Template:Oldscipeerreview

Archives
July 2003 — November 2003 November 2003 — January 2006 January 2006 — February 2006 February 2006 — July 2006 July 2006 — December 2006 December 2006 — February 2007

/Data mining at PubMed about the topic

[Discussion on this thread through 9 January 2007 archived to /Archive 6]

The neutrality of this article and also that of Wikipedia on AIDS is highly disputed. It relegates it to political movement which it is not. All articles on AIDS by Wiki needs to carry this headline 'The neutrality of this article is disputed' —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 210.214.192.79 (talk • contribs).

OK, in accordance with the discussion above, I've gone through and substantially trimmed the section on "Points of Contention". Here is a permalink to the version immediately before my major revision, for reference [1]. The reasoning is that there are already a ton of sites and information debating the fine points of Koch's postulates, etc etc - Wikipedia is not really supposed to be a front in this battle, but rather to report on it. This article already contains dozens of links to both dissident and mainstream sites which address the claims, and playing them out in point-counterpoint here was just not seeming encyclopedic anymore. Also, it's remarkable how much shorter the article is without going into the evidence for Hepatitis B/C and how they're similar or different, and also remarkable how many unreliably sourced or unsourced assertions this removes. MastCell 23:49, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I realise now that I shouldn't have put that paragraph back into the "Impact in North America and Europe" section without discussing it first, as I'm sure you had a good reason for removing it. The paragraph in question is the one that begins, "In the following few years". It seems to me that this part of the article needs to mention the promotion of dissident views in the mainstream media. However, perhaps you think the paragraph should be rewritten? Trezatium 10:28, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's my fault for removing a sourced paragraph without giving any indication of my thought process. I was thinking it was a bit vague and didn't flow with the rest of the paragraph. However, after re-reading it with the paragraph reinserted, I think it actually looks fine. Sorry about that. MastCell 19:52, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the link to the dissident AIDSwiki. WP:EL clearly lists, under "Links to Avoid" #12, links to wikis without a substantial number of contributors and a substantial history of stability. Alexa rankings don't enter into it; it's a matter of reliability as encyclopedic content. The fact that the link appears to be added by the founder of said wiki is probably a WP:SPAM issue as well, but regardless of who adds it, it violates WP:EL. If there's a question about this, I'd suggest getting independent input from other editors. MastCell 06:12, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with MastCell; it is not a substantial/stable/reliable wiki, and thus should not be linked in accordance with WP:EL. In addition, EL acceptable additions are not based on relative merits (edit summary when added was "the wiki has more traffic than any other dissident site listed here"). JoeSmack ^Talk 06:37, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, if anything I was thinking that was reason to remove some of the other links as well (and some of the mainstream links). In general I'd prefer fewer external links - this site isn't intended to replace Google. MastCell 05:26, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, why don't you just get rid of *ALL* the links?? If you can't have a link to the most trafficked dissident site, just throw them all away. God forbid we should mention the existence of websites directly relevant to the subject of the article. 68.54.12.225 12:01, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not the most trafficked dissident site, it is the most trafficked dissident wiki site; every wiki that has an article to one of its subjects on wikipedia does not get a cart blanche to linking it here. JoeSmack ^Talk 13:44, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, tell me "JoeSmack", which dissident sites are more heavily trafficked? I only know of 2 possible ones -- YBYL ("You Bet Your Life") and Virusmyth. The latter has more traffic than the wiki, but has slid and is not up to date. All the others you list here have much less traffic than the wiki (some by a factor of 3-5). But, don't let the facts get in the way of anything. Facts never got in the way re: HIV, no point starting now. 68.54.12.225 10:36, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:EL is pretty clear on this point. I understand that 68.54.12.225 (talk · contribs) is apparently directly involved in the creation and operation of the AIDSwiki, but it's not an appropriate external link for Wikipedia per the guideline. Many highly trafficked pages (blogs, MySpace, YouTube) are nonetheless generally inappropriate as external links. MastCell 16:49, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're missing my point. My point was -- IF SOMEONE HAD UPLOADED ALL THE INFORMATION THAT IS AT THE WIKI ONTO A GENERIC "WEBSITE" (LIKE WWW.VIRUSMYTH.NET), YOU WOULD HAVE NO RATIONALE FOR DELETING IT. This is what I mean when I say you are "penalizing it just for being a wiki". This is a clear-cut example of "gaming the system". 68.54.12.225 10:36, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following reference ([2]) was removed by Ghostoflearnedhand (talk · contribs), with an edit summary claiming that the article was "subject of a copyright dispute". Can you provide more details? I've removed the ref for now, but would like to know the details, as the POZ magazine site says nothing about any copyright issues. MastCell 18:20, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm considering excising the subsection entitled "Alleged harm caused by dissident views". It consists mostly of quotes from the two sides, and doesn't add much that hasn't already been made clear earlier in the article. Thoughts? MastCell 19:27, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the article must at some point mention the allegations that dissident views have contributed to avoidable illness and deaths. For example see this article (PDF) recently posted on the AidsTruth.org site. I agree that the existing section is not very good, but I think it should remain until we have something better to take its place. Without this section, the article would give the impression that the causation debate is merely academic. Trezatium 20:07, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No question that should be mentioned... I was just thinking that we already mention it in the lead ("endanger public health"), and in the Impact in South Africa section ("responsible for 600 deaths a day"). Maybe an added mention under "Impact in North America", and the section would be superfluous? MastCell 21:13, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think of the addition to the "Impact in North America and Europe" section? I'm a little leery of directly linking to AIDStruth's reprint of the Newsweek article - it seems a little sketchy from a copyright standpoint, but maybe I'm just being paranoid. MastCell 21:22, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the quotes from Montagnier and Sandra Thurman are superior because they explicitly allege that the promotion of dissident theories endangers life. However I agree that the copyright status of that article is unclear. Could we just reference Newsweek without providing any link? I agree that the quotes from Geffen and Moore could be removed, but perhaps the reference to the "HIV Science and Responsible Journalism" transcript could be retained and moved elsewhere. In any case I think we should keep the counterarguments from Duesberg and the Perth Group, for the sake of neutrality. Trezatium 21:43, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please ignore my suggestion about referencing the Newsweek article - I didn't realise you had already cited it. Trezatium 21:45, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest replacing your addition to the "Impact in North America and Europe" section with the following, or something similar: "AIDS experts including Luc Montagnier (co-discoverer of HIV) and Sandra Thurman (White House AIDS policy director) have alleged that the AIDS reappraisal movement endangers lives by persuading people to abandon safer sex or medications." This could then be followed by the dissident rebuttal. Any thoughts? Trezatium 21:56, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds fine. I'm all for keeping it brief (i.e. short summaries of allegations from Montaignier, and short rebuttal, without the quotes). Recently I've been feeling like many of these articles are too wordy (maybe I'm just in more of a hurry). I think we should keep the HIV Science & Journalism transcript - it's under external links, but perhaps could be sourcing for statements in the article body as well. MastCell 22:34, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another thought - the Durban Declaration states, "HIV causes AIDS. It is unfortunate that a few vocal people continue to deny the evidence. This position will cost countless lives." (in terms of sourcing the claim that AIDS denialism is dangerous). MastCell 04:22, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's an excellent suggestion - well found. Essentially my point is that the article should at some point mention the alleged harm caused by dissident views, which after all is why this topic is significant and controversial. Perhaps the existing section ("Alleged harm caused by dissident views") could be replaced with a short paragraph to that effect - referencing the Newsweek article, the Durban Declaration and perhaps the "Responsible Journalism" seminar as well - plus another short paragraph explaining that the Perth Group and Duesberg reject such accusations. Trezatium 20:34, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good - I'll work on it as time permits, or feel free to go for it. MastCell 20:55, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The reference I just added (INTERNATIONAL EXPERTS MEET IN MEXICO CITY TO PLAN AIDS 2008 PROGRAMME, WITH FOCUS ON LATEST DEVELOPMENTS IN RESEARCH, PREVENTION AND CARE) isn't displaying properly, but I don't know how to fix it. Trezatium 09:08, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed it. Trezatium 19:11, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Should intelligent design and global warming skepticism be considered pseudoscience? I can understand intelligent design, but the wiki page on global warming skepticism makes no reference to it being pseudoscientific. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 200.8.165.242 (talk)

Mere skepticism is never pseudoscience unless it uses faulty claims in order to back itself up. Debate is the lifeblood of science and it serves no useful purpose to slander the opponents here. --RadioElectric (talk) 18:20, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The decision in the Andre Chad Parenzee case is in. (See [3].) As expected, Parenzee lost his appeal. Justice John Sulan's decision stated that Ms. Papadopulos-Eleopulos and Dr Valendar Turner of the Perth Group "lacked credibility and were advocates for a cause rather than independent experts," and made other interesting findings (HIV exists, it causes AIDS, it is sexually transmissible). No surprises. Mr Parenzee awaits sentencing. - Nunh-huh 15:56, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps Parenzee is notable enough for a brief Wikipedia biography (seeing that red link)? There are a number of solid secondary sources on him, in contrast to many other Wikipedia biography subjects. MastCell ^Talk 20:50, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Or possibly an article about the trial? I think Parenzee is probably not so interesting as the forces that unethically led him to believe that his appeal stood a snowball's chance in Hell of succeeding. His family, apparently, has been impoverished by supporting the appeal. But either a biography or a trial article sounds like a good idea. - Nunh-huh 18:10, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The former dissendents - both of them - certainly appear to give a very weak thumbs up to the "consensus" opinion. Tey mention cofactors a lot - cofactors being what somone might ask.159.105.80.141 16:43, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the article the Brief History section 1983: The Pasteur group found a virus in a patient who had symptoms that usually precede AIDS. Is the "a" before patient correct. They didn't start this with one patient did they? There must have been a study - 100s,1000s and found the virus in at least everyone with AIDS first, n'est pa?159.105.80.141 16:49, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the article there is a section on Harm Caused... a section on Benfit Derived.... would be helpful. Things like AZT limits probably have saved many lives ( a small dose of poison is better than a big dose - stupid to take any but some progress ), dissenters deny ( love the word deny ) that circumcision prevents AIDS - this has saved many people from thinking that it does besides any other benefits we will not list. The use of vitamins and mineral supplements is a covert admission that maybe lifestyle might be a tinsy-winsy problem - and the "consensus" doctors et al think that maybe vitamins, 3 meals a day, sleep,less drug use etc can't hurt.159.105.80.141 17:10, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I'm not following. MastCell ^Talk 23:30, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the article would a lot better balanced without the Durban Declaration. It seems very similar to blaming gay men for spreading HIV AND AIDS. Scientists should not be vilified for having dissenting opinions . Consensus can be misleading. Until someone can explain the science to me in laymen terms I will continue to believe that HIV causes AIDS. But that reference ought to be deleted. Moses Weintraub 12:02, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not you (or anyone else for that matter) agree with the Durban Declaration is irrelevant. The fact remains that it has an important place in the history of AIDS reappraisal, and therefore must be mentioned in the article. Trezatium 14:54, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"There is widespread anxiety that denying or doubting the cause of AIDS will cost countless lives if blood screening, use of condoms, and methods to prevent mother-to-child transmission of the virus are not implemented or, worse, even abandoned." That quote from the Durban declaration seems much more appropriate. It places the blame where it belongs . The one I want to replace says . It is unfortunate that a few vocal people continue to deny the evidence. This position will cost countless lives. Moses Weintraub 12:28, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why replace it? The existing quote is pithier, more concise, makes the point more directly, and summarizes one of the major objections to the continued propagation of AIDS denialism. MastCell ^Talk 18:30, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IT IS MISQUOTE. It was taken out of context by chopping off the end of what The declaration actually said. Read the Declaration again please. Show me that the existing one is actually a quote and I will not tag it and or the article as lacking neutrality. Moses Weintraub 07:02, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a misquote. The quote you prefer is actually not part of the Durban Declaration: rather it is part of the material printed in Nature magazine before the text of the Declaration proper. If you read the Declaration itself, you will find the quotation as it appears in our article: "HIV causes AIDS. It is unfortunate that a few vocal people continue to deny the evidence. This position will cost countless lives." Nothing has been added, and nothing has been "chopped off the end". - Nunh-huh 07:17, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

THANK YOU. I will check it out. The more I read about the aids deniers the less sympathy I have for them. I do think that it is wrong for the scientific community to vilify them but I am NOT going to be the one to tag that article unless I find deliberate dis-information on the part of its writers. I believe that although aids is comparatively over funded,that that only means that our governments should be spending more money to bring the others up to par. Thanks again for the clarification. Moses Weintraub 09:27, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, though not sure if/how it should be incorporated: PMID 17569834. MastCell ^Talk 18:27, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The lead paragraph implies that the scientific community "feels" that dissenters are cherry-picking data, etc. I DO NOT DOUBT THAT DISSENTERS ARE CHERRY-PICKING DATA. Sorry for shouting, but I want to make my POV clear. The question is: what scientists are saying this. Yes, I'd look up the reference, if someone can tell me how to get to it. The reference is to an online database of journal abstracts. That's nice, but does anyone have the article they can share for me, or at least point out a relevant quote, or point to a secondary source? Ah, the article from the Guardian extensively quotes Mark Heywood, AIDS activist and receiver of a Bachelor of Arts from Oxford. So if activists feel that way, then we should all listen! So I respectfully ask for better references here. Several articles are depending on this. --Otheus 00:49, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've referenced a few more indicators of the consensus view, including a series of articles from Science and a fact sheet from the NIAID (a division of the NIH) in which dissident arguments are described as cherry-picking or inaccurate. MastCell ^Talk 03:13, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought this article was a bit drab. I added an image of HIV at the top, since this virus is the main topic of the article. Tim Vickers 05:46, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removed (diff). I have to disagree with this move. It subtly fosters a non-neutral point of view, because the article talks about, essentially, HIV's allegedly non-causal relationship to AIDS; however, placing images of HIV in an article that talks about people who deny its existence and/or claim that AIDS and HIV are unrelated is kind of like placing a melting iceberg on Climate change denial. Don't get me wrong-- as a medical nerd myself, I don't necessarily agree with the point either; however, I don't feel that the image is appropriate on this article. --slakr^\ talk / 10:37, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, since almost nobody denies that HIV exists, the only real debate within this rather extreme community is the role of the virus in causing AIDS. HIV is thus the sole focus of this article. I've replaced the image for now, with a different caption, but am open to other opinions on this matter. Tim Vickers 22:33, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well it's not prima facie "scientific proof" of the existence of a virus, but it's the virus, and it belongs. I would agree that an melting iceberg would not belong in the Global warming article, because frankly that iceberg could be melting for any number of reasons, including global warming. But I would show a picture of the how much glaciers have retreated. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:55, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article's title is AIDS reappraisal. So, the choice is that we either change the name to reflect that the article is an examination debate over the causal relationship between HIV and AIDS, or we understand that an image of HIV in the introduction of an article that says that HIV doesn't cause AIDS is a paradox. --slakr^\ talk / 07:01, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good point. However, the global warming/iceberg comparison is a bit misleading. The equivalent in this case would be a picture of a car exhaust pipe as the lead image in the Global Warming article, since most climate sceptics now agree that warming is happening, but disagree on whether human activities are the cause. Tim Vickers 01:53, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I like pictures. I should add that some AIDS denialists do, indeed, argue that HIV doesn't exist or "has never been properly isolated". Insofar as there is a "mainstream" to the movement, it's probably Duesberg, who agrees that HIV doubtlessly exists but argues that it's harmless. Anyhoo, I like the picture and don't see a major problem with it. MastCell ^Talk 02:55, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You keep bringing up Duesberg. Stop that!!!!!! OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 03:19, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My concerns don't stem from whether or not the topic is credible, factual, right, or wrong. I, personally, don't believe in the topic-- as I stated earlier. However, I honestly believe that images should only be used to further the understanding of the topic-- not to prove points. As an off-the-wall example of this, I imagine that back in the day, when Galileo was trying to tell everyone that geocentrism was quite literally soul butter, he wouldn't have taken too kindly to a picture of the bible juxtaposed with the first paragraph of his findings with a caption of "Genesis says that the earth is the center of the universe, and Galileo thinks the opposite--" even though the majority of the "scientific community" (read: religion) at the time disagreed with him. We look back now and go, "oh, that's silly," but again, it simply wouldn't have been neutral then to put a picture of "de jure proof" that his findings were wrong (from their point of view). Granted, this analogy doesn't mean that I'm in any way trying to say that this article's point of view is in any way as inherently factual as Galileo's research, but I don't feel we should be cutting the chicken's neck off before it's hatched (pardon the metaphor).

