Talk:HIV/AIDS in Africa

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Wikipedia CD Selection
WikiProject icon HIV/AIDS in Africa is included in the Wikipedia CD Selection, see HIV/AIDS in Africa at Schools Wikipedia. Please maintain high quality standards; if you are an established editor your last version in the article history may be used so please don't leave the article with unresolved issues, and make an extra effort to include free images, because non-free images cannot be used on the DVDs.


This page should be eliminated or completely rewritten. It states as facts assumptions which never have been confirmed. Even the chart which is presented is complete nonsense. If one researches the subject of AIDS in Africa, one will immediately stumble across the following: -- all numbers are based on estimates without any basis. ( there is no scientific study: all what can be found is: an employee of a UN organisation took some local estimates he read, put it in an excel spreadsheet on his microcomputer and calculated an assumed number for all Africa. -- there is a definition of AIDS specifically for Africa; its based on symptoms of well known diseases. -- the total mortality in Africa has not increased ( but rather went down slightly), despite the " extreme poop" assumed infection by HIV. The reason is simple: what counted as death by TB or malaria or cholera is now considered AIDS. --

What bollocks. As somebody who has lost a close friend due to AIDS, I find this attempted denial of the existence of the disease insulting. We have enough of a problem dealing with AIDS now and in the future, we don't need idiots hampering our efforts by spreading stuff like this. Impi 20:57, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The first post here is rubbish[edit]

The fact of increasing death rates in countries with high estimates of HIV prevalence is not in distpute. The loss of life and good health is evident to all who live int these countries. Of course the rates are estimates, but to claim that there are no "scientific studies" is to denigrate the dedicated work of hundreds of researchers who are using advanced statistical methods to extrapolate from limited data that is available in the harsh conditions of these societies.

Actually, what's rubbish is that the article itself doesn't even talk about "false positives" and the historical problem of HIV-prevalence in Africa being overestimated. This overstatement of the HIV problem happened possibly for complex and sometimes very stupid political reasons, or maybe just because medical workers doing the best they could with very poor local infrastructure thought it wise to err on the side of overstatement. Getting into the complex-and-sometimes-stupid political reasons for overestimating the spread of HIV in Africa may lie beyond the scope of this particular article -- but surely the apparent fact that past estimates were overblown ought to be mentioned? Throbert McGee (talk) 02:48, 14 November 2009 (UTC)


The comments above, whatever their validity, demonstrate that this article needs to be referenced. 'Scientific studies have suggested that...' — which scientific studies exactly? mark 22:18, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Yes this needs a reference: "In the 35 African nations with the highest prevalence, average life expectancy is 48.3 years—6.5 years less than it would be without the disease. For the eleven countries in Africa with prevalence rates above 13%, life expectancy is 47.7 years—11.0 years less than would be expected without HIV/AIDS."

I would completely delete "—6.5 years less than it would be without the disease." and the other one as well ("life expectancy is 47.7 years—11.0 years less than would be expected without HIV/AIDS.") - they are not cited and they contradict several references about life expectancy before HIV/AIDS infection in which life expectancy figures before infection are given well above 55 years (for example see the graph in AIDS in Africa.
I would make change myself, but it seems as too big change for a non-registered user... —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:42, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
Hey! I agree that the changes should be made for exactly the reasons you stated. If you'd like, I can make them, but you can also be bold and make them yourself. I think this article needs to be rewritten and fixed up in a lot of ways, but I'm a little bit intimidated by the wide scope of it, so if you have any other ideas or comments, I'd love to hear them. Annalise (talk) 22:24, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Bangui AIDS definition? Evidence for half AIDS sufferers not HIV-positive?[edit]

I see this has recently been added to the page:

In October 1985, a conference of public health officials including representatives of the Centers for Disease Control and World Health Organisation met in Bangui and defined AIDS in Africa as, "prolonged fevers for a month or more, weight loss of over 10% and prolonged diarrhoea". About half the AIDS cases in Africa based on the Bangui definition are HIV positive.

