Talk:HIV/AIDS/Archive 12

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Talk:HIV‎ | AIDS
Jump to: navigation, search

Featured Article[edit]

Guys, I love how this article is looking. I mean, it's hot shit now. We got rid of a TON of cruft, especially at the end. It isn't as ungodly long anymore. It has a long reference list, pictures, and the flow is much easier now. Stats and sources and information - it's pretty tip top. Anyone want to try and make this baby a featured article?

There will always be contestors, side theorists and disbelievers...but it's still a great article. JoeSmack (talk) 16:44, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

I am pleased that we are reaching agreement about the current consensus, but we need to understand that many of the widely held opinions about AIDS rest on very thin evidence. This is still a fast changing area or research and we area long way from a final understanding of the key issues. Sci guy 15:40, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

It's getting there, but there is still work to be done before it is "Featured Article" quality. Specifically:

  • The "Global Epidemic" and the "Current Status" sections need to be merged and checked for redundant or contradictory information.
The "Global Epidemic" section is a concise summary, which will require annual updating. I have never understood the purpose of the "Current Status" section. Sci guy 15:47, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Too much space is given to the issue of circumcision--basically a side issue, only given importance by some noisy activists.
I agree please edit the circumcision section, elting it it fine by me Sci guy 15:47, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
  • The "Origins of HIV" section doesn't really belong under "Research"--and it probably needs to be renamed to "Origins & History of HIV" or "Origins of the Epidemic". More should probably be added about the first identification of HIV and the controversy surrounding Gallo and Montagnier.
This entire section would probably be better in the HIV article, but we need to remember that the origin theory rests on analysis of samples from one dead chimpanzee that was used as an experimental animal for about a decade in the USA. Sci guy 15:47, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
  • The "Genetic Susceptibility" section needs to be broken in half just above the line begining "Anal sex, because..." as the text below that section has nothing to do with genetics. That part probably needs to go up in the "Transmission" section.
I agree and will move it now Sci guy 15:47, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
Does the Genetic Susceptibility section had a cite? If it has a reference at the bottom (I am redoing this section currently), then it should be footnoted or whatever up there. JoeSmack (talk) 15:57, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
Do you like this cite [1] or it may be listed in the references at the bottom. There has been significant refernce stripping. Actually, as an interesting aside it has been suggestd that populations that have survived the black death plague and smallpox have high natural immunity to HIV - a curious thought Sci guy 16:35, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
Seen that actually, curious indeed. Anyways, I just shapped up the References section, and this is how I think how it should be done in the article ....sentence about AIDS[2], next sentence... and then put that reference in the Reference section as well. I will go through and take care of the stripping myself.JoeSmack (talk) 18:41, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Finally, the whole article needs to have the references checked and redone in a consistant format.

I'm willing to tackle some of this, and will over the next week or so.

Carl Henderson 20:30, 21 July 2005 (UTC)


A few more thoughts on references:[edit]

Format. In the text of the article I've used a bracketed external links for references (except where there is no web reference), and added a corresponding entry to the "References" section. I am under the impression (but could be wrong) that this the preferred Wikipedia format. I've used this format both in sections I've written, and in sections I've just checked references for. This format also works well when there are multiple references for a single fact.

Checking. I also can't stress strongly enough that all the references need to be checked. Of the ones I checked, I ended up having to re-write about half of the lines they referred to, as the Wikipedia AIDS article contradicted what its own reference said. Some of this is probably due to the inevitable errors introduced during multiple re-editing's, and some is probably a result of subtle vandalism.

Quality. I think we should prefer references to original source material (peer-reviewed scientific papers) and reports from institutions and agencies generally recognized as authoritative (CDC, WHO, UNAIDS, etc.) whenever possible. Newspaper and magazine references are less trustworthy as reporters often don't know what the hell they are writing about. (How many "AIDS Vaccine in Five Years" articles have you read in the last fifteen years?) I've found that with a little web research you can usually find the scientific journal article that the newspaper/magazine report is summarizing--and if not that, at least a good summary in PubMed. (Note--I've saved PDFs of most papers I've referenced, and will send them out on request. My email is