I agree that pictures make a page prettier, but they should be as neutral as possible. The main question we should ask ourselves is "... but does it make the article better?" On HIV or AIDS it most certainly would, as it's extremely pertinent; but, it would be, ironically, giving undue weight to the scientific point of view from the perspective of this article to include a picture of the virus it's claiming either doesn't exist or is non-causal to AIDS. Again, whether this is correct or not is irrelevant, but I feel that inclusion of a picture just for the sake of including a picture--especially if it apparently contradicts the article-- might be doing more harm to the article than good. Again, this is just my opinion. --slakr^\ talk / 03:48, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Withholding a picture because it contradicts someone's erroneous assertion would be the non-neutral move. We're here to convey informtion, not hide it. - Nunh-huh 04:07, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Or does placing one do the same thing? Consider the same argument I had on Talk:Abortion about not including pictures of fetuses and aborted tissue; because, even though it might be true/factual, it doesn't inherently deserve a place in the article when it comes to issues of neutrality. --slakr^\ talk / 06:39, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all analogous. No one has denied the existence of fetuses. The argument there should have been about the emotional impact of photographs, and no one's going to have an emotional reaction to the one in this article. - Nunh-huh 08:48, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with that point. Our role must be to present reliable sources in a neutral manner. This picture of HIV is reliable and its caption does not make any statement on the truth or otherwise of the claims made in the article. This is an entirely neutral presentation of data. However, removing any images of HIV because they might contradict some of the wilder claims of the fringes of HIV denialists would not be neutral. I suspect you are confusing a neutral point of view with a sympathetic point of view. Tim Vickers 04:26, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

True-- removing images could be seen as POV-pushing, but since the article has been around since 2003 without images of HIV in its header, an argument could be made that inserting images is an equally POV move, considering that this specific image was only added a couple weeks ago. And I agree, entertaining "denialists" isn't appropriate; however, all I'm asking for is that we look at how we handle other denialist pages. Not to Godwin the discussion, but we don't have pictures of German concentration camps (for better argument, present-day ones) on Holocaust denial-- even though their inclusion would be inherently relevant and factual. Would you be willing to add them? Yes? No? The main thing I'm asking is for us to ask ourselves the question, "why?" and you'll understand where I'm coming from. --slakr^\ talk / 06:39, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

... and it should also be mentioned that your link to sympathetic point of view is not a wikimedia/wikipedia guideline or policy (it's from "internet-encyclopedia.org"). I'd rather like to focus on the actual wikipedia policy-- not a third party wikipedia competition site's interpretation of it. This article is, arguably, the balance to HIV and AIDS; so, rebalancing it more to the proof of a causal link of HIV to AIDS is upsetting the NPOV of both articles (in my opinion). --slakr^\ talk / 06:46, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that was the point: in contrast to others, at Wikipedia we don't adopt the viewpoint we are describing. Presenting all viewpoints as equal (as your comments on balance implies) is not a neutral treatment as defined here. Weight must be given to views in proportion to the number of experts who hold them, while describing even marginal views fairly. Clearly if we're writing about someone who claims "there are no pink elephants", it is pertinent to include a photograph of a pink elephant in the article. - Nunh-huh 08:48, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, the image should stay. JoeSmack ^Talk 10:24, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well allllrighty then :P. it seems that most people believe it should stay, and I'm totally cool with that. Anyway, sorry if it caused any sort of ruckus, but I feel as though some discussion is better than none. :) Thankfully there's some sort of consensus for now. Cheers =) --slakr^\ talk / 11:47, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, best to discuss these things carefully. Consensus does seem to have been reached at the moment. Tim Vickers 15:50, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree at removing it, else I would add on the foot image a note saying "Extreme disidents like Lanka explains that this picture realy is...." What realy would be a neutral point of view, do you preffer this or removin it? EkcedeR 03:42, 8 November 2007 (UTC)ekcedeR[reply]

Like MastCell, I like pictures in articles, but Vickers' argument above that denialists only exist on the fringe cannot be used as the basis of any decision as to the article's content, precisely because their conflict with the mainstream is what the article is about, just as there is an article on Holocaust denial, even though there's no empirical validity to it. The caption currently says, "AIDS reappraisal disputes the role of this virus in causing AIDS." I agree that this is the right approach to a compromise, and since MastCell is correct when he points out that some denialists dispute even the virus' existence, I would suggest a slight alteration to this: "Some AIDS reappraisal advocates dispute the role of this virus in causing AIDS, whereas some deny its existence." If that's not good enough another alternative would be to use the cover of the September/October issue of the Skeptical Inquirer. (Or is there some image policy about only using a mag cover if the article is about that mag?) Nightscream 04:14, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted the edit that removed dissident websites from the list of external links. The guidelines state that, "Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research" should normally not be linked to. However, an exception is "a page that is the subject of the article or an official page of the article subject". The articles on Creationism and Holocaust denial both include links to websites promoting discredited viewpoints. Trezatium (talk) 14:38, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK... I restored the links. I'm of two minds about it, for the very two reasons you mention above. On the one hand, those sites are representative of the AIDS reappraisal movement, which is the subject of the page. On the other hand, the sites clearly mislead (or attempt to mislead) the reader. I'll leave the links in for now - I think it's a gray area, but they've been there for awhile and there clearly isn't consensus to remove them. MastCell ^Talk 21:15, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In response to Orangemarlin: three of the four dissident websites qualify as official sites of the subjects of the article (Duesberg, the Perth Group and the Group for the Scientific Reappraisal of the HIV/AIDS Hypothesis). The other site, Virusmyth, is perhaps the most significant dissident site on the web, due to its longevity, size and prominence in search engine results. Checking my user contributions will confirm that I'm far from sympathetic to the views promoted by these websites. Trezatium (talk) 22:25, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why did someone revert my edit? Eliza Jane's death can be attributed to her mother's denialist views and refusal to take AZT and get her children testing for HIV. Dukie010 (talk) 16:38, 25 November 2007

Dunno. But she seems to have died of an allergic reaction by at least one account (http://justiceforej.com/). You should at least include her mother's opinion (and that of the toxicologist who both reviewed the LA County coroner's report and reanalysed Eliza's lung tissue).

From http://justiceforej.com/fleiss-testimony-evidence.html:

Eliza Jane Scovill had regular checkups with two local pediatricians during her life. After EJ’s death the California Medical Board investigated boh of the pediatricians and charged one of the two doctors, Paul Fleiss, with negligence. The charges issued by the board are based on malicious interpretations of fact or made up allegations. In response to the false allegations, Eliza Jane’s parents gathered testimony from a number of people who knew EJ very well and Christine wrote to the board directly as well. The names of the people giving testimony are not included in the letters as they appear here to protect their privacy.

Put that in your biased pipe and smoke it.

Justiceforej.com is neither a reliable nor an accurate source of information. However, this whole thing is covered in much more detail at Christine Maggiore and too much detail is out of place here. MastCell ^Talk 16:08, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I came to this article to find out what AIDS reappraisal is.. after seeing it brought up in another article somewhere... instead all I see is a polemic against AIDS reappraisal. As of reading it, all I know about this is a few names of people associated with this. This is not the place for scientific debate, it is the place for information. If a particular group disagrees with something that is fine and can be limited to a small portion of the article labeled appropriately. This entire article is an attempt to "debunk" something which is nowhere defined. There are plenty of places for debunking, Wikipedia is not one of them.

Will an experienced editor that is NOT interested in voicing their own opinion please delete all the drivel on this page and produce an informative article about AIDS REAPPRAISAL for those of us that do not know anything of the topic and would like to learn something.

It's troubling that people put so much effort into silencing views that are discordant with their own; that, if anything, is unscientific. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.12.164.243 (talk) 07:52, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you cite the passages in question that you feel are drivel? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 07:59, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, lets begin at the top.. The first thing one finds is a timeline, this is somewhat useful in that it directs one to some secondary reading, but otherwise not incredibly informative on its own. The next section.. The AIDS Dissident is drivel. The first paragraph lists names of "dissidents" and the following paragraph, which is lengthier, attempts to disqualify these individuals. I don't even know what their views are... how about we summarize their views? no.. another list of former dissidents.. useless. Is this an attempted blacklist or something? next section "death of dissidents" purely POV given that it relies entirely on a website that seems to be the antithesis of this topic. What next? Points of contention.. here is a single sentence summarizing all that the reader should know of AIDS Reappraisal views. 1 sentence. really?? ok.. and guess what.. another insertion of criticism. Next... Impact beyond the scientific community.. this section is just another list of names mixed with more anti-topic POV. Durban section.. some political events, wonderful.. more POV.. "scientists were dismayed" yada yada.. we already know scientists don't agree.. thanks for making that so clear.. drivel. "Harm..." another topic that should actually be labeled criticism of AIDS reappraisal. So what is AIDS Reappraisal? From this article I know that it is something associated with several named people that questions the HIV cause of AIDS (there is only a single sentence in his entire page that discusses their views) and most importantly, I know that scientists can't stand to even allow this information to be accessed in a free information source.

Which passage is drivel? Again, the whole article is drivel. There is a single sentence of informative content and the rest is either criticism or lists of names. All the criticism regarding a particular topic should be placed in a single section that says "Criticism of AIDS Reappraisal" .. of course as it is now, all it constitutes is criticism. The article should begin by defining AIDS Reappraisal, then perhaps with each individual as a topic summarizing his/her views. These sections SHOULD NOT present counterarguments, this is not a medium for debate, it is an informative resource. The counterarguments go at the bottom in an appropriately titled section as they are in every other article. Just pick your favorite contentious Wiki to see a clear example of this, I randomly chose Telepathy - and what do you know. I can look up telepathy and learn about the topic, then I can see the criticism. Where is the appropriate discussion of the topic here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.12.164.246 (talk) 08:51, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia policy requires than any article about a controversial person must be written from a neutral point of view, representing all significant views published by reliable sources. It is not the article or passage that seeks to "disqualify" proponents of a given idea, it is merely that it refers to others who disagree with the dissidents. Since the passage you mentioned is properly attributed to reliable source, it is appropriate. It's also an overstatement to argue that this prevents one from knowing what dissidents' views are. It says the Intro what their views are, the timeline mentions their views, some dissidents have their own WP articles, etc. It is thus on all such articles on controversial topics, such as Holocaust denial, creationism, JFK conspiracies, etc. If you look at these articles, you'll see the same back-and-forth between advocates and opponents, which are a better analogy with AIDS reappraisal than telepathy, since telepathy isn't such a polarizing conflict that touches upon issues of race, politics, history, religion, etc. Because of this, there's not as much material on that topic to reference in that article. I notice, for example, that the second section in that article, which is large as any of the others, is about telepathy in fiction, which is hardly helpful to someone wanting to learn what telepathy is about. But if you think you can bring this article more in line with WP policies, then be bold and edit it. Just two things: Please sign your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~) at the end of them, and please do not refer to the work of others as "drivel". It's not really in keeping with the Assume Good Faith and Civility policies. I'll be away from Dec 12-23, but if there's anything I can help you with when I get back, let me know. Happy Holidays! Nightscream (talk) 05:46, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let's save ourselves some time. I'm now very interested in this topic - seeing that some find it so morally offensive - I will research it elsewhere. I'm a scientist, I can evaluate evidence. I leave you with this: What will happen when science becomes so blind to its own fallibility that it becomes akin to heresy to suggest alternative views? At that moment science ceases to exist as such, and mirrors the tyranny of a religion. good night and good luck. 128.12.164.246 (talk) 08:30, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It has never been heretical, in science, to suggest alternative views. However, continuing to advocate a particular view single-mindedly, using selective citation and misrepresentation while conducting no actual research, long after it has been soundly disproven, tends to result in a loss of scientific credibility. Those who have lost credibility in such a manner inevitably compare themselves to Galileo/Socrates and imagine themselves victims of a massive conspiracy. It has ever been thus. MastCell ^Talk 19:09, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And in any event, this has nothing to do with the article, since Anonymous128 seems more interested in promoting one side in the issue, instead of focusing on the article's description of it, which is what Talk Pages are for. His hypothetical question has nothing to do with this article. Nightscream (talk) 15:59, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, excuse the absent or unused nick that comes up (202.6.128.248 (talk) 18:58, 4 January 2008 (UTC)) - I seldom contribute to wikipedia talk. But I have a key suggestion for improving this article.[reply]

I recommend, in accordance with neutrality, including the scientific details of the AIDs denialists' ideas. Then I think it will be a well rounded article.

Honestly, the tone of this piece is quite shrill with bias towards conventional HIV theory. How about just neutrally including the science that HIV denialists expound? 202.6.128.248 (talk) 18:58, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia tends to give greater coverage to views held by the scientific community, and less coverage to views held by an unscientific fringe. As do most respected encyclopedias and reference works. If that's "bias", then yes, Wikipedia is "biased" toward "conventional" concepts that are accepted as fact by the scientific community (like gravity and HIV/AIDS). If you're asking why AIDS-denialist views are not expounded at greater length and uncritically, then the answers can be found here and here, in Wikipedia's policies. MastCell ^Talk 19:15, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend, in accordance with neutrality, including the scientific details of the AIDs denialists' ideas...How about just neutrally including the science that HIV denialists expound? Agreed. That is perfectly reasonable, and in keeping with WP policy. Feel free to add that material in, so long as it is properly sourced/attributed. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 02:54, 5 January 2008 (UTC)q[reply]

Before doing that, please take a look at archived discussion and some older revisions. At one point, the article was set up as a point/counterpoint "debate" artificially constructed by listing an AIDS-denialist "point", then a mainstream "rebuttal", then (depending on how many denialist editors were active) a re-rebuttal of the mainstream point... it was at once difficult to read, messy, full of original research, and misleading - in that it created the impression of a more robust scientific debate than actually exists. AIDS denialist arguments are summarized here. More detail, both on the arguments themselves and on the rebuttals, is easily available on the Internet via the sources linked in the article. MastCell ^Talk 06:28, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I had previously added my comment up there where MastCell informs of his/her deleting most of the "Points of Contention" section. I haven't read this whole section but I totally agree with opening argument on how this article needs rewriting, hence I post my comment down here instead: I think the section "Points of Contention" should be reinserted in its original version. I wanted information on the points of view of the AIDS dissident movement from a third party point of view (that's one of the great assets of Wikipedia) and all I was able to read in the main article was a historical account on what has the movement done so far, with lots of hints pointing to them being wrong. By the way I think the article is quite unbalanced right now since it suggests time and time again that the position of the AIDS dissidents is wrong and keeps count of how many dissidents have died of AIDS themselves. This last argument I consider to be beyond the point, since not all dissidents deny the existence of aids but rather the HIV being its cause. Anyway, I am now reading the excised "Points of Contention" section to pick up the information I came for. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.246.7.136 (talk) 12:35, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Er... AIDS dissidents are wrong, in the opinion of the entire scientific and medical communities; if the article didn't reflect that accurately, then it really would need rewriting. If you want a detailed "third-party" discussion of the points of contention, we've helpfully linked any number of excellent and authoritative sources which argue them. The "points of contention" section was essentially an arena in which this debate was being refought, and that is not Wikipedia's purpose. In any case, dissident claims are currently universally rejected by the scientific and medical communities, and so deserve little or no weight; to present them and "rebut" them individually gives a false impression that there is an actual scientific debate still going on over these long-since-settled topics. The article focuses on the history and the political impact of the dissident movement, since those are the areas where it remains notable. MastCell ^Talk 20:01, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That the dissidents' claims are universally rejected does not mean that it follows that a points of contention section should necessarily be threadbare. The Moon Landing Hoax article has a fairly extensive and detailed point-by-point claim-and-rebuttal section, despite the fact that the Hoax proponents' ideas are just as invalid as those of the AIDS dissidents'. Nightscream (talk) 21:32, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You know, the moon landing article is often cited as an example of how to cover fringe topics, but when I look at it, I see endless bickering about the presentation of point-counterpoint arguments on its talk page, as well as a failed good-article nomination. The AIDS-dissident arguments are actually summarized, with citations to various low-quality but relevant online sources substantiating them in more detail. The rebuttals are also summarized and linked for more detail. I'm not clear on what's to gain by expanding this into a point-counterpoint on Wikipedia, while I see several obvious downsides. MastCell ^Talk 06:17, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A higher level of detail, which I'd imagine is one thing that draws people to an encyclopedia. Nightscream (talk) 06:31, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.246.7.136 (talk) 12:35, 22 January 2008 (UTC) , from a few paragraphs above. I received some sort of automated message that I couldn't interpret correctly but seemed to threaten my whole university's editing Wikipedia. So I am signing in this time to avoid any troubles although I hate to waste my time clicking on the sign in link. Anyway, what I came here to say was that at the extremely very least a link to the old version of the points of contention should be included, otherwise noboddy gets to know what are the dissidents saying and why is it wrong. Without that the article is not at all informative. I would have edited it myself, but apparently people get nervous easily around this topic and I don't want to have to explain to the IT guys why we lost access to editing wikipedia from my university. (Asinthior (talk) 13:48, 23 January 2008 (UTC))[reply]