Colour me suspicious of this addition. Is this "Bangui definition", which is clearly obsolete given that we have far less ambiguous definitions based on the presence of the HIV virus and T-cell counts, still widely used? And where is the evidence for the statement that "half ot the AIDS cases in Africa based on the Bangui definition are HIV positive" (which of course implies that half aren't, thus calling into question the idea that it is HIV cutting a swathe through Africa's adults at the moment). --Robert Merkel 02:36, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I would also like to see a cite for this newly added information. Dewet 03:30, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Me too. The change to the AIDS article leads me to this question as well. JoeSmack (talk) 00:47, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)
Given the repeatE EYE EYE EYE EYE EYE EYE EYE EYE EYE EYE EYE EYE EYE EYE EYE EYE EYE EYE EYE EYE EYE EYE EYE EYE EYE EYE EYE EYE ed skepticism about this, I'm going to revert the page to the old version until some more evidence is provided. --Robert Merkel 07:05, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

My understanding is that the "Bangui definition", remains the basis for most of the AIDS cases in Africa and therefore the world, because testing for HIV virus and T-cell is not widely available in Africa. I would welcome evidence to the contrary. I will cite the numerous studies that half the AIDS cases in Africa, whne tested are HIV negative. The other difficulty is that many diseases that are endemic on Africa but rare in the United States produces antibodies that produce false positive results on HIV tests.

Sci guy 01:39, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This "Bangui definition" most recent work backs up an appraisal of a the definition of AIDS in Africa between 1980 and 1997 - let us just suppose that turns the 620,000 AIDS sufferers into false positives. Past 1997, like, say now, Africa as something like 25 million AIDS sufferers. Any evidence that today we aren't using a more modern definition? 25.0 million - 0.6 million = way more than half of AIDS sufferers...more evidence to the contrary if you want to keep your previous claims up. JoeSmack (talk) 02:44, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)
Seeing we haven't gotten satisfactory answers from Sci guy, I'm going to repeat my action at AIDS and revert. --Robert Merkel

The graph used here is misleading[edit]

The graph showing average life expectancy in Africa is misleading because it does not have a base of zero. By zooming in on the curved part of the graph, it gives a visual impression of the lines swinging wildly. The shape of the lines is far more dramatic than it would be if the graph started at zero.

AIDS in Africa has had a positively horrifying effect, but this graph distorts the information.

This is from a textbook, "Visual Communication" by Paul Lester: "A serious problem with charts can be the misleading visual representation of data. Although omitting part of a scale to save space is acceptable (as indicated by the zigzag line at the bottom of many charts), constructing a chart from a y-axis point other than zero can dramatically change the visual message and is not acceptable. As printed in a newspaper and reproduced using the Excel program (center), the [changes in the price of oil from '98 to '99] appears dramatic with the zero point set at ten. But with the zero point set at zero, the infographic is more accurate and less visually alarming."

It's also explained pretty well here with figures 2 and 6.

There cannot be a zero point on the y-axis line in this case, because life expectancy has never been zero for as long as mankind has been around. Note please that there is no comparative frequency or amount analysis being done, unlike in the example at, instead we're graphing a value that cannot be zero and tracking it over time. The figure is one that comes straight out of alternate statistics, we're not creating it for the purposes of the graph (for instance, the example from obtains values by taking the values it gets from alternate sources and then comparing them to get "relative values").
Were you to argue that such a graph might be more accurate if it went further back in time, by perhaps another 50 years, then you would be right, but so far as I know we don't have proper statistics for this part of the world prior to 1958, so such a point would be moot.
I'm removing the note you added to the graph because of the above, and because it's non-sensical. It's simply not possible to have a zero point on the y-axis in this sort of graph. Impi 19:22, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ah, of course. Well, don't mind me then. Mr. Billion 20:37, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

While a zero-axis doesn't make physical sense, as Impi explained, it *does* provide for a visual anchor. I have to agree with the quote that not having a point of reference (zero) can make graphs appear misleading; however, since this one varies between roughly 35 and 60, adding a zero wouldn't have been as useful as if it had varied between, say, 60 and 65. Dewet 03:48, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The size and quality of this article is a scandal[edit]

