read it already. Wikipedia:Original research and Wikipedia:Original synthesis. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:03, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is not original research. Here are 4 PUBLISHED articles,that are specifically speaking to False Positive HIV tests. They are incidentally the first 4 of the list I posted, of which you are complaining about one. Dissent is defined as "Dissent is a sentiment or philosophy of non-agreement or opposition to an idea." So, if HIV antibodies are specific to HIV, then the following four articles should never have been written. Otherwise, the information contained within them falls into the definition of "dissent." All of these areticles are published SINCE 1991.
  1. Review of testing for human immunodeficiency virus [1]
  2. Leprosy as cause of false-positive results in serological assays for the detection of antibodies to HIV-1 [2]
  3. Donor follow-up of influenza vaccine-related multiple viral enzyme immunoassay reactivity[3]
  4. Determination of the etiology of seroreversals in HIV testing by antibody fingerprinting [4]

Neuromancer (talk) 08:37, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ D J Bylund, U H Ziegner, D G Hooper (1992). "Review of testing for human immunodeficiency virus". Clinics in Laboratory Medicine. 12 (2): 305–33. ISSN 0272-2712. PMID 1611822. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  2. ^ Andrade VL, Avelleira JC, Marques A, Vianna FR, Schechter M. (1991). "Leprosy as cause of false-positive results in serological assays for the detection of antibodies to HIV-1". Int J Lepr Other Mycobact Dis. 59 (1): 125–6. PMID 2030312. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  3. ^ Arnold NL, Slade BA, Jones MM, Popovsky MA (1994). "Donor follow-up of influenza vaccine-related multiple viral enzyme immunoassay reactivity". Vox Sang. 67 (2): 191–4. PMID 7801610. {{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |month= (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  4. ^ Ascher DP, Roberts C. (1993). "Determination of the etiology of seroreversals in HIV testing by antibody fingerprinting". J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 6 (3): 241–4. PMID 8450398. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
Er, nobody is arguing that there are no statistical errors in testing; those who want five nines of certainty study physics. There is, in fact, active debate in the public health community over the utility and cost-effectiveness of various screening procedures on various cohorts. Especially in cases where incidence is low, it is often done to screen first with a highly sensitive test but confirm with a highly specific test before treatment is recommended. - 2/0 (cont.) 09:15, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So where is that information included in either HIV or AIDS denialism? The point that I am trying to make is that there is dissent among many regarding the science behind HIV. I am not denying the existence of HIV, or AIDS, nor am I promoting those ideas. I do however believe that the information presented on HIV, it's history, and the science behind it, is lacking, and I feel that HIV dissent would be an appropriate place to present that information. Rather than accuse me of being a denialist, which I am not, nor is it a word, why not look at the information I am trying to present instead of wholesale deleting it? Neuromancer (talk) 09:57, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The proper place to discuss the limitations of various testing methods is at HIV test and the several methods linked therein. - 2/0 (cont.) 13:53, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Permalink to POVFORK. - 2/0 (cont.) 13:16, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly a PoV fork. The information used to justify the existance of this article can be summarized in a sentence on any other articles ("The tests are not 100% perfect - most testing protocols require retesting at intervals with different, more accurate tests.") Hipocrite (talk) 13:23, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly not POV fork. Clearly a different topic, with different information. Where is your citation for the above proposed edit? Why do some feel that Alternative viewpoints should be censored? Neuromancer (talk) 13:27, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You provided the citations for my proposed edit. Have you stopped beating your wife yet? Hipocrite (talk) 13:29, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Have I stopped beating my wife? Excuse me? What kind of response is that? What happened to good faith, and being polite? Why are you even an editor if you feel it acceptable to talk to people this way? Neuromancer (talk) 13:36, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Have you stopped beating your wife? Hipocrite (talk) 13:43, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I understand the concept of fallacy. I also understand the concept of being a smart ass, and I assure you that there are some smart donkeys out there. Let's not beleaguer the fact that your particular sense of humor in this matter is inappropriate. It appears that there are a select few editors who seem to be able to stand each other the topics in question. All of you seem unwilling to accept the idea that there are alternative viewpoints in the world, and that they need to be shared with others.
Censorship is not acceptable. Just because you don't agree with an idea, does not mean you can destroy it. If the information being presented upsets you, that is your issue, and you should not impose your narrow mindedness on the rest of the world. Neuromancer (talk) 13:56, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any censorship. Is it censorship to require that things be categorized appropriately? You assume that some information upsets me - what actually upsets me is the information not being presented. Hipocrite (talk) 13:58, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What information do you feel is not being presented? Neuromancer (talk) 14:03, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looking at the latest version [1], my immediate reaction is that although a page discussing various specific problems could perhaps be written, the article proposed there is a outrageous POV fork, giving a wildly distorted account of fringe positions without any attempt at all to offer criticism or balance. The very lede gives it away: " Nevertheless, the bulk of these theories have been presented by scientists, HIV researches, Nobel Laureates, and medical professionals throughout the years. " is promotional writing. That no attempt has been made to produce a reasonable version indicates the intent & the arguments above support this I think its clear enough to protect the redirect. DGG ( talk ) 22:05, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I came here in response to the rfc. There is good discussion here about these two articles comprising a fork and I do not feel that the side who want separate articles are acknowledging this valid counterpoint. Undoubtedly the topic of HIV dissent is worthy of mentioning, but the issue is whether it merits its own article or whether it should be part of AIDS denialism. Right now, I see no non-trivial reason to not merge it with AIDS denialism. Blue Rasberry 19:02, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem is that there's nothing in here to merge that's actually about AIDS denlialism, aside from a limited discussion of the Perth group's concerns. The rest is from unreliable sources or sources taken out of context. For example, sources discussing technical limitations of the HIV test, as part of the normal scientific process. There's no need to present such information as if it's part of the AIDS denialism viewpoint. Someguy1221 (talk) 19:23, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:HIV_dissent&oldid=1195559018"