There's no way, in keeping with WP policies and manual of style, to link to an old version of an article, nor does it make sense to, since the editing of a particular version is an implicit statement that it was not the best one. But again, it is an exaggeration to argue that "nobody gets to know what the dissidents are saying", when the article flat-out tells you what they're saying.Nightscream (talk) 15:54, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if it was there before and I missed or someone just put it there, but the "see also Duesberg hypothesis" does help a bit. Still, I don't think the previous edit in which the points of contention were cut off made the article any better (so long for WP policies, etc). And sorry but I have to insist, the article doesn't tell you what the dissidents believe. I came here with genuine curiosity because I couldn't think what they might argue and I could not get to know it. I mean, the article repeats time and time again that the dissidents oppose the general accepted facts known about HIV/AIDS, but that's not the same thing. I wanted to know their arguments, etc. And it is not the same to give a bunch of links to other sources than writing it up in WP. I hate following external links. I still think this article is unbalanced and uninformative and that it's a shame for Wikipedia. (Asinthior (talk) 09:13, 24 January 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Their arguments are there, but they're incorrect and stated as such. If you're comparing the Wikipedia article to external links, of course they are not going to be the same thing. Wikipedia values an NPOV, and these external links most certainly do not. JoeSmack ^Talk 11:12, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Joe, take a look at the unrevised version of the section of "Points of Contention" here [4]. Here all the arguments are presented as well as the scientific consensus about them, with a NPOV. (Asinthior (talk) 12:01, 24 January 2008 (UTC))[reply]

• From the Intro: "Dissidents argue that the consensus that HIV causes AIDS has resulted in inaccurate diagnoses, psychological terror, toxic treatments, and a squandering of public funds, as well as an unprecedented deviation from scientific method and standards."
• From the Timeline section:
  • "Casper Schmidt responds to Gallo's papers by writing "The Group-Fantasy Origins of AIDS", which is published by the Journal of Psychohistory.[10] He posits that AIDS is an example of "epidemic hysteria" in which groups of people are subconsciously acting out social conflicts, and compares it to documented cases of epidemic hysteria in the past which were mistakenly thought to be infectious."
  • "[The Perth Group] conclude that there is "no compelling reason for preferring the viral hypothesis of AIDS to one based on the activity of oxidising agents."
• From the current Points of Contention section: "Dissident arguments have centered around claims that HIV does not exist or has not been adequately isolated,[37] that the virus does not fulfill Koch's postulates,[38] that HIV testing is inaccurate,[39] or that antibodies to HIV neutralize the virus and render it harmless.[40] Suggested alternative causes of AIDS include recreational drugs, malnutrition and the very antiretroviral drugs used to treat the syndrome.[41]"

Thus, the statement that dissident arguments are not presented in the article is untrue. I have no problem including the arguments in the previous edit of that section you mentioned, but I notice that in that edit, none of them are sourced. The ones that made it to the current section, on the other hand, are. I would encourage you to edit them back into that section, but only if you can provide credible sources for them. Nightscream (talk) 15:38, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I give up. However you have to accept that the arguments are not as well presented as they were in the old "Points of Contention" section. They are spread all over instead of nicely elaborated. Anyway I got what I wanted, which was the info, I rather not edit the article myself. I am not really a contributor just one of the millions that parasite Wikipedia. Still, just for the record: I still think the article leaves essential information on the the arguments of the dissidents out of the picture. (Asinthior (talk) 17:48, 24 January 2008 (UTC))[reply]

I don't know why you feel the need to "give up", but do you feel it's unreasonable to require that such information be sourced? You said essential information is left out. My response was to encourage you to put it back in with sources. But if you don't care enough to do so, what do you expect us to do? Better to light a candle than curse the dark. Nightscream (talk) 17:58, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I recently re-wrote the introduction of this article slightly, changing the claim that 'the scientific community' considers the dissidents wrong to the claim that most members of the scientific community consider them wrong. Someone then changed it back again. This is exactly what I was expecting would happen. In response to the person who changed it back, let me observe that the comment that all members of the scientific community other than Duesberg reject the dissidents is factually false, that it is easy to show that it is false, and that anyone who has spent any significant amount of time studying this issue should know this.

Furthermore, the comment that MastCell made when changing the article back - that all members of the scientific community except for Duesberg reject the dissidents - is not only false, but does not even correspond to what he wrote in the article, which implies that the scientific community without exception reject the dissidents. For someone to alter an article to make it say something that he actually admits is wrong is totally unjustified, and a clear expression of bias.

I am going to change the article once again, and I strongly suggest that before changing it back yet again MastCell discuss the issue here and offer some justification for his actions.

Skoojal (talk) 03:37, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is completely correct and verifiable to say that the scientific community finds that HIV is the cause of AIDS. Thousands of scientific papers every year are published based on this premise. I am not aware of any peer-reviewed research in the last few years to the contrary, and there is literally no scientific debate on the subject. The fact that a handful of vocal advocates argue otherwise on the Internet does not change that. Is there actual scientific controversy here? If so, where are the peer-reviewed papers in the scientific literature claiming that HIV doesn't cause AIDS? There are a handful from Duesberg from 5-10 years ago; nothing recent, and nothing reporting actual research as opposed to novel interpretations of the existing literature. Hence, the scientific community's view is clear and easily verifiable. What is the justification for claiming that "most" of the community thinks HIV causes AIDS? "Most" implies a significant minority believe otherwise, which is not the case. MastCell ^Talk 04:07, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Going by the definition in its wikipedia article, the scientific community is 'the total body of scientists, its relationships and interactions.' Please note the 'total' part. This definition implies that all scientists form part of the scientific community, and it is a fact that some scientists, certainly a very small number of them, reject the HIV theory.

Offered without qualification, the statement that 'the scientific community' accepts the HIV theory is therefore incorrect; it would be true only if all scientists without exception accepted that theory. That thousands of papers that accept the HIV theory are published every year does not alter the fact that disagreement exists. The claim that 'there is literally no debate' appears to suggest that so long as debate about the cause of AIDS is not constantly happening at all times, it somehow becomes true that there is scientific unanimity, which is not the case (the Perth Group debated proponents of the HIV theory relatively recently. You probably know this, but here's the link anyway http://www.theperthgroup.com/bmjonline.html. The Perth Group have also published in scientific journals http://www.theperthgroup.com/paperspublished.html).

My statement that most of the scientific community thinks that HIV causes AIDS was factually correct. It does not necessarily imply that the majority that disagrees [sic - I meant the minority] is a significant one (I certainly wasn't trying to suggest that), although I grant that some people might interpret it that way. If you like, change the article so that it says that the overwhelming majority of the scientific community accepts that HIV causes AIDS. That is perfectly true and not in any way misleading, and I don't have a problem with it saying that. Just don't leave the article the way it currently is, because it's wrong and without justification. I am not going to change the article back again, at least not immediately, but you have failed to make the case that it deals with this controversy properly. Skoojal (talk) 05:02, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Check the dates on those "papers published" by the Perth Group. Also note that they are not actual research, for the most part. Also note that in a recent court proceeding in Australia, the Perth Group was explicitly rejected as having any sort of scientific authority or weight on the question of HIV (they are led by a nuclear physicist and an ER doc). Again, there are sources on the Internet claiming there is a debate. However, there is no actual debate in the medical or scientific literature; the scientific community is quite unanimous on this. By comparison, a larger number of "scientists" dispute relativity, evolution, or even gravity, yet those are considered settled science. It would be misleading and inaccurate to suggest that "most" scientists think HIV causes AIDS. We give more than enough weight to the views of the tiny minority of people (largely non-scientists) who hold otherwise in this article. MastCell ^Talk 05:09, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MastCell, you are the one who wrote that it would be more accurate to say that the scientific community except for Duesberg accepts HIV. That shows that you know that it is not literally accurate to say without qualification that the scientific community accepts HIV. I don't know how you can admit that and then make these irrelevant arguments. If the scientific community is 'the total body of scientists, its relationships and interactions', then any debate between scientists (such as the one that is mentioned on one of the websites I provided a link to - it's a fact and not just a claim that there was a debate) shows that there is disagreement within the scientific community. Judgments in a court of law have nothing to do with anything. Judges and lawyers are not scientists and thus not part of the 'scientifc community.' I have suggested how the article oould be made both literally accurate and not misleading. Could you please indicate why you disagree? Skoojal (talk) 05:28, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Duesberg doesn't conduct research on HIV. He never has. Neither does Kary Mullis. Neither does the Perth Group. I am part of the "scientific community" in the all-encompassing sense, but if I published a website claiming that relativity is a crock, then there would be no need to go to all of the relativity articles and revise them to say that "most of the scientific community" believes in relativity. Still, if the issue in question is amending the lead from "the scientific community" to "the vast majority of the scientific community", then I think that is a clear step backwards in terms of actual accuracy, but acceptable enough to not warrant arguing over any further. MastCell ^Talk 05:33, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The points you make above would be relevant if this were a debate about whether HIV causes AIDS or not, but it isn't. What we have been disussing is a distinct issue. But in any case, I am glad that you apparently agree with my proposal. Skoojal (talk) 05:42, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot use POV such as "The Vast Majority". You must keep this article encyclopedic and not lend to a popular sect. You can say "The Scientic Community" and even that needs to be sourced. So the revert I did is appropriate. Canyouhearmenow 06:04, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'The vast majority' or the 'overwhelming majority' is not point of view, and it's not useful to go on insisting that it is. It is part of a factual statement. Anyone who has studied this issue is aware that the vast majority support the HIV theory. I have no idea what you mean when you write that I must not 'lend to a popular sect.' Please try to write more clearly.

Skoojal (talk) 06:16, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"The vast majority" is not a point of view. It is simply factually true. That the vast majority of the scientific community accepts the current consensus that HIV causes AIDS is true. And it would be true even if we went by a loose interpretation of "its relationships and interactions" in defining the "scientific community" to include the denialists. There's a reason that the word "scientific" comes first in that phrase. It indicates that it is referring exclusively to those who follow the Scientific Method, and not any ol' Tom, Dick and Harry with a contrary opinion and a webpage. Nightscream (talk) 08:31, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can respect this point, however, it still seems very POV to me as the comment does not represent the "entire" scientific community and no interviews were completed to encompass that community to make it a "Vast Majority". I just feel that maybe a better use of wording would make it more accurate and not so bias. That is the reason I think others are having a problem with skoojal's edit. I based my argument from this statement about WP:NPOV

• It is not sufficient to discuss an opinion as fact merely by stating "some people believe..." as is common in political debates.^[1] A reliable source supporting that a group holds an opinion must accurately describe how large this group is. In addition, this source should be written by named authors who are considered reliable.
• Moreover, there are usually disagreements about how opinions should be properly stated. To fairly represent all the leading views in a dispute it is sometimes necessary to qualify the description of an opinion, or to present several formulations of this opinion and attribute them to specific groups.

I mean unless my understanding of this is distorted. After all, I am still learning myself! Canyouhearmenow 12:49, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Skoojal's argument seems to boil down to: "The phrase 'scientific community' is equivalent to the phrase 'every single scientist.'" I would argue they are not. Yilloslime (t) 17:48, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Skoojal seemed pretty explicit in his/her definition of that phrase to include people who are not scientists, when he/she argued Going by the definition in its wikipedia article, the scientific community is 'the total body of scientists, its relationships and interactions., in order to include denialists, who are mostly not scientists. My feeling is that that phrase should mean neither everyone that scientists "interact" with (way too loose and inclusive) nor scientists exclusively (way too exclusive, as it eliminates people like the journalists working for skeptical journals like Skeptic magainze and Skeptical Inquirer). For this reason, I think it's reasonable to define it as not only scientists, but people whose approach to this issue (and all science-centered issues) follows the Scientific Method. Doing this covers both scientists and doctors, and skeptics who understand that valid scientific methodologies are the best method on which to basis their position on the issue, whether it's someone like Michael Shermer, editor of Skeptic magazine (who is neither a scientist nor someone working on the disease), or someone like me, who is merely an interested layman not working in any science or journalism-related field, who understands the criteria for drawing conclusions on these issues. This way, it's not only a reasonable balance between exclusivity and inclusivity, but makes the use of the word "scientific" in the phrase non-arbitrary. Nightscream (talk) 18:18, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess my point is that regardless of how "Scientific community" is defined, we don't need its members to be in absolute 100% unanimity to be able to state that the "Scientific community considers such and such to be true/untrue." Yilloslime (t) 18:41, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's my feeling as well. This may be a mountain out of a molehill - after all, both "the vast majority" and "the scientific community" are accurate statements, just as "more than half the scientific community" would be technically accurate. I think a simple statement that the scientific community considers HIV/AIDS settled is the most accurate reflection of reality. Whatever debate still exists is being held outside the scientific community, largely via the Internet and discussion forums, as this recent article from PLoS Medicine makes clear. But since we're arguing extensively over shades of accuracy, I could live with "the vast majority" though it would certainly not be my preference. MastCell ^Talk 18:51, 14 February 2008 (UTC) 69.45.178.143 (talk) 19:49, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I THINK MAST CELL AND NIGHTSCREAM'S "ARGUMENT" OVER THE POV OR NON-POV NATURE OF THE WIKIPEDIA ARTICLE "AIDS REAPPRAISAL" IS INADEQUATE BECAUSE IT IS AS FOLLOWS (PLEASE NOTE: THIS IS CENTRAL TO THE POV-NON-POV DEBATE, NOT A DEBATE OF "THE ISSUE", MAST CELL):

Definition: A scientist is someone who follows the scientific method. The scientific community is composed of all scientists.

Claim: The evidence for HIV is so overwhelming, anyone who claims HIV does not cause AIDS must not be following the scientific method.

Lemma: Therefore, someone who claims HIV does not cause AIDS is not a scientist.

Theorem: Therefore, all members of the scientific community agree HIV causes AIDS.

Corollary: Therefore, all "debate" over the HIV hypothesis occurs in "non-scientific" forums, "outside the scientific community".

Mast Cell and Nightscream are using this pathetic "argument" as a justification for pushing their POV. So, yes, this comment IS very definitely in reference to "improving the article". THANK YOU. 69.45.178.143 (talk) 21:18, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your input. I'll put you down for "vast majority" then. Have a nice day. MastCell ^Talk 04:41, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you may have to count him twice, since he used SUCH VERY BIG WORDS. - Nunh-huh 04:44, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FUCK YOU, NUNH-HUH. 69.45.178.143 (talk) 10:08, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I made none of the "arguments" you attributed to me, nor do I recall MastCell doing so either. Those are your words, not ours, and your impolite use of all caps, boldface and bigger fonts do not change this. Nightscream (talk) 05:31, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I MUST object to this. When I originally put forth my version of MastCell and Nightscream's "argument", I was told I was not addressing the article, but just babbling on the issue. So, I defended myself that this is directly related to the article and its POV. Then, I was told, that somehow paraphrasing the argument used to push POV is somehow an "attack" on the editors!! And that I "misattributed" them. Fine, I'll deal with that later. Okay, so let me get this straight. People push a POV on an article. They use specific arguments to justify pushing their POV (the endless bickering over "scientific consensus", "scientific community", "facts", "who is a scientist", just read the last 3 years' discussion pages). I come onto this discussion page, and I point out how pathetic their arguments used to push their POV are. When I do this, I am told I am "not addressing the article to improve it", and that I'm "attacking the editors" (!!) and that if I continue to do this, I will be banned. Whatever. Nightscream said: "I made none of the "arguments" you attributed to me, nor do I recall MastCell doing so either." But you said: "It indicates that it is referring exclusively to those who follow the Scientific Method, and not any ol' Tom, Dick and Harry with a contrary opinion and a webpage." It does not take a ph.d. to figure out that by "any ol' Tom, Dick, and Harry with a contrary opinion and a webpage" you mean Duesberg, Perth, David Crowe, AIDS Wiki, and Virusmyth, and all the people associated with them. Hence, by your own words, you are saying that all these people, the "Tom, Dick, and Harry"'s, are not following the "scientific method" and are thus not part of your "scientific community". And this is my point. You DEFINE anyone who rejects the hypothesis as necessarily not following scientific method, hence not a member of the scientific community, then claim there's 100% or near 100% agreement in the scientific community that HIV causes AIDS. It's a completely circular argument. 69.45.178.143 (talk) 10:07, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You did not "paraphrase" anything. You attribute statements to me that I never said. Please do not distort others' words, and then call it a "paraphrase". You claim: "you mean Duesberg, Perth, David Crowe, AIDS Wiki, and Virusmyth, and all the people associated with them." Please do not presume to tell me what "I mean", as I never mentioned any names, nor had any particular people or groups in mind. The statement of mine you refer to was a response to Skoojal's argument that "scientific community" should refer to "the total body of scientists, its relationships and interactions.", as I believed that this was way too loose a definition, since someone that a scientist "interacts" with is not necessarily doing scientific work or adhering to the Scientific Method in their arguments, and merely suggested a definition that was balanced between exclusivity and inclusiveness. At no time did I mention or imply any particular person or group with respect to falling under my proposed definition, nor mention anything about those who reject the current scientific consensus of AIDS, and I certainly never said anything about "100%". Those are statements of your own fabrication. Lastly, if you are serious about contributing to this page, then you will please do not refer to others' positions or statements as "pathetic". This violates both Wikipedia: Civility and Wikipedia: Assume Good Faith. Please follow Wikipedia policy. Thank you. Nightscream (talk) 17:10, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