AIDS is a global epidemic claiming the lives of 8000 people a day. 60% of HIV infections are in Africa. The possible scope for this article is immense, yet it is still barely above a stub! It's these sort of articles being overlooked which allows people to rubbish Wikipedia. TreveX 15:01, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This could be because there are actually a lot of different area's and people's in Africa and African identity is not as powerful as you assume. See the unsuccessful efforts of fromer Libyian leader Gdaffey. CD 21 Jun 2012
And the reason you don't jump in and make these improvements yourself would be because...? Dewet 16:22, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
...because I researching on the UNAIDS website! TreveX 16:37, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia is a collaborative community project, and people edit and expand articles according to their abilities and expertise. To attempt to blame somebody for the AIDS in Africa article being weak is ludicrous, because nobody is responsible for making sure it's perfect. Next time, instead of leaving that sort of obvious and clearly irrelevant comment, jump in and make the edits and changes yourself. Impi 18:32, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Don't worry, TreveX is going to work on it, as he said somewhere else but forgot to mention here. — mark 19:49, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I am very sorry if anyone thought that I was blaming other people for the state of this article. I was merely trying to point out that its depth is, at present, disappointing considering the importance and immediacy of the subject matter. If anyone was offended by this then please accept my apologies. I realise that what I wrote above may not have come across very well, but I was just surprised at the article, that's all. What I really should have said was that this article should be longer but that hopefully it will improve soon as the result of some glorious collaboration.  :-) TreveX 20:16, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Fair enough, the article is rather pathetically weak for such an important subject, and it's great that you're working on it. I might've been a bit quick to jump to conclusions on what you were saying (as there are many people who do nothing but criticise on Talk pages without doing anything to try improve the article), so I apologise. Good luck with the article! Impi 10:41, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Religious groups in the battle against AIDS[edit]

Does someone know the percentage to which religious groups are engaged in the battle against the AIDS epidemic in Africa (percentage of projects, etc.)? 13:27, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

What exactly do you mean: the percentage of AIDS projects that is led by religous groups? I think it is hard to tell because many Church-run hospitals or health projects help AIDS patients like everyone else; a prominent AIDS treatment project run by a religious community is the DREAM program run by the Community of Sant'Egidio that I presented on this site.

Prevalence in Southern Africa[edit]

The article mentions a lot of, and I think very valid, reasons for the high rates of HIV/AIDS in sub-saharan Africa. Generally all kinds of diseases will be more common and more deadly in poorer countries, in countries with rather basic healthcare systems, poor nutrition etc. Still I'm intrigued by the extremely high prevalence in Southern Africa. The econonomic / health care situation there isn't worse than in many other sub-saharan countries - quite the contarary: in the cases of South Africa and Botswana it is definitely much better. Still those are the places with the highest HIV/AIDS rates. Why? - Of course it is perfectly possible that we just don't know (which, if this is true, should be mentioned). Otherwise I'd be interested in some, at least, tenetative explanations for this phenomenon - in case there are any?

Recent findings which seem (?) to proove that HIV originated in or around Cameroon (cp. [1]) would make the whole thing only more startling.

Just came across the following - no idea, whether there's anything to it - but at least it is an effort to explain the phenomenon. Should it be mentioned here? Any opionions?

-- 00:00, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

If the virus is less deadly in South Africa, people are probably less afraid of it. That could be one reason. A friend of mine compared me to Hitler for suggesting this, but isn't it also natural to assume that if more people live with the virus, more people will get infected? I'm sure the ARVs reduce the chances of further transmission, but not by as much as if people being kept alive by them had been dead. I could be wrong, and I'm sorry if I offended anyone for bringing this up. (talk) 22:51, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Causes of transmission (NPOV-section)[edit]

There has been a recent edit by an anonymous IP that completely reversed the statement about the causes of transmission of HIV. I just placed a NPOV-section tag because I felt this is a point that has to be cleared up by people more competent than myself.--Robin.rueth 13:40, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Gisselquist is virtually the only scientist who has published papers on this topic. His theories are not widely accepted. International consensus (WHO, UNAIDS, USAID, NIH, major scientific journals, etc.) asserts that the vast majority of HIV infections in Africa result from heterosexual transmission. Trezatium 18:21, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

The validity of Gisselquist's claims are circumspect, this article provides the WHO consensus. Schnarr 04:59, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

