Talk:HIV/AIDS in China

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article nominee HIV/AIDS in China was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
January 27, 2008 Good article nominee Not listed
In the news A news item involving this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "In the news" column on February 21, 2009.

GA review[edit]

This article falls short of the GA criteria. In particular:

  • The lede is too short for such a long article
  • The criticism section would be better off if it were integrated into the rest of the text—the split into pro-government and anti-government makes some parts non-neutral.
  • A lot of the text is unreferenced, even many statistics in the text.

Narayanese (talk) 00:59, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


Hi, this chapter contradicted five studies from expert bodies without any evidence: „Predictions of the size of the HIV/AIDS epidemic in China have been substantially overestimated by several expert bodies. Notable examples include:“ Therefore, I changed it into: „Predictions of the size of the HIV/AIDS epidemic in China have been made by several expert bodies. Notable examples include:“

Furthermore, it quoted Hesketh et al. for saying: „These estimates assumed substantial spread of the virus from high-risk groups to the general population, yet the few population studies, and, in particular, trends from sentinel surveillance of pregnant women in high-risk areas show that such spread has not occurred.“ I found this reference in the internet and added the corresponding link. But the quotation was wrong as the tests quoted in the paper found 43 % of HIV infections in low-risk groups.

I did not find the full text of the other two references for the above sentence. Thus, I changed the Notes so that the whole chapter becomes a bit more neutral. Anyway, please check these two references if you have access to the full text as I am not quite sure whether they are correctly quoted.

Furthermore, the rest of the original notes did not seem to have sufficient evidence either: “Therefore, these predictions were made on unfounded assumptions. Some have argued that the effect of these high and inaccurate predictions have drawn attention and resources away from areas of greater need. For example, China's burden of disease from tobacco use is enormous.” I added the link to the summary of the reference. But it only states that there are “300 million men smoke cigarettes and 160 million adults are hypertensive” and that “Much remains to be done, and resources and sustainability are major issues.” There is no evidence, though, that this article asks to take the money from Aids tests. I left it in but neutralized it a bit by adding another (correct) reference to Hesketh et al. The paragraph would still need a proof that somebody argued to take away money from Aids test to areas of greater need.

Greetings --Gilbert04 (talk) 18:08, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

New Legislation: Linux users?[edit]

From "New Legislation" section, "The new legislation resulted from communication and coordination among many agencies, including administrators, service providers, lobbyists, politicians, Linux users, and policymakers."

Is this a joke? Or are they serious, that linux users really did help in some way? Reference or Delete? Xphill64x (talk) 18:24, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

The edit that added that bit of information was this, which seems to be totally vandalism. SultrySuzie (talk) 03:34, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

External links[edit]

This really needs to be trimmed. Wikipedia is not a links directory. Not sure which resources should be kept though. Tooironic (talk) 12:40, 28 April 2010 (UTC)


The article doesn't make it clear enough that all of the UN and US's predictions have been proven false and the Chinese ones have emerged as far more accurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:32, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Out of Date Information and Language[edit]

Nearly all sections of the article seem to have been written around 2005 +/- a couple years. This leads to an outdated "Predictions" section, and references to events inappropriately using the word "recent" or "recently". It would be great if someone with sufficient knowledge could review the article and update the statistics, predictions, etc. Cheddar3210 (talk) 18:18, 12 July 2017 (UTC)