""It indicates that it is referring exclusively to those who follow the Scientific Method, and not any ol' Tom, Dick and Harry with a contrary opinion and a webpage." Tell me, Nightscream, WHO EXACTLY ARE YOU REFERRING TO, THEN??? You are saying that "any ol' Tom, Dick and Harry with a webpage" stand in contradistinction to "those who follow the Scientific Method". Certainly, you must have specific "Tom, Dick, and Harry's" in mind. Or do you mean ANYONE WITH A WEBPAGE? Doesn't Wikipedia itself qualify as just "Tom, Dick, and Harry's with a webpage"?? How do you, Nightscream, determine who WHICH "Tom, Dick, and Harry's" agree with your "Scientific Method" and which "Tom Dick, and Harry's" do not? This was my point. YOU ARE VERY NAIVE TO THIS ISSUE. 69.45.178.143 (talk) 07:10, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do not have any specific person or group in mind, nor do I have to. I made the context of my prior remarks quite clear in my last post to anyone who reads them. The motives or meaning you attribute to them are those of your own creation. There is no such thing as "your Scientific Method", since the Scientific Method was not invented by me, and does not change according to personal whim, aesthetics, determination or agreement. Your continued refusal to conduct yourself here with civility or politeness make it clear that you are either not capable or interested in improving this article. Given your previous block for violating Wikipedia: Civility, I have placed another warning on your Talk Page. Violate that policy again, and I will block you for far longer than 24 hours. Beyond that, I'm done speaking with you. Nightscream (talk) 09:04, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Everything is here for people to read. You say "It indicates that it is referring exclusively to those who follow the Scientific Method, and not any ol' Tom, Dick and Harry with a contrary opinion and a webpage." and then say you "don't have any specific person or group in mind". In mathematics, we call this talk -- saying things without any grounding in examples -- vacuous. 69.45.178.143 (talk) 18:27, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

i have to stay behind 69.45.178.143talk here. some of htis discussion is way out of lin enad blattant POV pushing. regardless of your views on hiv mythology you have to agree that this article is totally in the grip of POV pushers and talk page discussion editors. Smith Jones (talk) 20:29, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It looks pretty much in line with the sources I checked, as well as with my understanding of the "controversy" as a whole. Any language from which a reasonable reader would infer serious and widespread ongoing scientific discussion over HIV → AIDS would be giving undue weight to a demonstrably fringe view well outside of the scientific mainstream. Perhaps specific suggestions for improvements to this article could be made in new sections below? - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 21:42, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree on the issue that not all the scientific community agrees on this issue. Should we make a hand count on how many of the people that have written here to ask for some editing are actually scientists?Asinthior (talk) 15:13, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That would be irrelevant, since the existence of a scientific consensus is based on verifiable, reliable third-party sources, not on the personal credentials of editors of this Wikipedia article. MastCell ^Talk 17:15, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If scientific consensus is only reached through original research published in peer-reviewed journals, then it would be independent of the scientific community (since only a fraction of scientists and researchers publish on the topic of any given article, such as AIDS).Asinthior (talk) 16:56, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's already been way too much "meta-discussion" on this talk page, so forgive me for not taking the bait. Consider some other forum. MastCell ^Talk 18:42, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the timeline, it says: "1986: The viruses discovered by Montagnier and Gallo, having been found to be genetically indistinguishable, are renamed HIV.[12]" The citation is from 1986. But it is inaccurate. Later, it was found that Gallo's HTlV-III virus was not the same as the LAV virus discovered by the Montagnier group. LAV is the virus that was later renamed HIV. Gallo had asked the French group to send their samples instead of publish and then he published data to try to make his discovery appear to be the virus that causes AIDS. He was greatly discredited when people found out. I need a better source than the ones I have in order to change the text, please. I learned about this event in my Global Health class in college. It's also shown in a factual movie called "And the Band Played On." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zoysite (talk • contribs) 22:01, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am talking about my rationale for this edit [5], which was reverted based (IMHO) on shaky grounds.

• The existence of "pictures of the HIV" is under dispute [6], therefore at Wikipedia we must be neutral WP:NEUTRALITY, and aknowleding the existence of those pictures would be taking sides.

• WP:ATTRIBUTION: Editors should provide attribution for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged. I challenge the veracity of the caption, backed on the virusmyth link, therefore it is required to attribute the claim to the CDC.

• "AIDS reappraisal disputes the existence of HIV or its role in causing AIDS" is misleading. For instance: Peter Duesberg is an AIDS reappraiser, and he doses NOT dispute the existence of HIV.

Therefore, I change back the caption to the previous version, unless reasons for an improvement supported by Wikipedia policies are provided. I am open to hear about such reasons. Randroide (talk) 08:04, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moreover: The picture is a 1985 picture! (see description at the CDC website, sorry but it is not linkable). In 1984 and 1985 no claims of HIV isolation were still made. How then they know at the CDC that that´s HIV?.

"This is a picture of the HIV" is not a proper Wikipedia statement. "The CDC claims this is a picture of HIV" it is.Randroide (talk) 11:13, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is a picture of HIV. A tiny fringe disputes the existence of HIV and therefore will claim that any picture of it is false, but that doesn't mean that every time we discuss HIV in this encyclopedia that we need to say: "...which the CDC claims is the cause of AIDS." We don't say "here's what NASA claims is a picture of the Earth taken from the moon", for good reason. This encyclopedia attempts to provide an overview of scientific topics which is in line with respected scientific thought. Your edit undermines that purpose. I would suggest seeking outside input from the fringe theories noticeboard or via request for comment, but these arguments are unconvincing to me at least.

Also, your third claim is nonsensical. The caption is completely correct. It says that dissidents deny the existence of HIV or its role in causing AIDS.Duesberg disputes the role of HIV in causing AIDS. MastCell ^Talk 22:16, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Having seen a comment regarding this page I would like to give my opinion.

1. Whether "The existence of "pictures of the HIV" is under dispute" is easily settled if you provide a verifiable statement from scientific literature, and more specific medical literature, otherwise known as WP:RS. Lacking that we can safely assume there is no dispute.
2. "I challenge the veracity of the caption," please supply WP:RS to support that.
3. Also, "aknowleding the existence of those pictures would be taking sides," and "The CDC claims this is a picture of HIV" makes me wonder if you think a caveat "according to astronomers" should be added to the Flat Earth article.
4. "Peter Duesberg is an AIDS reappraiser, and he doses NOT dispute the existence of HIV." Does he not deny HIV causes AIDS? Please see logical fallacy.

Hope this helps. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 18:37, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your time and for your thinking. You asked and argued impeccabily for a very reasonable standard of proof.

Here is the article you requested, sir: [7]

In this communication, we critically analyse the evidence which in 1983 was claimed to prove the existence of HIV....since Montagnier's "purified virus" did not contain particles with the "morphology typical of retroviruses", the proteins cannot be retroviral. We conclude that, these phenomena are non-specific to retroviruses and thus cannot be considered proof for the existence of a unique retrovirus HIV. Copyright 2004 Elsevier Ltd.Randroide (talk) 15:32, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Medical Hypotheses is not peer reviewed, not WP:RS, and not to be taken seriously. The overwhelming majority of the relevant scientific community has accepted the evidence that the HIV virus both exists and is the causal agent for AIDS. - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 16:27, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did not know about the not peer reviewed status of Medical Hypotheses. Thank you very much for the info. I shall study WP:RS down to the commas. OTOH, what majorities think is epistemologically irrelevant. Randroide (talk) 16:35, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it's epistemologically irrelevant (though that's debatable), but we're not having an epistemological debate here. We're just trying to figure out how to properly and proportionately represent this particular fringe view without giving it undue weight. For that task, the opinion of "majorities" is of great relevance. MastCell ^Talk 16:42, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is relevant because the verb "is" without an appended "claimed to be" is reserved for our current best approximation to reality, logical positivism and the problem of induction notwithstanding. - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 16:51, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gentlemen, My code of values compels me to formally disagree with both of you: It is not relevant. Both of you are embracing a lethal "primacy of consciousness" epistemology. I invite you to embrace a rational, life-affirming Primacy of Existence Epistemology. Now, I have to go to work. Thank you for the things I learned from both of you, and have nice day. Randroide (talk) 17:08, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some observations:

1. We are not having a socio-political debate.
2. We are not debating philosophy.
3. When establishing what the accepted view on a certain topic within a specific scientific field is we adhere to the scientific method. This precludes any metaphysical approach as that is not open to peer review.
4. If the scientific community, using the scientific method, determined that AIDS is caused by HIV, we need the same scientific method, and not epistemology, to establish this assesment is incorrect.

Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 18:12, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dissident arguments are considered to be the result of cherry-picking and misrepresentation of predominantly outdated scientific data

Considered by whom?. We need a referenced "whom" for this sentence. Randroide (talk) 11:16, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence contains seven references. Many more could easily be added, but I get the sense that this is an objection for the sake of objecting, since its premise is easily falsified by a simple reading of the sentence in question. MastCell ^Talk 22:18, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are failing WP:FAITH with me, sir.

Current text fails WP:ATTRIBUTION. I suggest something like "many scientists and journalists consider the dissident arguments..." Randroide (talk) 23:08, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From source number 8:

That HIV is the primary cause of AIDS is the strongly held consensus opinion of the scientific community,

This article does support the idea of the "scientific community" accepting HIV/AIDS mainstream ideas. I suggest to use this source (intead of sources 1 and 2) if it is believed that this edit [8] should be reverted.

On the other hand, the "scientific community" expression should be counterweighted. I have just a question: Are Peter Duesberg, Kary Mullis and Serge Lang parte of the "scientific community"? Randroide (talk) 13:48, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They are not part of the scientific community which does research on HIV/AIDS. More to the point, scientific consensus is generally aligned with the scientific community's view on something. It isn't feasible to have 100% agreement from everyone in every field of science on every question, but I think this article makes it entirely clear that the scientific community thinks one thing and a handful of scientists (Duesberg, Mullis perhaps) disagree. MastCell ^Talk 22:21, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you, sir. My point: The article should say "the scientific community that does research on HIV/AIDS". Current wording is ilogical, because aforementioned authors ARE part of the "scientific community". AFAIK (plase correct me if I am wrong) there is no poll about what the "scientific community" at large thinks about this issue. Randroide (talk) 22:57, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This statement "the scientific community that does research on HIV/AIDS" implies that the reader might think these scientists are physicists, geologists, historians, et cetera. Personally this would not be my first interpretation when reading about "the scientific community" regarding AIDS. Second, we do have a "poll" on this. It is called the scientific method and peer review. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 18:55, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, a common argument when one disagrees with a scientific consensus is that nobody went and polled every single scientist. This ignores the definitions of scientific consensus and scientific community. The sentence as written is logical, accurate, and easily comprehensible, and making the wording more torturous will not improve its meaning, clarity, or accuracy. MastCell ^Talk 06:12, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For reasons unknown, you cited an argument I did not use, sir (please provide diff if you think I am not telling the truth).Randroide (talk) 14:45, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This source [9] uses the correct expression "majority of the scientific community". That´s the expression that should be in the article.

User:MastCell wrote [10]"The sentence [''scientific community''] as written is logical, accurate..."

It is not. The syllogism is simple and clear:

• Peter Duesberg, David Rasnick, Kary Mullis, Serge Lang and Henry Bauer are (or were) part of the "scientific community" (please follow links to source the claim).

• Those individuals express (or expressed) dissident views on AIDS (ditto).

• Therefore, to say that "The scientific community considers the causative role of HIV to be scientifically proven" is ilogical, and false, because aforelinked AIDS reappraisers are part of that very same "scientific community".

The solution: To use the sourced [[11]] expression "majority of the scientific community" Randroide (talk) 13:16, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Majority" is misleading, because it suggests that there is a significant minority of the scientific community which believes otherwise. This is not the case. There is one semi-active scientist (Duesberg) who disputes HIV/AIDS, and he has never conducted any research on the virus. The sentence as written is correct, and amending it to "majority" creates the appearance of an active scientific debate where none exists. MastCell ^Talk 17:50, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Current wording is also (also from the point of view of your previous post) misleading, for the reasons presented. Which alternative wording do you suggest? Randroide (talk) 17:53, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Former version:

::*2007: Eleni Papadopulos-Eleopulos, having testified at an appeals hearing for Andre Chad Parenzee that HIV is harmless, is found by the court "not qualified to express opinions about the existence of HIV, or whether it has been established that it causes AIDS." <ref>[http://www.courts.sa.gov.au/judgments/Judgments2007/0427-SASC-143.htm Court Document: Verdict of the Supreme Court of South Australia]</ref>

This is a very, very interesting piece of information.

Unfortunately, the link does not work, and the www.courts.sa.gov.au site is rather user unfriendly.

I changed the link to other with similar effect [12].

If someone more competent than me brownsing at www.courts.sa.gov.au wants to look for the original sentence, it would be great to have again that sentence linked. That´s the reason I am creating this section. Randroide (talk) 14:38, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:MastCell removed [13] a sourced line on the 1984 Gallo paper, and he/she failed to add the line again despite he/she added tha source back again later [14]:

The contentious sourced line:

The papers announced that more than 90% of patients with ARC showed HTLV-III antigens

Could User:MastCell please explain us the reasons for this deletion of sourced data?. Randroide (talk) 23:34, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly because it has been superceded by more up to date data? Shot info (talk) 08:43, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please look at the title of the section where the line was located: "Timeline". The section is about what happened. Randroide (talk) 08:55, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, they detected antibodies to HTLV-III antigens, not the antigens themselves. At the very least, it should read that they detected HTLV-III antibodies in >90% of patients. I don't see the relevance to the timeline of citing specific details of this paper, as opposed to the several others which came out nearly simultaneously, but I guess I don't feel that strongly one way or the other. MastCell ^Talk 18:15, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An "AIDS denialist" is not the same as an "AIDS dissident

Nevertheless, the beliefs of those who have been labeled “AIDS denialists” are far more extreme than the challenging skepticism of AIDS dissidents" [15] Randroide (talk) 13:25, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article generally uses "AIDS dissident" as the preferred term for those who dispute either the existence of HIV or its causative role in AIDS. This is consistent with self-naming (per WP:MOSNAME). We should not be using the term "AIDS denialist" in the article, unless as part of a quote. The distinctions between those who deny the existence of HIV and those who deny its pathogenicity is made later in the article. MastCell ^Talk 17:53, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I could not agree more. This article is a smear not a unbiased artcle on the topic. Aimulti (talk) 04:26, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MastCell is correct. AIDS Denialist is a highly POV term here. IronDuke 01:09, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

..is a blog. Line and reference should go out Randroide (talk) 14:01, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The source is aidstruth.org, a website run by a group of prominent HIV/AIDS researchers which was favorably profiled in Science. Furthermore, the source for Gilbert's disavowal - aidstruth.org - is significantly more reliable than the sources which claim he supports the denialist position (see WP:PARITY). MastCell ^Talk 17:56, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

aidstruth.org cites a blog as a source, and a blog is not a proper source under Wikipedia:V#Sources, favorably profiling from Science or not. OTOH, I made no claim of Gilbert´s positions, so I can not understand why you cite the alleged unrealibility of the sources claiming Gilbert being a "denialist" Randroide (talk) 17:58, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This may help you in determining whether a source satisfies WP:RS:

• "Articles by established journalists and published authors may sometimes be judged by the reputation of the author rather than the venue they are published in, Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Evaluating_reliability"
• "Established authors" seem to be the operative words.

Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 18:47, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a big fan of "Annotated bibliography" sections on controversial articles, for a couple of reasons. First, by selecting and "annotating" a handful of papers from the thousands published on HIV/AIDS, we're making an editorial judgement that these papers should be highlighted. If these papers are relevant and notable, then they should be incorporated as citations into the text, not laundry-listed at the end.