  • The CDC says, "Heterosexual transmission is the predominant mode of HIV transmission [in Southern Africa]" (see here).
  • UNAIDS says, "In sub-Saharan Africa, heterosexual transmission is by far the predominant mode of HIV transmission" (quoted here).
  • DHHS says, "Globally, the major route of HIV transmission to women is through sexual contact with men (heterosexual intercourse)" (see here).
  • USAID says, "The hardest-hit regions are areas where heterosexual contact is the primary mode of transmission" (see here). Trezatium 17:17, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Here's another article about Gisselquist's theories and the WHO's reaction to them. Also it's worth noting that every sub-Saharan African country bases its response to HIV on the assumption that the majority of transmisison is heterosexual. For example, the Uganda AIDS Commission says, "In Sub-Saharan Africa, HIV is mainly transmitted through heterosexual intercourse" (see here). Trezatium 18:28, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

The section removed from the article had been copied verbatim from this web site, perhaps in violation of copyright. Trezatium 18:39, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


Misleading Either this article should be renamed HIV/AIDS in sub-Saharan Africa, or it should include information about North Africa. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 23:17, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


I had to revert the new paragraph it was full of spelling mistakes, two broken links and inappropriate statements ("is another great site") etc, but please do try again, perhaps on the talk page with something along the lines of the content and we can work on it here --BozMo talk 20:21, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

bam —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:44, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


I have reverted the paragraph on the human and emotional aspects. I DO think that we need something more like that in the article and will try to rewrite it when I've got time but the paragraph submitted violated so many WP guidelines that we cannot leave it in place as is. --BozMo talk 19:33, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Aids research money[edit]

Dose anyone know if aids research money raised by charity or given out by governments ever goes to drug companies or dose it all go to researchers in university's. If some of the money dose go to a drug company dose that change the company's patent on new drugs? Maybe this is a question for an IP lawyer but any answers or links are appreciated.

Country by country articles[edit]

There seems to be a fair bit of information spread around on the different pages for african countries. What do people think about me consolidating them all in this article? JimmyDodger 10:53, 3 May 2007 (UTC) JimmyDodger

Yes, if its accurate. The article itself isn't terribly accurate at present and needs more citing for data it includes. --BozMo talk 10:54, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


The section on prevalence in West Africa lists the countries with the lowest and highest prevalence. Why is Burkina Faso on both lists? I don't know the answer myself to correct it. Mapjc 14:21, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

New Edit[edit]

I removed the section at the start of the article that stated that a citation was needed for the assertion that over 60% of the world's HIV cases were in Africa. The source is clearly stated in the table below the statement.

Please update this article with the 2007 UNAIDS numbers[edit]

UNAIDS has come out with 2007 numbers, which are much lower than the previous ones. The new estimate for sub-saharan africa is 20.9 million and 24.3 million people infected. The AIDS pandemic page has the updated numbers in the table at the top, however the body of the article still contains older numbers in places. Gigs (talk) 08:27, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Destroyed article[edit]

someone has ruined this page. please fix.

thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:44, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

AIDS in Africa: Key Articles[edit]

The three articles excerpted below are essential for understanding AIDS in Africa, and Mbeki's dissent from the Western corporate line that everyone has been force-fed. These articles are long, detailed, well-documented, and very illuminating about many things, not least the racism combined with Puritanical, anti-sex attitudes inherent in most conceptions of AIDS epidemiology in Africa. Great fun, and rewarding reads, IMO. A well-informed reader will note that the principal causes of the "AIDS epidemic" in Africa are the same as the causes of the low-I.Q. "epidemic". They are: malaria, impure water, parasitic infections, malnutrition (micronutrients and macronutrients), tuberculosis, etcetera, which are in turn caused largely by grinding poverty. The articles cited below are essential for understanding contemporary AFRICA, period -- not just AIDS or I.Q. These articles explain the proximate causes of Africa's backwardness.