Carl Henderson 20:58, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

I'll start tackling the references/external links format issues. I will then start checking credibility. Someone else might want to check after me to make sure to be thorough. JoeSmack (talk) 21:19, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
Hows them External Links looking? Should I do something similar in References? JoeSmack (talk) 23:28, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
Alright, I have formatted, reorder alphabetically and fixed errors/ads/etc for both References and External Links. The next step will be picking through the article and adding references that aren't in the References section, and removing the ones no longer used. JoeSmack (talk) 18:41, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
Wow--you've been busy. Would you still like me to go back and double-check your work? Carl Henderson 19:45, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
My boss has been at a conference all week so I've got the time. :) -- let me finish filling up the References section and we'll have a complete list to start widdling down as we find inaccurate/old/stripped/repeat information. Right now I am going through the article and adding things to the Ref. section that never got added from the body of the article.
Important note: I am turning all references into numbers with in the body (ie turning them into [3] and not UNAIDS). JoeSmack (talk) 20:14, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
I noticed two orphan references while doublechecking your excellent work. They were: (Fan et. al., 119) in "Medical procedures" and (Fan et. al., 99) in "Intravenous drug use" are references to AIDS: Science and Society Fourth Ed. The book for which they refered to vanished from the list of references at the end of the article. I found it in one of the past versions of the article, though:
Fan, Hung Y.; Conner, Ross F.; Villarreal, Luis P. (2004). AIDS: Science and Society Fourth Ed.. Jones and Bartlett Publishers. ISBN 0-7637-0086-X.
I think it should be possible to find references supporting the same facts in linkable journals or reports. I'll try to do that this weekend (if JoeSmack doesn't beat me too it). Carl Henderson 20:20, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
Nope, it's in the references list. I actually have that book, it's a textbook on HIV/AIDS. They don't have a good references list in the back of it, but it is a reputable textbook. But yes, journals are better than secondary sources. Give a shot at finding those journals and reports, i'll have my hands full with the nitty gritty formating of refs/links for now. :) - JoeSmack (talk) 20:46, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

References/External Links[edit]

Alright, the References and External Links should be complete, formatted, and all there. I took both sections and alphabetized them, formatted them to be consistant and correct and also picked through the article and added for many people never bothered to copy at the bottom. I also took out some blatantly crapy sources. I redid some with more direct links and links that were like WHO i redid to look like this [4]. All the dates, authors, years, and titles and sources should all be accurate for reference. The next big task is to pick thorugh the article and see if the articles correspond well to the given part it is linked too. Also, we need to cut back on references, as some are kinda repeat info and there is more than 50 of them. FIFTY! Wow that took a long time. I'm going to go have a beer and sleep for 20 hours. ;) JoeSmack (talk) 22:59, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

I wonder if it is more helpful for citations fron well known sources like UNAIDS, CDC or WHO to be identified as such. I think extensiove citations of sources is essential in this article, because interpretations of data have changed so much over the twenty years for 1985 to 2005. Also I think it is important for this article to clearly distinguish between facts and suggestions. Sci guy 06:00, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
I agree, we have a lot fo sources from NIH, CDC and AIDSinfo. I can try to consolidate all the NIH sources and I bet it'll shorten the section a lot, I already did similar movements with the CDC and AIDSinfo cites. JoeSmack (talk) 21:59, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

The References/External Links are currently 12 kilobytes long out of a total for the page of 43 kilobytes. Can they be trimmed? Is does seems excessive. Also the "current" status section is 7 kilobytes and the "circumcison" section is now 3 kilobytes. Some editiong of these two sections could also lighten the load Sci guy 16:06, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Refs Section Trimmed[edit]

Hi all. I just trimmed the refs section. I went through the article and all cites we're checked against the refs section. Anything left over is unused, which I moved to my talk page. These are still perfectly good (and already formated) sources, so if you want to reincorporate them, be my guest. For instance, there is nothing in the article about HIV Longterm Non-progressors...of which is important and also has a source on my talk page.

The refs section and external links are now offically formatted, accurate, trimmed and correspond to some part of the article. It is as short as it is going to get unless someone can find a more encompassing source for more than one issue.

And please, if you add a cite within the article put it in the refs section. I will always have my eye on that stuff, but it'd make my life easier if people did it themselves.

Wow. That only took a couple of weeks to complete, hehe. JoeSmack (talk) 17:24, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

Article size[edit]

Seems big to me! I suggest AIDS origin and AIDS pandemic to lighten the load Joe747 12:10, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Featured article criteria[edit]

Check the featured article criteria and make sure the article meets all of them. Fred2005 14:35, 30 July 2005 (UTC)