Secondly, by listing a column of "mainstream" references and "dissident" references, we create the appearance of a robust scientific debate between equally plausible positions. That was never the case, and particularly now the debate is long since over, so this produces a misleading impression. The "mainstream" side represents a tiny handful of the thousands of peer-reviewed papers published yearly which are based on the HIV/AIDS paradigm, while the "dissident" side includes nearly everything ever published by this fringe group. That's not a balanced presentation, and it violates WP:WEIGHT. I think we should move away from the annotated bibliography and towards working these sources into the article as appropriate. MastCell ^Talk 19:42, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to discuss in light of the what Wikipedia is not policy the extensive annotated bibliography that is currently under construction. Deeply interested readers are perfectly capable of searching PubMed for themselves, and only incidentally interested readers will not bother to filter this list for the most relevant papers. It is certainly helpful to include, for instance, Duesberg's 1989 PNAS paper, but in general these papers should be integrated into the main text of the article or not included at all. Yes, this applies also to the Mainstream section. Please also examine the external links guideline as applies to the undue weight policy.

In any case, links to Medical Hypotheses and similar such non-peer reviewed "journals" are unacceptable in this context by the self-published sources and the reliable sources sections of policy. I have accordingly removed them. - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 19:54, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First, by selecting and "annotating" a handful of papers from the thousands published on HIV/AIDS, we're making an editorial judgement that these papers should be highlighted

It was never my intention to pick articles from those published just "on HIV/AIDS", but to link all the articles published by or about (by consensus scientists) the AIDS Dissidents, just to present the magnitude of the issue. There are so few articles that that endevour is perfectly possible, and thus we would frame objectively the importance of the issue, i.e., these articles (no more, no less) are the Dissident mass of statements published at scientific journals.

Secondly, by listing a column of "mainstream" references and "dissident" references, we create the appearance of a robust scientific debate between equally plausible positions. That was never the case, and particularly now the debate is long since over

This is not Wikinews. Even assuming that the debate is over, that´s no reason to hush. The Peloponnesian War is over since rather quite a time, but nonetheless it enjoys a nice article.

And yes, there is (or was, if you prefer) a debate. A heated debate as documented by the links (dissident and consensus) provided. "Robust" or not that´s subjective, so I suggest to stop debating about robustness.

"The "mainstream" side represents a tiny handful of the thousands of peer-reviewed papers published yearly which are based on the HIV/AIDS paradigm, while the "dissident" side includes nearly everything ever published by this fringe group. That's not a balanced presentation, and it violates WP:WEIGHT"

Very reasonable the "not balanced" objection, sir. Does this edit [16] solve the issue?. Alternative sourced numbers about how many scientific consensus papers on HIV/AIDS are published are welcome. This edit of me is just a tentative effort to back the claim you presented.

OTOH, WP:WEIGHT does not apply here: "Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views"(Wikipedia:NPOV#Undue_weight). This is not AIDS, sir, but AIDS Reappraisal. This is the article to talk about what Reappraisers say/said (and about what it is/was said about them by the Scientific consensus, of course).

Moreover, as Jimbo said:

If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents

Prominent adherents had been indeed named. Can we move on with the article?

Deeply interested readers are perfectly capable of searching PubMed for themselves

Of course they can. But based on that rationale we should delete the whole Wikipedia. And no: It´s not so easy to "hunt" for the articles about the controversy (both dissident and consensus). The reader has to know about PubMed, has to know about the authors and has to know about the relevant search words.

Please also examine the external links guideline as applies to the undue weight policy.

Both policies are irrelevant in this context. Plase read:

Mere collections of external links or Internet directories. There is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links to an article; however, excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia

The article is not a mere collection of internal links, and is not being dwarfed by the section under dispute.

Vide supra for my points on WP:WEIGHT in this context.

links to Medical Hypotheses and similar such non-peer reviewed "journals" are unacceptable in this context by the self-published sources and the reliable sources sections of policy. I have accordingly removed them

WP:SPS is irrelevant here. Medical Hypotheses is not a journal published by the authors. I can nor even understand why you cited that policy, so maybe I am missing something here.

And, please, read the very same link you gently provided:

Peer reviewed scientific journals differ in their standards. Some court controversy, and some have even been created for the specific purpose of promoting fringe theories that depart significantly from the mainstream views in their field. Many of these have been created or sponsored by advocacy groups. Such journals are not reliable sources for anything beyond the views of the minority positions they are associated with.

AIDS Reappraisal is precisely the article to del with those views and the reaction provoked by those views. Thanks to both of you I learned that the articles you deleted are not to be used outside the AIDS Reappraisal group of articles, but, OTOH, those articles should certainly be cited in those articles under the rationale underlined by me above.

I understand and share your misgivings about a non peer-review article being perceived more favorably by association being placed among peer-reviewed articles, and therefore I recognize that the deletion of the articles you did was correct. Where do you suggest the deleted articles should be placed?. Of course that it must be stressed (as I did [17] once I learnt about it from your feedback [18]) that Medical Hypothesis is a non peer-reviewed journal. I suggest the "Timeline" section.

If an integration of the articles within the text is preferred to the "laundry-list" (not my words) presentation, that´s OK with me, as long as we do not lose information in the process Randroide (talk) 11:21, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I cited self published sources because Medical Hypotheses provides very little meaningful editorial oversight. Strictly speaking I was incorrect to do so, especially as substantially the same point is covered by WP:RS#Scholarship. Sorry.

WP:WEIGHT, however, very much does apply here - this article must not create the appearance of significant scientific discourse where in fact there is only a tiny WP:FRINGE of scientists who continue to deny the causative role of HIV. If you will note, I think that Papadopulos-Eleopulos E (1988) (currently ref 15) is in line with policy despite being published in Medical Hypotheses. It is integrated into the article and provided with context. The "Annotated bibliography" by its very nature misattributes weight to the dissident position.

Yes, integrated prose summarizing, contextualizing, and explaining the historical progression of the movement is vastly preferred to a clearinghouse of papers mined from PubMed. Said history, as MastCell notes over at Talk:Robert Gallo, is complex and many-faceted. I would love to see these papers (including the non peer reviewed ones that are politically or socially relevant) integrated into a discussion of the impact (with citations) they have had on both the scientific world and the world at large. - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 19:23, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"I cited self published sources because Medical Hypotheses provides very little meaningful editorial oversight"

Could you please provide a reference for that asertion?.

"this article must not create the appearance of significant scientific discourse where in fact there is only a tiny WP:FRINGE of scientists who continue to deny the causative role of HIV"

This article must cite the sourced facts, sir. AIDS consensus sourced rebuttals must be cited along with AIDS Reappraising sourced views. If that appears to someone as creating the "the appearance of significant scientific discourse" it´s not our problem. I think there is/was a discourse. Apparently you think it is not/was not. If we limit ourselves to add sourced facts I do not see why our disagreements should create any conflict here. If simply citing the facts creates "the appearance of significant scientific discourse" that means that it is/was one.

"I think that Papadopulos-Eleopulos E (1988) (currently ref 15) is in line with policy despite being published in Medical Hypotheses. It is integrated into the article and provided with context"

I shall try to integrate all (almost) the disputed section within the main text. Plase check my work because my interaction with both of you is showing me that I have a lot of things to learn. Thank you. Randroide (talk) 15:05, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[19]

Sorry but I accidentally performed the edit before writing the summary.

The summary:

• Firstly: It is A website, no "websiteS" are cited, therefore I changed from singular to plural.

• Secondly: Root-Bernstein is no officialist neither, as the quote shows. Please provide input for a consensused wording. Randroide (talk) 13:48, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strike that. I stumbled with a second Reappraiser list listing aforementioned gentlemen, so let it be plural. I ask for input about a satisfactory wording to deal with scientists like Mr. Bernstein, who distanced himself from the Reappraisers but is NOT a Consensus scientist neither.Randroide (talk) 14:13, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean he's not a "consensus" scientist? He believes HIV is necessary for the development of AIDS. His area of interest, based on his recent publications, appears to be in whether immune stimulation by other infectious diseases speeds the progression to AIDS - that is, he's interested in cofactors - but that is a significant area of "mainstream" research in HIV/AIDS. It is not incompatible with the "consensus" or mainstream view of HIV/AIDS. MastCell ^Talk 17:54, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, he believes HIV is necessary for the development of AIDS, neccesary but not sufficient.

"Both the camp that says HIV is a pussycat and the people who claim AIDS is all HIV are wrong"

Last time I checked AIDS consensus HIV was neccesary and sufficient cause for AIDS.

He´s a cofactorialist, another different (from "reappraisers" and "consensus") group of people that, I think, is demanding a new article: Alleged cofactors for HIV Randroide (talk) 18:03, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see that Duesberg's take on the PNAS controversy was added to the timeline. This issue is already covered later in the article. Rather than relying heavily on Duesberg's view of the situation, this summary is based on independent sources, largely Steven Epstein's Impure Science:

Finding difficulty in publishing his arguments in the scientific literature, Duesberg exercised his right as a member of the National Academy of Sciences to publish in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) without going through the peer review process. However, Duesberg's paper raised a "red flag" at the journal and was submitted by the editor for non-binding review. All of the reviewers found major flaws in Duesberg's paper; the reviewer specifically chosen by Duesberg noted the presence of "misleading arguments", "nonlogical statements", "misrepresentations", and political overtones.^[2] Ultimately, Duesberg's article was published in PNAS;^[3] its editor wrote to Duesberg:

If you wish to make these unsupported, vague, and prejudicial statements in print, so be it. But I cannot see how this would be convincing to any scientifically trained reader.^[2]

I'd prefer that if we summarize this event in the timeline, we use language closer to what Epstein has to say. MastCell ^Talk 16:03, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:NPOV we must use both attributed POVs, Duesberg´s and Epsteins. If you wish, I can move text originated by Epstein to the "Timeline" and there blend it with the text originated by Duesberg. Or re-re-move Duesberg´s POV to whre is located Epstein´s. But, yes, you are right: It is a better narrative to have all the sourced data about the PNAS paper in the same bunch of text Randroide (talk) 16:10, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could User:MastCell plase comment this edit? [20]

The edited article was far from perfect, that´s for sure. And Use:MastCell did a great job previously "compacting" a farrago of uneeded explanations.

OTOH, linked edit blanked 40 sources. From 104 to 62 sources!

I know that the article needed a review, but frankly that was throwing the baby with the water.

Comment, please. Randroide (talk) 22:07, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I commented extensively at the time, 14 months ago - see here and here, for example. The underlying issue was that the article had degenerated into a huge back-and-forth of "point-counterpoint" statements, along the lines of "Dissidents say X. Mainstream scientists counter that Y is true. Dissidents argue that Y is wrong for reasons Z, omega, and mu." This was a) barely readable, and b) created the appearance of a robust scientific debate where none actually exists. The notability of AIDS reappraisal, from the present vantage point, is largely in its social and political impact rather than its scientific impact - that's where the best sources are available, and where the article should correspondingly focus. There are dozens of websites which summarize the pro/con arguments on the fine points of Koch's postulates, and the article cites and links to them; the article itself should characterize the notable aspects of the debate, but not refight it, in accordance with WP:NPOV. The problem was that there was really no baby in that bathwater. MastCell ^Talk 23:35, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The underlying issue was that the article had degenerated into a huge back-and-forth of "point-counterpoint" statements

There´s no other way of writing this article, due to WP:NPOV.

This was a) barely readable

That´s your personal evaluation. And it´s no reason for a massive 40 sources blanking. For instance: Poisson's equation is unreadable for most people, but that´s not reason for cleanse the article from all the "difficult" stuff.

AIDS Reappraisal is a "complex" matter. An "easy" article is not to be expected.

The notability of AIDS reappraisal, from the present vantage point, is largely in its social and political impact rather than its scientific impact

Do you have a source for that statement or is it your personal opinion?.

the article itself should characterize the notable aspects of the debate, but not refight it, in accordance with WP:NPOV

What you call "refight" is precisely what the NPOV is about.

I created an atelier and I invite you to work on the section you blanked to trim and shape it (it is a somehow flabby section, I agree, but there´s muscle beneath the flab), and to re-publish that section somewhere (whenever place may you suggest, a new section, a new article...whenever): User:Randroide/Atelier_AIDS#Points_of_contention.

Randroide (talk) 08:12, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I think what MC is talking about is that among mainstream scientist there is no debate (unless you can provide evidence to the contrary) therefore we should not present the article as if such a debate actually exists. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 18:52, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, of course that by definition there´s no debate among "mainstream" scientists (circular logic: If they "debate" in that same act they cease to be "mainstream"). But this article is NOT about them (mainstreamers), but about the Reappraisers. I remind you this is NOT AIDS (where these contents should only mentioned very briefly and linked), but AIDS Reappraisal, the proper place for the deleted contents.

A debate exists(ed) among mainstreamers and reappraisers:

• Exhibit A: 40 (count them!) references deleted by MastCell.
• Exhibit B.

Randroide (talk) 19:37, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The fact an article presents an uncommon view of the world does not mean we should let our readers believe the topic is something other than seriously disputed. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 20:50, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I never asked for presenting the issue as undisputed. I am rational and I know about WP:NPOV. Please read about relevant policies for this article at Talk:AIDS_reappraisal#.22Annotated_bibliography.22. There´s a serious case of blanking in this page. Randroide (talk) 21:28, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do not get the rationale for this edit [21]

According to the source, the removed data is as relevant as the mention on Walter Gilbert.

The "Apparently" is quoted verbatim from the source. What´s the problem, please?. Randroide (talk) 22:12, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For the shake of consensus, I trimmed down the contentious text and removed the (apparently) offending verbatim "apparently" [22], as I wait from feedback from fellow editors. Randroide (talk) 22:34, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The major reason for my reversion is that those sentences appear to be constructed in such a way as to cast aspersions on the reliability of aidstruth.org as a source. The quoted "Apparently" mischaracterizes the conclusion put forth in the source as relying on weaker evidence than that presented. There is no reasonable doubt about Gilbert's position as of that writing.

As a side note, ibid. is deprecated even in works that will not be edited mercilessly by a multitude of disparate individuals who will not necessarily check before moving, removing, or changing a citation. Please use a named reference tag (described here) or other full citation style. - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 22:48, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The sentences state what aidstruth states, that seems to be unsupported by what other sources say. If the text I wrote is incorrect in any point, please point at my error.

Current text (untouched by your previous edit) also seems to "cast aspersions on the reliability of" Reapprasing websites. Is that also a concern for you?. Why? (It is not for me, because if the facts point there, let it be that way). Could you please explain me why of the 3 Nobel Prize winners allegedly cited by the Reappraisers that the source talks about, "your" version of the article [23] only cites one (Walter Gulbert)?. Please explain this conumdrum, because maybe I am missing something. If Gilbert is worth citating, why not Pauling and Maathai, sourced in the same breath by the very same source?. I am asking for reasons, please.

I removed the "Apparently" for the shake of consensus (despite that word is used by the source) and trimmed down nonessentials as the Linus Pauling article. Is the text A-OK with the current version?.

Thank you very much for the "ibid" piece of information. It makes sense. And thank you again for the citation style link. I need to study that link.Randroide (talk) 22:59, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The section "Former Dissidents" is about people who at one time sided with the dissidents and now agree substantially with the scientific consensus. Linus Pauling and Wangari Maathai are not former dissidents. Root-Bernstein, Sonnabend and Gilbert are. Your source says that Pauling and Maathai are claimed by dissidents, not that they were or are dissidents. Whether your source has properly referenced its claims about Pauling and Maathai is irrelevant to this article.RetroS1mone (talk) 13:01, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, I was wrong. I agree with you, sir. Now you provided a good reason. Sorry for the inconvenience caused by me to other editors inserting that information while out of focus of the full context of the section. Randroide (talk) 13:47, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Group-Fantasy. Origins of AIDS

The text is available at a dissident group (virusmyth), and it seems to be of great historical interest for the AIDS Reappraising issue.

Nonetheless, I am unsure about any copyright concerns. Feedback, please. Randroide (talk) 22:56, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think a link to PubMed (as we have now) is the way to go, since it avoids copyright issues. In general, articles in journals are usually under copyright and should not be reproduced in toto. Many journals make their article publically and freely available after a period of time (usually 6-12 months from publication) - if that's the case, then PubMed will have a link to the free text. MastCell ^Talk 23:38, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Copy that. Thank you. Randroide (talk) 13:55, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AIDS denialism is a loosely connected group of individuals who dispute the scientific consensus that the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) is the cause of acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS).

HAS BEEN CHANGED TO: -

AIDS denialism is a term that is considered by those calling for a reappraisal of the currently accepted hypothesis of the cause of the 'disease' as derogatory in nature (as it implies that they are denying that which exists instead of opposing what they see as a medical blunder).

IN ORDER TO CONFORM TO WIKIPEDIA'S NEUTRALITY POLICY.

I have changed the above which uses a derogatory term to describe a point of view (AIDS dissidents). This is not balanced and impartial coverage of a topic and is in clear breach of Wikipedia's neutrality policy. (See below). Even the word 'denialism' is a concoction.

I have been unable to find one single dissident AIDS site that refers to itself as 'denialist'. The term thus does NOT reflect a neutral viewpoint.