The three articles are below, tagged:

DOCUMENT #1: Misconceptions About AIDS in Africa (Geshekter)

DOCUMENT #2: Mbeki's AIDS Orthodoxy Critique (Geshekter et al)

DOCUMENT #3: Nutrition, Parasites, and HIV/AIDS (Stillwaggon)

-- cut--

I highly recommend the full texts, at the URLs, not just these excerpts. But if you don't have time for that, and would prefer an "easy-listening" version, try the following video of Dr. Charles Geshekter on AIDS in Africa: -- Part 1 -- Part 2 -- Part 3


Alan DOCUMENT #2: Mbeki's AIDS Orthodoxy Critique (Geshekter et al)

DOCUMENT #3: Nutrition, Parasites, and HIV/AIDS (Stillwaggon) --- Alan2012 (talk) 04:48, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Johanna McGeary section edited[edit]

I edited the section which draws from a Time Magazine article by Johanna McGeary; while the quotes are reasonable, they were used by the Wiki editor to make unsupported and possibly racist/sexist generalizations about African men. While these generalizations may or may not be true, the section was poorly constructed and read like a diatribe. I left in the quotes which actually speak for themselves, and removed most of the editorializations. Wikipedia is no place for such writing.-- Matt Aufderheide

Madagascar inconsistency?[edit]

The graph of national infection rate for HIV has Madagascar at <2%, and yet the regional analysis for southern Africa says that the only country with less than 10% is Angola. One of these must be wrong...or am I missing something? Khrister (talk) 23:36, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Medical Suspicion[edit]

I have attempted to revise the section on Medical suspicion in order to get it back on topic. While I'll be the first to admit that there is a sad history of medical exploitation in Africa I don't think this is the place for a detailed discussion of it (perhaps History of Medical Exploitation in Africa would be better?). This section should really be on how such a history and the current beliefs associated with it impacts on the HIV/AIDS epidemic in Africa. I have tried to find reliable sources regarding medical mistrust in Africa, as I really wasn't comfortable with all the links to an AIDS-denialist organisation, but the links I have often relate to the impact this mistrust has had on vaccination. I will attempt to expand this section later with additional links.Interrapax (talk) 04:02, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Origins section[edit]

Currently says "The current theories revolve around the idea that colonial horrors of mid-20th-century Africa allowed the virus to jump from chimpanzees to humans, and become established in human populations around 1930". What does colonial horrors mean? And in which countries? And how can colonial horrors in the mid 20th century have allowed it to have started in the early 20th century (which it must have done if it was established by 1930). I think this comment is quite suspect, as is the source (one radio program on public radio?) (talk) 15:38, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

This section seems to include some original research and a quote from a synopsis of a radio program that is highly inacurate. The origin theories are properly presented and sourced in Origin of AIDS, and none of them, including the one presented in this section's source, mention sexual activity with monkeys as a "past theory". All of them mention bushmeat accidents (bites during hunting, cuts in subsequent handling) as the probable origin of the initial infection. They differ as to why it spread and established itself, but that subject doesn't seem neccessary to include in this article.
The radio quote was written by a journalist, and doesn't accurately reflect what the interviewed people actually said. "Colonial horrors" probably refer to unsanitary vaccinations and urbanization that was mentioned in the program, this didn't allow the virus to jump from chimpanzees to humans, and mid-20th-century is just plain wrong.
Neither does the source say that cases of AIDS have been traced back to the rubber plantations. This was given as an example of how the initial infection might have happened.
This section should just be deleted. (talk) 20:14, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Citation 11[edit]

^ a b Washington, Harriet. Medical Apartheid: The Dark History of Medical Experimentation on Black Americans from Colonial Times to the Present , Anchor books, New York pp 300-330

According to the author of this nytimes article, the book cited, "Medical Apartheid", is a piece of crap and should be ignored. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheThomas (talkcontribs) 15:55, 19 July 2011 (UTC)


I've restored the regional header structure. The UN geoscheme is mainly reserved for geographical purposes. Public health in general, including HIV/AIDS, is administered through the WHO, a UN specialized agency. Under the WHO's regional scheme, much of North Africa and the Horn region are included in the Eastern Mediterranean Regional office (EMRO) [2], which is headquartered in Cairo, Egypt. The rest of the continent falls under the WHO's African Regional office (AFRO) [3]. On its website's country page, UNAIDS also organizes the various nations in Africa into three similar broad groupings [4]. Soupforone (talk) 21:07, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

And what is your source for the exact groupings in the article as it exists after you "restored" it? Your personal preference? I provided a source for the new groups before your "restoration". Surely you are not intending to revert the article to a major unsourced state, are you? AfricaTanz (talk) 00:26, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
The UN scheme is also used in other English Wikipedia articles, e.g., Central Africa. AfricaTanz (talk) 01:23, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Where can I find a reference to the WHO, for example, classifying Malawi as in southern Africa? AfricaTanz (talk) 01:48, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
The UN geoscheme is for geographical purposes. Public health is the domain of the WHO [5], which has its own scheme. In its annual report on HIV/AIDS, USAIDS observes a similar scheme, as it groups much of North Africa and the Horn of Africa into a broad Middle East and North Africa regional grouping [6]. The remainder of the continent falls under Sub-Saharan Africa. While noting the WHO's EMRO/AMRO scheme, this article follows the traditional regional groupings, as sourced on each of their respective wikipages. This is because the incidence profiles and cultural patterns responsible for HIV/AIDS' spread differ markedly from region to region. For example, while Malawi could be geographically grouped in Eastern Africa, it is more immediately located in Southern Africa [7]. Its prevalence profile also much more closely matches that of Namibia and other high incidence countries in that region, where there are the highest overall prevalence rates.
Well, you didn't answer my questions. What are your sources? "Traditional regional groupings" is just a euphamism for certain Wikipedia editors liking the unsourced way it has been done. AfricaTanz (talk) 22:30, 14 May 2013 (UTC) What we currently have is a paragraph about the WHO's responsibilities, with the overwhelming implication that WHO agrees with the grouping of countries in the article. Yet, there is no proof whatsoever that WHO groups countries that way. So, I am still waiting for your reliable source to support the article's current structure. AfricaTanz (talk) 22:40, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Anyway, just noticed that Tanzania is the only country here that doesn't use UNAIDS' official incidence figures. It appears to be using those of a Tanzanian governmental commission. However, the reported prevalence rates differ markedly. UNAIDS has it at 5.80% [5.40% - 6.20%], while the Tanzanian commission has it at 5.1%; a 0.7 percentage point difference in total. Given this rather large numerical disparity, perhaps we should use the official UN figure here as well. Soupforone (talk) 21:48, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Nope. That study was highly credible and well done. Read the report if you're interested. It's linked in the article and at HIV/AIDS in Tanzania. AfricaTanz (talk) 22:30, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Very well. I've restructured the headers per the WHO scheme. Soupforone (talk) 20:34, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Table width[edit]

I've merged the tables per here. The focus should be on the actual HIV/AIDS prevalence rates. The double HIV/AIDS and HIV/TB tables and huge standalone HIV/TB table distract attention away from that. Also note that the HIV/TB rates for all of the countries except Mayotte, Reunion and South Sudan are on the GTBR's pages 16-18 (152-154) and 63-64 (199-200) [8]. Soupforone (talk) 22:04, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps you don't (yet) understand how interconnected tuberculosis and HIV are in Africa. Maybe you should do some research about that. AfricaTanz (talk) 23:33, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Understood, but the actual HIV/AIDS prevalence rates should go first. Soupforone (talk) 21:44, 23 May 2013 (UTC)


With respect to why the JUNP's continental HIV/AIDS rates appear twice; WP:LEAD - "Apart from trivial basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article." Soupforone (talk) 22:28, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

The fact that if A then B is true (everything in the lead must be in the body of the article ) does not imply that if B then A is also true (everything in the body of the article must be in the lead). So, we have the discretion to exclude from the lead whatever we want that's in the body. AfricaTanz (talk) 22:37, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

The changes in rates that JUNP describes [9] also refers to total percentages, not to percentage points. Soupforone (talk) 21:42, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