_______

Neutral point of view is a fundamental Wikimedia principle and a cornerstone of Wikipedia.

All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view

Aimulti (talk) 05:42, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, no, no. NPOV does not mean play touchy feely with a topic so that it sounds like some sort of a plausible idea (your version); instead it means to cover all significant views as clearly as possible. The vast majority of views consider this denialism. WP:Fringe is a much more applicable policy towards this topic. And please don't put huge spaces and all of these paragraph breaks in your posts. It makes them difficult to read. kthxbai. Baegis (talk) 06:25, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry but the article is by no stretch of the imagination impartial. It is also incorrect. I intend to appeal this edit. You say: - "The vast majority of views consider this denialism". On that basis athiests should also be in a section called denialists. This is NOT impartial coverage. Aimulti (talk) 06:27, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(watch) {{RFC error}} 06:33, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

REQUEST FILED FOR REASONS STATED ABOVE. ARTICLE DOES NOT CONFORM TO WIKIPEDIA'S NEUTRALITY POLICY

{{RFCsci }}

Electron micrograph of the human immunodeficiency virus. AIDS reappraisal disputes the existence of HIV or its role in causing AIDS.

CHANGED TO

Electron micrograph purporting to depict (topographically) the human immunodeficiency virus. AIDS reappraisal disputes the existence of HIV or its role in causing AIDS.

____

An EM is not a photograph and simply reflects the particular topography of a specimin. It cannot be said to prove or disprove if the structure detected is benign or infectious or unique for that matter.

Aimulti (talk) 06:12, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(watch) {{RFC error}} 06:33, 5 May 2008 (UTC). The image tag claims that the images 'shows HIV'. A EM topographic map cannot 'show' any structure but simply indicates its topography. This proves nothing about its infectious qualities.

Here's a tip, for both of these RFC's you filed. Firstly, you need to explain why you are filing them. What, specifically, is the goal of the RFC. Secondly, you should start a new section. But, per WP:BOLD, I am going to make a (bold) prediction about the outcome. The picture caption is not going to change. The EM isn't a photograph and that is not disputed. The picture will not be changed to accommodate the views of the teeny, tiny minority. That is not how things work. The caption is fine. It clearly states what the EM represents. Then it explains that the AIDS reapprisal disputes it. End of story, full stop. With regards to the lead, there is no way your wholesale change is going to fly. It totally dumbs down the entire idea of AIDS denialism and casts it in a serious light. It's not. And frankly, per naming conventions, we don't have to find a reference for them saying that they are denialists. The KKK is surely a racist organization, but you would never hear them call themselves that. Seriously, your changes are poorly thought out. If you want to rework the lead, fine, bring it here, but your ideas may not travel far if the first taste of your editing sets us up for the main course. And that ref you gave in no way supports that statement. Let's try to find something from this decade, eh? Baegis (talk) 06:48, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It has been long known that what "AIDS" researchers have presented as photos of "HIV" show normal cellular particles in use for export/import and other tasks. As those particles are designed, in contrast to viruses, for cellular use only, they are very unstable when removed from their context, and not able to be isolated and photographed in an isolated state. Genuine viruses are so stable that it is easy, in order to prove successful isolation, to photograph them directly as three dimensional particles in the electron microscope (EM) without prior chemical fixation. In contrast, the cellular-transport and other particles are so unstable (excluding cell organelles like Mitochondria, the energy producing sites which are able to be isolated in a stable form) they can only be photographed in a chemically fixed state, in cells, tissues or in supernatants. As these particles are not isolated and therefore are together with other materials the chemically fixed and resin-embedded cells, tissues or liquids - the mixed material has to be cut in very thin sections (ultrathin sections) to be able to see anything - it's not possible in the electron microscope to look through thicker sections. Of course existing viruses can be photographed in ultrathin sections too but, and this is the point, in their isolated form. All that have been shown to us "HIV" are ultrathin sections of cellular particles . Aimulti (talk) 06:50, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I think there is a difference between, say, a picture that some people claim is an alien spaceship and others say is just some lights in the sky, and an electron micrograph depicting a virus. In the UFO case, it is reasonable to caption the image carefully to reflect the uncertainty about what is being shown. In this case, if the image comes from a reliable source, we can be reasonably certain that the structures depicted are indeed the virus commonly referred to as HIV. This is not to say that a more neutral caption cannot be written. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 14:27, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• It's an electron micrograph of HIV. Period. Yes, a handful of people hold the fringe view that HIV doesn't exist, and so don't believe it's a picture of HIV, but that doesn't change things. We don't caption NASA photos with: "This is a picture of Earth which NASA claims was taken from the moon", even though a handful of people dispute the moon landing. This is a serious encyclopedia. MastCell ^Talk 17:56, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{{RFCsci }}

Please see below for reformatted RfC. — Scientizzle 00:23, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let us see what Robert Gallo says about EM images. Gallo (page 1306) Frankly speaking, I never relied on electron microscopy. I don’t think electron microscopy does much, except for the person who’s a structural biologist and wants to look at real structure. No-one uses electron microscopy [in] virology any more – nobody. It is as rare as hen’s teeth. From Robert Gallo - testifying at the Andre Parenzee trial in Australia Aimulti (talk) 01:41, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just one person. And I am sure he would be so happy that you are using him to further a denialist claim. Good job on the quote mining. Baegis (talk) 08:18, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That 'one person' just happens to be the man accredited with formulation of the currectly accepted AIDS/HIV hypothesis. Are you now going to claim he is a 'denialist?' I can expect almost anything from you now. No insult intended but your position is so hysterical and irrational it is hard to believe.Aimulti (talk) 09:07, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you read a little more carefully, you'll see that Baegis is actually accusing you, Aimulti, of misrepresenting Gallo's position as denialist. I would suggest that you strike your personal attacks, and perhaps explain that they were based on a complete misunderstanding on your part. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 14:00, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Taking Gallo's testimony, which was a systematic deconstruction of the claims of AIDS denialism, and mining a single quote out of context in a manner which advances AIDS denialism, is exactly the sort of thing that's setting off alarm bells here. Use sources accurately, or don't use them at all. This is not a soapbox or a platform to argue your case against HIV/AIDS. The Web is full of such venues, and they might be more appropriate for what you're trying to do here. MastCell ^Talk 19:08, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AIDS denialism is a loosely connected group of individuals who dispute the scientific consensus that the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) is the cause of acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS).

I have changed the above which uses a derogatory term to describe a point of view (AIDS dissidents). This is not balanced and impartial coverage of a topic and is in clear breach of Wikipedia's neutrality policy. Even the word 'denialism' is a concoction.

AIDS denialism is a term that is considered by those calling for a reappraisal of the currently accepted hypothesis of the cause of the 'disease' as derogatory in nature (as it implies that they are denying that which exists instead of opposing what they see as a medical blunder).

First can we agree to add to this: -

"loosely connected group of individuals" and organizations ( you cannot claim Alive and Well and all the other groups don't exist.

Second what would you accept as a statement making it clear that AIDS dissidents don't consider themselves 'denialists'?

To use a derogatory term as the heading of an article is simply not right. The content has enough slanted content to not require this added insult.

P.S. You compare the distinguished scientists like Duesberg and Mullis (Nobel Prize winner) who question the AIDS hypothesis to the KKK. This alone indicates your extreme biases and total lack of neutrality.

Aimulti (talk) 06:57, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unacceptable. Groups don't get to identify themselves, it's what the community as a whole uses to identify a group in WP:RS. You cannot dissent from science. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 07:09, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It would appear you are too fanatical, with regard to 'AIDS', to act in a rational and fair manner. At least I tried. Aimulti (talk) 07:21, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote: - "You cannot dissent from science". So the Earth is flat and no machine could possibly fly and leaches cure many diseases and the atom is the smallest particle of matter? These notions were all considered proven 'science' at one time. Who are you to decide what science is and what is right and what is wrong? Do you really believe everything we believe now will prove to be correct in the future? Science is not a fixed concept but an evolving process that requires dissent in order to function. I cannot believe how arrogant you are. Aimulti (talk) 08:19, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You fail to understand that this is how science works. It is always open to debate. The scientific method gives a a particular view of the world. But when confonted with new scientific evidence, and after again applying the scientific method, we adopt that new view of the world, that is how science progresses. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 08:28, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article on Holocaust denial takes a good approach. The article is entitled "Holocaust denial." It mentions that "Many Holocaust deniers do not accept the term "denial" as an appropriate description of their point of view, and use the term Holocaust revisionism instead." It notes that experts in the field--who use "established historical methodologies"--use the term "denial." The rest of the article then uses "denial." This is the form followed by the current AIDS denialism article. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 17:29, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OrangeMarlin wrote: You cannot dissent from science

Excuse me, sir, but you have problem: You do not know what Science is about. I am writing this not tongue in cheek or trying to patronize you, but dead seriously, with my greatest concern towards you. One thing is "Science". Very often, another very different thing (unfortunately) is the "scientific community". Two suggested readings for you: Alfred_Wegener#Reaction and [24]

Sorry for the tedious nature of repeating this statement over ands over again: AIDS dissidents are part of the Scientific Community. I created this page to (among other things) illustrate my point. Randroide (talk) 17:34, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Science is about using empirical arguments and data to examine and test falsifiable hypotheses. AIDS denialism has moved out of the realm of science, if it was ever part of this realm. The scientific arguments made by AIDS denialists were best described by the editor of PNAS, when confronted with Duesberg's paper: "If you wish to make these unsupported, vague, and prejudicial statements in print, so be it. But I cannot see how this would be convincing to any scientifically trained reader." This is currently a sociopolitical, rather than a scientific, movement, and has been for some time. MastCell ^Talk 18:02, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did he just say I didn't know what science is about? Damn. I better turn in my degrees, pay back everyone who thought I was, and ride a VRSC out into the sunset. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:31, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did. And I meant it. I meant no disrespect towards you, Orangemarlin, but you must learn that not everything under the sun is teached by degrees. By far. Randroide (talk) 21:50, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Or even taught by degrees, things like grammar? Shot info (talk) 23:52, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the correction, sir. The english language -for me- is a second language. If you see a similar fault on the main text it is probably my fault. I beg you to correct it. It is great when your errors get corrected, because that´s a wonderful way to learn. Randroide (talk) 18:13, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I use your words but changing a word, MastCell:

Science is about using empirical arguments and data to examine and test falsifiable hypotheses. AIDS officialism has moved out of the realm of science...This is currently a sociopolitical, rather than a scientific, movement, and has been for some time [since the 1984 Margaret Heckler press conference].

I can source a statement to this effect uttered by a "denialist" scientist (Mullis, if I remember well). If you can source yours, we both source and paste these contradictory statements and that´s it. This is the productive approach. To voice our disagreements here is not productive. Randroide (talk) 21:20, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I seriously have no clue what you're talking about. You mean there's no science going on with AIDS any more? So what do we say about the 72,000 or so articles published in the past few years about HIV and AIDS? They're not science? Voicing disagreements is precisely why this talk page exists. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:29, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I mean that "AIDS denialist" scientists claim that, and I can source it. Mullis said in Toledo (Spain) in 1993 that AIDS consensus has been (his words) beating a dead horse since 1984. The "72000 articles", they say, are based on a false premise: That HIV has been proven as the cause of AIDS. My personal opinions about the subject (as any editor´s) are totally irrelevant in this venue, sir. Therefore, I emphatically suggest to stop talking about what we (editors) think about the issue and just stick to sourced statements (this guy said this that fella said that). Randroide (talk) 21:37, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

False premise that HIV causes AIDS? Prove it. Give me a peer reviewed article. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:52, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The onus of the proof is the one who asserts: Argument from ignorance. Kary Mullis (for instance) does not say "AIDS is caused by X", but "there´s no proof AIDS is caused by HIV".
• Please read pro an con references at AIDS_denialism#Timeline. The "hard" ones (not the "psychohistorical" babble).
• I do not want to be unpolite, but I feel obliged to say that Wikipedia is not a forum, sir. Randroide (talk) 22:05, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, a clear statement from an established umbrella group would be acceptable as a source for "denialists claim X" (though not much else). SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:57, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But that's more just confirming that's what they believe, not that there's any science behind it. And that claim certainly would not make it a false premise that HIV causes AIDS. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:59, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. I think the best approach for this article is to only mention the science briefly, in the lead, and for the rest of the article not to discuss it. I think everything else should document what these people did, what they said, when, and so on. It's an article about a fringe group, not a discussion of whether or not HIV causes AIDS. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 22:13, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that was the rationale for the large edit I made a year ago, now under discussion above. Kary Mullis is a reliable source for what Kary Mullis thinks, and that's about it. He believes in UFO's and close encounters of the third kind too, and has conversed with a glowing raccoon, but the fact that a Nobel Laureate believes something doesn't add or subtract to the scientific evidence or lack thereof. The distinction is between advocacy and actual science. There's plenty of the former and essentially none of the latter here, and the article should properly reflect that. MastCell ^Talk 22:59, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We should put that in there to make these people really stand out in a crowd. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:10, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"We should put that in there to make these people really stand out in a crowd " More smears? Can you still claim to be neutral and objective? If one dissident belives in UFO's (and I don't know if that is true) what has that to do with the movement? I am sure one non-dissident scientist also believes that. I consider UFO belivers irrational but then I could say the same of those who believe in the concept of 'God'. Do you plan to deride Christians too? Aimulti (talk) 00:17, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I already do that to Creationists, who are essentially Evolution-denialists. Anyways, you miss the point. Fringe theorists do not have the right to name themselves. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:20, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Fringe theorists do not have the right to name themselves." Oh really! I was not aware of that law. So every new theory in science (string theory) cannot adopt a name. Well that sounds fair to me. WELCOME TO THE BRAVE NEW WORLD OF Chairman Orangemarlin. Aimulti (talk) 00:43, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let us all stick to the facts. It is not the purpose of Wikipedia to be a forum for scientific debate. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Nothing more, nothing less. This article should be neutral and factual.

FACT ONE. AIDS dissidents call themselves just that. Denialism is a derogatory term and thus cannot be viewed as objective.

FACT TWO. AIDS dissident are not simply individuals. Organized groups exist such as Alive and Well (a registered charity with formal board of directors). The article should reflect this.

FACT THREE. An EM topographic map does not prove, one way or another, that an infectious agent exists and this should be made clear in the caption.

FACT FOUR. All debate on the merits or demerits of the dissident position should be deleted as 'opinion' not relevant to the topic.

Aimulti (talk) 00:12, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(1) Alternative terms preferred by denialists are reported in the second sentence. (2) That organized groups of denialists exist is reported in the first sentence and in the community section. (3) It is an illustration relevant to the article, not a rhetorical statement. If there is an image that better fits with this article, please suggest one. (4) We need to report the social history of the movement, including why the mainstream has rejected its hypothesis, but I agree that unverifiable editorializing should be removed. Currently, there are two sentences tagged as being in need of a citation. - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 00:45, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Eldereft, A sane voice at last. I still maintain using the term "Denialists' is wrong as it is an insult just as the dissident term for 'believers', namely 'apologists' is. Both should not be used in Wikipedia. The image is there to try to smear the dissident position and adds nothing to the discussion. A picture of Duesberg would seem more to the point or none at all. All I am asking is that this article conforms to established Wikipedia policy and is NOT a vehicle for AIDS activists to smear the opposing point of view.Aimulti (talk) 00:59, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no legitimate opposing view! None! It is just a small group of people who hold a theory in such a small minority it is barely worth a mention. You are proposing that this article be written so it gives legitimacy to this claim. We don't pretend that the Flat Earthers have legitimate claims. Baegis (talk) 08:18, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To compare a position supported by over 2,000 doctors and scientists (I am happy to post the entire list) not to mention the head of state of a major nation, to Flat Earthers, is simply absurd. If, as you claim, there is no opposing view then this article should simply be deleted. You cannot have it both ways. P.S. Perhaps you have forgotten that the Earth being flat was the established scientific view for centuries and those who questioned it were treated as insane dissidents or 'denialists' to use the insult you so love. Aimulti (talk) 08:54, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was not aware that being a head of state is a valid part of the scientific method. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 10:20, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aimulti, you should review NPOV. It does not state that we get to vote on the acceptability of WP:FRINGE theories. All, and I mean all, of the reliable sources do not give undue weight to the AIDS denialists. These 2,000 physicians are no different than scientists who are Evolution denialists. They have no weight compared to the millions of physicians and scientists who have published in peer-reviewed journals about this field. I might suggest any more tendentious editing to this page is not going to get you far. The NPOV of this article is simply that AIDS denialists deny the vast wealth of literature, research, and science. As such, the name sticks. A list of 2,000 quacks is irrelevant. A list of 2,000 peer reviewed articles that can be verified would go farther. Again, you cannot be a dissident in science. You can propose an alternative theory with reasonable science. But this article is not about the science. It is about the history, leaders, and goals of the AIDS denialists. The science is in the AIDS and HIV articles which give absolutely no weight to these quacks. If you want to argue science, head there. You'll get nowhere, but if you "believe" go for it. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 14:07, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"The "72000 articles", they say, are based on a false premise: That HIV has been proven as the cause of AIDS." Those articles are what (in part) establish that HIV causes AIDS. The results that show that HIV causes AIDS forms the content of those articles. It is not the articles declare this idea by mere fiat.

"To compare a position supported by over 2,000 doctors and scientists not to mention the head of state of a major nation, to Flat Earthers, is simply absurd." No, it's a valid analogy, because in both cases, the groups in question are a fringe group. This is not mitigated by whether a member of that group is a head of state, Aimulti. For all the "2,000" scientists who are AIDS dissidents/denialists, there are tens or hundreds of thousands who form a mainstream scientific consensus based on actual empirical research. Both the AIDS denialist and Flat Earth theories are not based on the Scientific Method, and have produced no research, which is why they are both fringe theories.

"Perhaps you have forgotten that the Earth being flat was the established scientific view for centuries..." No, that was the established popular view. It was not a "scientific" one. The modern scientific method did not even exist when most people thought the Earth was flat. The spherical Earth displaced the flat one between the 6th Century BC and the 7th Century AD. But the scientific method we now use is generally traced to Galilleo, who lived in the 16th & 17th Centuries. "Popular" view and "scientific" view are not the same thing. Nightscream (talk) 15:32, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Nightscream. These are nearly the same arguments made by Evolution and global warming denialists. In fact, the argument that the flat earth was an established scientific theory is often used by others. Modern scientific reasoning probably did not come to fruition until the Renaissance. Before that it was based on religion, because to go against religion could mean death as a witch or something worse. AIDS denialism is a perfect example of pseudoscience, where all 6 of the checklist of what makes up a pseudoscience can be checked off. My favorite one is "Use of misleading language." AIDS dissenters or AIDS reappraisal makes it sound like it's a political ploy or real scientists think that AIDS need to be reappraised. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:30, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let's move back toward specific content issues, tempting as it may be to debate the underlying issue here. MastCell ^Talk 18:51, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since one editor wants to make this a science article, we have to establish what the NPOV is. As I have stated, this is an article about the history, main characters, etc. of the field of AIDS denialism. I have suggested that he debate the science at AIDS or HIV. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:55, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, even that's not an appropriate place to debate the science about AIDS. WP Articles should describe debates, but are not places to engage in them. Nightscream (talk) 21:21, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe so, but you know as well as I do, fringe anti-science types will do so anyways. He can go to those articles, push his POV, and numerous medical editors will put a stop to the junk science presented. That's why I suggested it. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 07:02, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FYI. MastCell ^Talk 18:19, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have the opinion that Big Pharma types are paying a lot of staff to keep the Lies "looking" like Truth... Seriously? Yeah, that's how science works. Meh. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:36, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When so-called scientists keep ignoring a major health risk we should not listen to them. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 18:46, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't tell if you're being serious or sarcastic? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:55, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's the mark of internet sarcasm. Anyway, where's my cut of the big-pharma payout?-Wafulz (talk) 19:11, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are wrong, MastCell. Things are busy here because the article is a disgrace. Again: You are failing WP:FAITH.BTW, It´s the third time in a week I have to point you to WP:FAITH Randroide (talk) 19:41, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's a difference between assuming good faith, and tying a blindfold over your eyes before crossing the street. Raymond Arritt (talk) 20:52, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Accusations"? I'm simply indicating that there was a post soliciting agenda editors on an AIDS-denialist newsgroup, which temporally coincided with an increase in activity on this long-dormant article. WP:FAITH indicates that we should assume good faith in the absence of evidence to the contrary. Take a look at a similar case currently before ArbCom which resulted in a series of sanctions - this is not a violation of WP:AGF, but an awareness of events which make editing and maintaining an encyclopedic article more difficult. MastCell ^Talk 18:33, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the comments in this section are personal, and have nothing to do with improving the article. MastCell, while posting a link to that board was informative, one should not assume that those participating here are doing so as a result of it. Making this accusation is indeed a violation of WP:FAITH.

I also find agree that the opening sentence in the Intro may be seen as POV, and possibly even questionable in its accuracy. First, is denialism a "group"? Isn't denialism a belief, or movement? Also, what constitutes whether a movement is "loosely connected"? Is the Perth Group loosely connected? And more fundamental, is the inclusion of the phrase intended more to denigrate their ideas than to describe something objectively? I mean, atheists and astrologers are "loosely connected", but the atheism and astrology articles don't start off that way. Wouldn't it be better to just describe what denialism is? And then, if necessary, describe the groups or dissidents in an objective manner? Nightscream (talk) 21:21, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Loosely connected I read as simply meaning that there is no pope and the term refers to a heterogeneous set of ideas. The nonexistence people and the pussycat people probably do not get together for strategy meetings. But yeah, that might should read "AIDS denialism is a belief held by a loosely connected ..." or something along those lines.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Eldereft (talk • contribs)

Well, yeah, you and I read it as such, but if there are those who read it as a phrasing chosen for its negative connotation, I wonder if it's relevant. It's a somewhat subjective thing, but that's one of the things that lie at the heart of some NPOV disputes. You say that atheists and astrologers (at least I assume that's what you mean by "pussycat people", though I don't know why--fill me in!) don't meet at strategy sessions, but aren't there atheist organizations, just as there are dissident/denialist organizations? There are not popes in charge of those ideas either. Then again, there's no Jewish or Muslim pope either. Why put "loosely connected" in this article's Intro, but not the others? I'm just trying to consider the other side. Nightscream (talk) 00:52, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, sorry - that was supposed to be in reference to the Lederer quote under the former dissidents section. I meant that the position that HIV does not exist is and the position that it does not play a causative role in AIDS are distinct positions that should not be conflated in all cases. They share a certain commonality of goals, but each group holding either position is accountable to themselves rather than some central authority. Are you reading "loosely connected" as interpretable as "poorly organized"? - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 06:38, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Loosely connected" means that there is no umbrella organization, and that various denialist groups have different disputes with the scientific consensus. Some think HIV is imaginary, while others agree it's real but argue that it's harmless. This is relevant to the article. I believe this language was added by an editor who subscribes to AIDS denialism, so I don't see it being particularly negative or offensive, but simply a statement of fact. MastCell ^Talk 18:33, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have at least ten sources supporting MastCell's suspicion linked above, tying an agenda editor here to the leader of an AIDS denialist group who threatened to change Wikipedia on AIDS. What should be done about this? I took it up with arbitration already but I don't know if that's the right way to go. (The editor's contributions are all-around problematic, starting with POV and sourcing in an auto-biography, and he admits to writing all of this just to get his foot in the door as an editor.) RetroS1mone (talk) 17:57, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:RFCsci

The term 'denialist' is a derogatory term used by those opposed to AIDS Rethinking and reflects the blatant prejudice of the article in general. As can be seen from the above comments, those editing this article don't even feel AIDS dissidents have the right to a name and by no possible standard can be considered neutral or even rational in their editorial decisions. This article is a stain on Wikipedia's reputation for fair and balanced content. It should be renamed AIDS dissidents and edited to provide fair and 'neutral viewpoint' coverage of the topic. Aimulti (talk) 08:25, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I re-formatted everything regarding this RfC because this page was an unnavigable sea of broken templates and and fractured discussions. Hopefully now an actual RfC can take place...I fixed the templates & setup, including the in-template dispute information as the RfC statment (despite it obviously failing the instruction to "include a brief, neutral statement of the issue below the template"). — Scientizzle 00:11, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't believe I've ever edited this article, so I can probably be considered an "outside view"...From Denialism:

  Denialism is a term used to describe the position of governments, business groups, interest groups, or individuals who reject propositions on which a scientific consensus or widely-accepted historical evidence exists.

  Since there is a demonstrable scientific consensus that the causitive agent of AIDS is HIV, this topic clearly meets the basic foundation of denialism. There are also clearly reliable sources of repute that refer to this movement as denialism as well. Given that WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE are clearly in-play on this article, NPOV is not to be interpreted as "use a 'nicer' name because so-and-so is offended", but a properly struck balance between the majority viewpoint (scientific consensus) and the minority (those that disagree with said consensus). My solution, as has been mentioned above, is to treat this the same way as Holocaust denial does, concisely stating:

  Many Holocaust deniers do not accept the term "denial" as an appropriate description of their point of view, and use the term Holocaust revisionism instead.[4] Scholars, however, prefer the term "denial" to differentiate Holocaust deniers from historical revisionists, who use established historical methodologies.[5]

  I'm sure proper sources be located that assert similar positions here... — Scientizzle 00:36, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Denialism is the appropriate term, as argued by Scientizzle above, and supported by the references produced by MastCell below. Yilloslime (t) 19:03, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Denialism is an appropriate term. "AIDS dissidents" is an inappropriate term, since it applies to anyone who raises some kind of dissent with respect to AIDS; it could, for example, apply to those who complain that certain governments are not devoting sufficient funds to AIDS research. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 21:15, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To compare an absurd viewpoint to AIDS dissidents which comprise of at least 2,000 respected doctors, Phd's and scientists is simply insulting. With over 300 books, a BBC award winning doc., and the support of a head of state (SA) you cannot simply dismiss the movement as crackpots, much as you may wish to.

This article is not fair and neutral coverage.....not by ANY stretch of the imagination. IT IS A PURE SMEAR PIECE....PERIOD! Aimulti (talk) 08:11, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2000 is pretty small. The consensus that AIDS causes HIV, and the consensus within the same community that to dispute that is to deny it, is simply overwhelming. And we don't care if that insults them, since we're being as fair as 99.99...% of reliable sources. It's quite essential to NPOV that we don't sugarcoat a topic simply because the "dissidents" are upset that they're views are not respected by the scientific community in general. Someguy1221 (talk) 09:15, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Project Steve is up to 881, which gives an idea of how "2,000 respected doctors, Phd's and scientists"^{[citation needed]} isn't much compared to a narrow subpopulation of the scientific consensus. — Scientizzle 17:22, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to bring up Project Steve, but I wondered if that's going to make an issue about Evolution. Talk about sidetracking a conversation. Anyways, can we see this 2,000? is it going to be like the DI signatories list, where 99% of the signers were not researchers in natural sciences? The only argument that can be made is that sometimes a minority of scientists can uncover something that leads to changing the theory. The perfect example would be the cause of the K-T Extinction event. Forty years ago, they knew that the extinction event happened, Alvarez determined iridium was everywhere at the end of the event, another person found the crater, and today, the meteor striking the earth may not have killed the dinosaurs directly. Theories change, but not at the expense of basic scientific principles. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:24, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"This 2,000" can be seen at [25]. If you read through it you will see that it includes some doctors and scientists but they are a minority. The list also has names of famous scientists and doctors who changed their minds or were never denialists. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 20:24, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've refactored these comments into a new subsection. If, Aimulti, you're actually interested in gathering outside input, it isn't really appropriate to shout down such input if it doesn't conform to your views. Interpreting my statement above as "dismiss[ing] the movement as crackpots" is pure hyperbole. — Scientizzle 17:22, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Use of "denialism" in reliable sources:

• PMID 17713982 PLoS Medicine
• PMID 16598265 Nature Medicine
• PMID 18000570 South African Medical Journal
• New York Times
• The New Yorker: The Denialists
• Village Voice: [26] Uses the terms "AIDS deniers" and "self-styled 'AIDS dissidents'", complete with scare quotes.

There are more. These reliable sources all agree with, or go even further, than our use of terminology. I can find no similarly reliable, independent sources using the terms "AIDS dissident" or "AIDS reappraiser". It seems obvious that these are terms self-applied by the movement, but that the term "AIDS denialism" is the one favored by independent, reliable secondary sources to describe this movement. It should not be hard to reflect this accurately; in fact, I think the article already does. MastCell ^Talk 18:51, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: There's also this, hot off the presses, which could potentially be a source for the article. MastCell ^Talk 21:22, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With the majority of the media hostile to AIDS dissidents, it proves nothing that you can find a handful of publications who use this slur. Aimulti (talk) 23:14, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And if that's what they're saying...You still completely misunderstand NPOV. We don't take the major viewpoints and turn them neutral; honestly reporting the major viewpoints is neutral. If the single major scientific viewpoint on this matter is that to "dissent" from the HIV-AIDS link is to "deny" it, then that's what the article is going to say. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:41, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"We don't take the major viewpoints and turn them neutral; honestly reporting the major viewpoints is neutral". On that basis any article on Atheists, Agnostics, Libertarians and Pacifists (etc) should simply be smears and hostile attacks. That thinking is EXACTLY what is wrong with this disgusting partisan piece. Aimulti (talk) 08:02, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And now you're comparing this to subjects in which the only "facts" are that various people have claimed various things. There is, as far as Wikipedia is concerned, no great truth when it comes to the validity of a religious or political belief. Here, we're talking about a scientific concept. When there is a notable religious belief (or non-belief) the greatest viewpoint on it is that movement's own, with due notice of critical response. In this article, we're talking about a scientific theory (or anti-theory), and there happens to be an accepted scientific viewpoint. Someguy1221 (talk) 09:10, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{{RFCsci }}

The image caption claims to prove the existence of 'HIV" on the basis of an EM image. An EM topographic map simply shows the structure of a sample and can neither confirm or exclude it as an infectious agent. Robert Gallo has stated that EM's are almost never used now due to their limitations. (See above quotation). This article has become nothing more than a somewhat hysterical tirade against AIDS dissidents and does not conform, by any stretch of imagination, to Wikipedia's neutral reporting standard. Aimulti (talk) 08:16, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment reformatted as above... — Scientizzle 00:21, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The image caption makes absolutely no such claim (I even skimmed the last 100 edits to see if the caption was being altered, but that didn't seem to be the case). This complaint is utterly groundless. Someguy1221 (talk) 09:23, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• The image caption does not claim to prove the existence of HIV. The Gallo quotation referred to above is a quote-mining misrepresentation of Gallo's views on HIV. When this was pointed out, Aimulti responded with personal attacks which have yet to be withdrawn. In the words of the bard: "Wrong? You ain't never been right... about nothin'." SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 13:22, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• It's an electron micrograph of HIV. Period. Yes, a handful of people hold the fringe view that HIV doesn't exist, and so won't accept any picture of it, but that doesn't change things. We don't caption NASA photos with: "This is a picture of Earth which NASA claims was taken from the moon", even though a handful of people dispute the moon landing. This is a serious encyclopedia. MastCell ^Talk 18:36, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• The caption is absolutely fine. Yilloslime (t) 19:07, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Caption and image look good, not sure why there would be an RfC on this. R. Baley (talk) 08:24, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree with R. Baley - looks fine, not sure why there's a problem here. Guettarda (talk) 08:28, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• No problem with the caption. Please represent the problem correctly if bringing RfCs in the future; it is frustrating to be called here for a particular claim, only to see that the claim is inaccurate anyways. Antelan^talk 16:10, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Nothing wrong with the caption. It reflects scientific consensus and is therefore unremarkable. --Aunt Entropy (talk) 18:38, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"The Gallo quotation referred to above is a quote-mining misrepresentation of Gallo's views on HIV." How so? It simply points out that Gallo says EM'S are rarely useed by AIDS scientists and prove little of interest or use. It in no way suggested he is a dissident. Aimulti (talk) 23:16, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The conversation is Talk:AIDS_denialism#Robert_Gallo_on_EM_images here. There's really no need to repeat it. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 02:28, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You say "There's really no need to repeat it". I agree. As it simply claims, without a shred of proof to back said claim up, that the quote is somehow "quote mining", it deserves to be ignored. Wikipedia relies on referenced material not partisan opinion. I have referenced all my assertions. You have not. Perhaps a bit of 'quote mining' on your part is in order. Aimulti (talk) 07:56, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read the description of the image? That description is taken verbatim from the CDC website, which is where the image was sourced. It is, as far as I know, one of the few public-domain images of HIV which are available. Of course, if you know where there are more, or better quality images of HIV, please let us know. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 13:57, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some actual referenced material: -

EM is the obvious candidate for the structural approach to integrative biology, but significant advances in its capabilities will be required.