The statements in the lead that "the number of AIDS-related deaths in 2011 was 32 percent less than the number in 2005" and that "the number of new HIV infections in 2011 was 33 percent less than the number in 2001" are not what JUNP/UNAIDS indicates. What the organization states is that the total percentage of AIDS-related deaths fell by 32% in the period between 2005 to 2011. It is not indicating that the number of AIDS-related deaths in the year 2011 was 32% less than the number of AIDS-related deaths in the year 2005. Similarly, JUNP indicates that the total number of new HIV infections fell by 33% from 2001 to 2011. It is not asserting that the the number of new HIV infections in the year 2001 was 33 percent less than the number of new HIV infections in the year 2011. "AIDS-related deaths are also continuing to fall––reducing by 32% from 2005 to 2011 as are the numbers of new HIV infections which have fallen by 33% from 2001 to 2011." [10] Soupforone (talk) 22:12, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Prove that's what UNAIDS meant. The Catholic website is a secondary source and can be ignored.AfricaTanz (talk) 22:27, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
That's a quote/link from UNAIDS, not the Catholic website. Soupforone (talk) 22:31, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
The burden is on you to prove that's what UNAIDS meant. Surely the proof is easily available for you to present.... AfricaTanz (talk) 22:40, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
First the UN phrase is from the Catholic website, when it in fact isn't... now the UN doesn't mean what it plainly states. Sheesh. Soupforone (talk) 22:56, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
It is clear what UNAIDS meant, as the article (and its sources) now make abundantly clear. AfricaTanz (talk) 00:39, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
UNAIDS' figures aren't just for Sub-Saharan Africa, as indicated in the wikitext. They are for Africa as a whole. This is noted on page 15 of the report [11]. Soupforone (talk) 23:07, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Also, the 2007 report indicates that "among adolescents, regardless of sexual experience, circumcision was just as strongly associated with prevalent HIV infection." [12] The wikitext should therefore state that "the association was just as marked among circumcised adolescents". It should not state that "the association also existed among circumcised adolescents", as the latter is an understatement. Soupforone (talk) 22:12, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

The article now quotes the source. Problem solved. AfricaTanz (talk) 00:41, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
Not quite, as the quote was incomplete. Problem now solved. Soupforone (talk) 23:07, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

UNAIDS also does not indicate that "sixteen African nations ensure that more than 75 percent of pregnant women living with HIV receive antiretroviral medication to prevent transmission of the virus to their children". It indicates that those countries "now ensure" that the women are given the medicine [13]. In other words, they weren't systematically issuing the medication to all those pregnant women before; this is a recent initiative on their part. Soupforone (talk) 22:12, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

The article now quotes the source. Problem solved. AfricaTanz (talk) 00:41, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
The quote is from UNAIDS' press release, which says "now ensure" [14]. I see, though, what you're referring. You seem to be talking about page 31 of the report itself [15]. Soupforone (talk) 23:07, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

The Abstinence, be faithful, use a condom (ABC) campaign is also capitalized, like just about all proper names. Soupforone (talk) 22:12, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

If it were a proper noun, you would be right. But it isn't. AfricaTanz (talk) 22:19, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
It is, actually [16]. Soupforone (talk) 22:31, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, that doesn't prove anything. AfricaTanz (talk) 22:38, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
It proves that Abstinence, be faithful, use a condom (ABC) is an acronymed proper name, referring to a specific HIV campaign recommendation. Your Tanzanian Commission For Aids indicates this as well. Soupforone (talk) 22:56, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
The Tanzanian Commission for AIDS is not "mine". Sheesh. AfricaTanz (talk) 00:42, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Also, there's no reason why the global life expectancy map should be as large as it is, dwarfing the article's actual subject (HIV/AIDS). If the WHO's operational regions are irrelevant for not being directly about HIV/AIDS, then surely it is too. Soupforone (talk) 23:07, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

UNAIDS continental figures[edit]

UNAIDS' figures on the number of AIDS-related deaths in 2005-2011 and the number of new HIV infections from 2001 to 2011 aren't just for Sub-Saharan Africa, as indicated in the wikitext. They are for Africa as a whole. This is noted on page 15 of the report [17]. The separate UNAIDS/TB paper has the figures for Sub-Saharan Africa alone on pages 12 and 8 [18]. Since this is the HIV/AIDS in Africa article, the continental figures should be prioritized, though the Sub-Saharan/sub-continental figures can also be mentioned. Soupforone (talk) 21:55, 16 June 2013 (UTC)