Unfortunately, in many critical emerging areas of integrative cell biology, investigators are working blind, without the ability to directly visualize molecular interactions. The group noted that improved methods for examining large macromolecular assemblies and determining structural arrangements in cells are needed if optimal progress is to be maintained. They singled out EM as a critical technology that requires attention to meet this need. The NAGMS Council-CBB Subcommittee

The measured data from (EM) images were much weaker than their theoretical value, with over 90 percent of the signal being lost to various causes. Some of the problems probably originate at the specimen and stage, perhaps with stage drift or beam-induced effects. These issues were revisited in detail in Session 5-2.Tubulin: Ken Downing

Radiation damage ultimately limits what can be accomplished with EM. Most electrons pass through the specimen without imparting any energy to it, but a few collide inelastically. These collisions transfer energy to the specimen, disrupting its chemical structure. After a relatively short exposure to the beam, an individual macromolecule is destroyed by inelastic collisions. This occurs long before enough electrons have passed through to allow determination of its structure ab initio (i.e., from scratch, unassisted by other sources of information). There are three ways to detour around the problem of radiation damage. Electron Microscopy Capabilities and Limitations Moderator: David DeRosier

http://www.nigms.nih.gov/News/Reports/electron_microscopy.htm

The success of high resolution transmission electron microscopy (HRTEM) has often been limited by a number of factors, including poor contrast, specimen sensitivity to the electron beam, and specimen drift (O'Keefe, 1992; Spence, 1988). These factors can confound interpretation of high resolution images. Fine structures may be obscured, or absent in the final image altogether.ATOMIC AND MOLECULAR IMAGING WITH THE TRANSMISSION ELECTRON MICROSCOPE Judith A. Sharp and R. Malcolm Brown, Jr. Department of Botany, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Tx., 78713 http://www.botany.utexas.edu/facstaff/facpages/mbrown/ongres/jsharp.htm

As these particles are not isolated and therefore are together with other materials the chemically fixed and resin-embedded cells, tissues or liquids - the mixed material has to be cut in very thin sections (ultrathin sections) to be able to see anything - it's not possible in the electron microscope to look through thicker sections. Of course existing viruses can be photographed in ultrathin sections too but, and this is the point, in their isolated form. All that have been shown to us "HIV" are ultrathin sections of cellular particles .Stefan Lanka: Fehldiagnose AIDS? Bisher konnte das AlDS-Virus nicht isoliert werden. Wechselwirkung, 48-53, Dezember 1994.

Djamel Tahi: Why do the EM photographs published by you, come from the culture and not from the purification?

Luc Montagnier: There was so little production of virus it was impossible to see what might be in a concentrate of virus from a gradient. There was not enough virus to do that. Of course one looked for it, one looked for it in the tissues at the start, likewise in the biopsy. We saw some particles but they did not have the morphology typical of retroviruses. They were very different. Relatively different. So with the culture it took many hours to find the first pictures. It was a Roman effort! It's easy to criticise after the event. What we did not have, and I have always recognised it, was that it was truly the cause of AIDS. Text of a videotape interview performed at the Pasteur Institute, July 1997.

and from above... Robert Gallo on EM images of 'HIV'. Robert Gallo (page 1306) Frankly speaking, I never relied on electron microscopy. I don’t think electron microscopy does much, except for the person who’s a structural biologist and wants to look at real structure. No-one uses electron microscopy [in] virology any more – nobody. It is as rare as hen’s teeth. From Robert Gallo - testifying at the Andre Parenzee trial in Australia

Aimulti (talk) 08:28, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see the point of any of this is. As everyone else has stated, the caption never claims the image to be a proof of the HIV-AIDS connection. In fact, seeing as this whole article revolves around the quesiton of that connection's existence, the image seems quite applicable regardless of which side is correct. Someguy1221 (talk) 09:12, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong. The image caption says "Electron micrograph of the human immunodeficiency virus" not "image of ultrathin sections of cellular particles" which is all it shows. The reader is fooled into thinking it proves 'HIV' exists. IT DOES NOT. I have referenced quotes from both Luc Montagnier and Robert Gallo confirming this.Aimulti (talk) 09:18, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In other words an X-Ray showing a broken leg is merely purporting to show a broken leg? Better still, how do I know that a picture showing Tour Eiffel is not a photoshopped image? Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 09:32, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NO. An X-Ray of a broken leg shows just that. Please learn about EM imaging and read the material above. Some knowledge of the science would help make for a meaningful discussion. Aimulti (talk) 09:36, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some friendly advice for Aimulti. The more effort you put into making arguments based on quotes like What we did not have, and I have always recognised it, was that it was truly the cause of AIDS. (and in bold text, no less) the more you seem to be someone dedicated to arguing or convincing or debating something about the link between HIV and AIDS. This is not the place for that.

I also wanted to post to disagree with the assertion that knowledge of the science makes for meaningful discussion. This article is about campaign groups on the fringe of medical science. The real world debate, such as it is, is essentially socio-political, not scientific. A good knowledge of Wikipedia policies and guidelines is far more important than specialist knowledge of HIV and AIDS (which, after all, is not the subject of this article). SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 13:38, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Having actually spent some time with electron microscopy, I'd like to weigh in here. Reports from the late 1980s regarding the state of the field of electron microscopy are minimally relevant to EM circa 2008, and certainly irrelevant to whether or not an entire virion (which is neither atomic nor micromolecular in scale) can be seen by EM. The comments by virologists about their (lack of) reliance on EM makes sense; it's an expensive tool that shows you structure. You'd want to do a lot more to characterize your virus of interest (if it's a new discovery), since the shape of a virus is rarely its most interesting property. It is wasteful to spend more time even discussing this topic, since it boils down to "truth versus verifiability". The EM verifiably (according to RSes) demonstrates HIV particles. Without a retraction or a dispute of this account by an equally reliable source, this is the end of the story. Antelan^talk 16:05, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly, the consensus from involved and uninvolved editors is that the caption & image seem perfectly appropriate. — Scientizzle 23:25, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

http://groups.msn.com/DissidentScientists

and at

http://www.virusmyth.com

Aimulti (talk) 02:06, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I admire your persistence Aimulti but these lists of denialists disprove your claim of 2000 scientists even if every name on them belongs to an actual denialist. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 16:56, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I said it is only a partial list. I can provide a complete one.Aimulti (talk) 22:24, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Science is not an election either. I contend that 2000 scientists (and I'm not sure I trust a nuclear physicist to be an expert on AIDS) is insignificant to the several hundred thousand scientists and physicians across the world who are experts in this field. And it's interesting that some of these people are at Christian or insignificant universities. This is not relevant. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:08, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I probably shouldn't do this, but here's a look at one presumably representative member of the "Rethinkers" list. MastCell ^Talk 17:29, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Straight from the smear site itself. The person called a dissident is someone I have NEVER even heard of. Pathetic! Aimulti (talk) 22:26, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. In any case, as is already documented, these lists of "dissidents" are inaccurate and unreliable. For instance, the MSN one you cite above includes, among the 9 "dissidents" featured on its front page, both Casper Schmidt (who died of AIDS 14 years ago) and Robert Root-Bernstein, who's moved far away from AIDS denialism (in 2005, he wrote: "It is well-known that HIV-1 infection results in a gradual decline of CD4+ lymphocytes..." PMID 15862587) So I'm not sure what relevance these lists have to the article, which ought to be based on independent, reliable sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. MastCell ^Talk 23:41, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm here because of http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2008-May/093574.html. I suggest that those who are here to promote the idea that AIDS is not caused by HIV concentrate on adding information sourced from published reliable sources establishing not necessarily that it is not caused by HIV but instead aim at establishing why some people believe it is not caused by HIV. In other words fill out this article's "Points of contention" section with sourced claims that reflect what is believed and why. WAS 4.250 (talk) 09:41, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User MastCell removed that info months ago [27] Randroide (talk) 22:04, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you actually read that diff, you'll find that he summarized the list and properly referenced his version. Antelan^talk 22:08, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"If you actually read that diff, you'll find that he" deleted 40 sourced facts, just the why some people believe it is not caused by HIV requested by User:WAS 4.250 Randroide (talk) 23:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's worth noting that large sections of the removed content reeked of original research: On several occasions, assertations that a certain claim has been made by denialists were sourced to a reference work that had nothing to do with denialism, and these were subsequently refuted by sources that were not responding to the former claims. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:06, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Yes, and great sources they were, too. The question is how denialist views are best represented, in keeping with WP:NPOV and WP:V. There is a distinction drawn in WP:NPOV between characterizing a debate and refighting it. A lengthy point-counterpoint, along the lines of "Dissidents say X. Mainstream scientists respond that Y. Dissidents then counter by saying Z..." is unreadable. More fundamentally, it's misleading, because it suggests that there's an actual scientific debate taking place. There isn't. The coverage in this article should reflect the impact and weight this movement has had, as shown by independent reliable sources. That impact is zero, scientifically speaking - these arguments have convinced no one in the scientific community - but they have had a political and social impact, and that's where the article should focus, as do independent reliable sources. It is ludicrous to have a "Points of contention" section in which material from the World Health Organization and National Institutes of Health is "rebutted" by a self-published and demonstrably inaccurate denialist website. No. MastCell ^Talk 00:11, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So is this fight fought every two months or so? Kind of like the other articles attacked by denialists like Evolution and Global warming? Frustrating.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:16, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The coverage in this article should reflect the impact and weight this movement has had, as shown by independent reliable sources. That impact is zero, scientifically speaking. You are wrong: Talk:AIDS reappraisal/Data mining at PubMed about the topic

The coverage in this article should reflect the impact and weight this movement has had, as shown by independent reliable sources

You are outside of the WP:QS WP policy.

Randroide (talk) 00:21, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The articles you refer to, Randroide, are not scientific articles. Denialism has had a political impact, not a scientific one. Denialists have written skewed reviews, not published original scientific research on the subject, and as such they have had no impact on science. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 00:35, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's hard to convince a scientist without doing any actual research. MastCell ^Talk 05:26, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The scientific debate here is, frankly, boring. It's boring because it's a debate that ended 20 years ago. What is interesting is the social discourse (with rare exception, it's not even political, as most people in power worldwide agree on this particular scientific issue). This social argumentation is what should form the core of this article, because it is encyclopedic and, perhaps more importantly, simply fascinating. Antelan^talk 01:31, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Remember, this article is about denialism, which it discusses very clearly, from both a historical and sociological standpoint. I'm fine with that. If this article tries to state that there is any level of support for these denialist POV's, then we must draw the line. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 02:07, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, no scientific support, but there is political support, in the person of the leader of the country with largest number of HIV-positive people in the world - Thabo Mbeki. South Africa's response to its AIDS epidemic has been deeply influenced by AIDS denialism, with results that have universally been decried as catastrophic. That's where the meat of this article is, perhaps along with a historical perspective. MastCell ^Talk 05:26, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:MastCell wrote: "it's hard to convince a scientist without doing any actual research"

Excuse me, sir: You are wrong. Please read Meta-analysis. Meta-analysis is actual research, and that´s just what (v.gr.) Peter Duesberg does when he talks on AIDS Randroide (talk) 09:25, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Meta analysis is just a review of data. It is peer-reviewed, usually. Duesberg picks and chooses his data, which is why it is rejected. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 14:26, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is getting really far afield. A meta-analysis is research. It applies rigorous criteria to select the highest-quality primary studies and then systematically pools their data. Here's an example: PMID 18413621. Selectively citing a handful of details from old papers and synthesizing them to advance a belief is not meta-analysis, nor is it research. I am not aware that Duesberg, or any AIDS denialist, has ever published a meta-analysis, though I'm willing to be corrected on that point if I'm wrong. MastCell ^Talk 16:36, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[28]

Could User:MastCell please comment?. The data is attributed. Is the POV of someone who is part of the "denialist" community the article is about, therefore per WP:QS a proper source. What´s the reason of User:MastCell for this deletion? Randroide (talk) 09:20, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He didn't delete the reference. Because the reference is used elsewhere, it is given a name, so that it is only listed once in the references. I suggest that you read WP:CITET to fully understand the use of citations in articles. Please do not continue to make false accusations against other editors. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 14:24, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned in the edit summary, there are reliable, independent third-party sources which specifically describe this incident - both an article in Science and a few pages in Impure Science by Steven Epstein, a very well-regarded sociological history of HIV/AIDS. We should base our description of the event on what those highly reliable, independent third-party sources, not on Duesberg's side of the story as promulgated in his book. Since you mention WP:QS, it may be relevant: Duesberg's book expresses views "widely acknowledged as extremist", and "such sources should not repeat any contentious claims the source has made about third parties, unless those claims have also been published by reliable sources." MastCell ^Talk 16:31, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, sir: Peter Duesberg is part of this issue, so it seems reasonable to me to have his sourced version here under the format "According to Peter Duesberg blah, blah, blah". Could you please point me the proper place at Wikipedia for sourced statements in the format "Peter Duesberg said this and that" Randroide (talk) 21:03, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's entire article on the Duesberg hypothesis; we don't need to reiterate every point he's made on this article. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:08, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So, must I understand that that article is the proper place for such sourced statements by Peter Duesberg on AIDS? Randroide (talk) 22:11, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The views of Peter Duesberg are amply represented on various POV forks around this encyclopedia, far and away out of proportion to their actual weight or to actual opinion on their validity among experts in the fields. So I really see no grounds for complaint here. MastCell ^Talk 03:52, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not complaining, sir. I am asking where is the proper place at Wikipedia for the sourced piece of information you removed (and I suppose you had good reasons for the removal). Again: Where, sir?.Randroide (talk) 07:07, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is surely conceivable that not everything Peter Duesberg wrote in his book has a place on Wikipedia. In covering this, or any such, issue, it is preferable to use what Science and a respected sociological treatise have to say rather than quoting Duesberg's take from his book, which is dedicated to espousing an extremist and widely rejected view. MastCell ^Talk 17:38, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please flesh out the deatails.

1. cherry-picking and misrepresentation of predominantly outdated scientific data - exactly which data are those?
2. 1993: The Perth group published at Biotechnology the article Is a positive western blot proof of HIV infection?. The Group asked for a reappraisal of the Western Blot test used to detect the HIV. They alleged that the test was not standardized, non reproductible, may react with normal cellular proteins and was of unknown specifity, due to an alleged lack of use of gold standard in the development of the test - what was the rebuttle, specifically?
3. 1996: Various scientists, including Duesberg, dismiss the Continuum challenge, asserting that HIV doubtlessly exists. - dismiss on what specific basis?
4. In 1997 the Perth Group published HIV antibodies: further questions and a plea for clarification. 1997, followed in 1998 by HIV antibody tests and viral load--more unanswered questions and a further plea for clarification. The Group argued that the production of antibodies reacting with HIV proteins can be caused by allogenic estimuli and autoimmune disorders, and therefore they asked for a reappraisal on the evidence for the existence of HIV. They insisted in this line of thought in the 2006 article No proof HIV antibodies are caused by a retroviral infection - What was the rebuttle?
5. 2006: Celia Farber, a journalist and prominent AIDS denialist, publishes an essay in the March issue of Harper's entitled Out of Control: AIDS and the Corruption of Medical Science, in which she summarizes a number of arguments for AIDS denialism and alleges incompetence, conspiracy, and fraud on the part of the medical community. The article is extensively criticized as inaccurate, misleading, and poorly fact-checked by the scientific and AIDS-activist communities - specifically what arguments does she make and specifically what was the rebuttle for each argument?

May I suggest the section "Points of contention" as a good place for these specifics? WAS 4.250 (talk) 20:55, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There could be some more flesh here, but most of these details can be found in the references supplied. The Celia Farber arguments and the rebuttles would take more space than the current article, I fear. Thoughts? Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 21:16, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, sir. Just a question. Is the assertion "AIDS Dissident X said Z about AIDS" part of "the sum of human knowledge"?. I also remember you that Wikipedia is not on paper, so there´s no limit for a reasonable level of detail. Current article can be divided at will. For instance: AIDS Denialism: Points of contention. Randroide (talk) 21:57, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The sum of human knowledge is not a Wikipedia policy, whereas WP:UNDUE and WP:N are. Antelan^talk 22:16, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The sum of human knowledge is the fundational statement of the .com that hosts this discussion, sir. Please read Jimbo_Wales#cite_note-36 Randroide (talk) 22:29, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, exactly - that is a statement, not a policy. The former gives you a sense of mission; the latter defines the limits of the mission and the means that are deemed legitimate for approaching that mission. The former has no weight in disputes; the latter carries the weight of the community's consensus. These are important differences. Antelan^talk 22:47, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question 1. Are you telling me that above linked Jimbo Wales quote "Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing." has no weight on disputes?.

Question 2. Could you please tell me (if your answer is negative) in which circumstances has such assertion by Jimbo Wales "weight"?.

Question 3. "that is a statement, not a policy". Could you please tell me what´s the purpose of a statement that does not "go dow" to a policy?.

Question 4. Are you perhaps implying that Jimbo Wales was maybe (sorry, but it´s the implication I can not fail to notice from your words) lying about what really is Wikipedia?.

I am seriously confused reading your statements, sir, so please excuse me for my extensive questions. Randroide (talk) 22:55, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't the place for me to explain, in detail, the difference between "things Jimbo has said" and "Wikipedia policy." I thought it was fairly straightforward, which is why I gave a short reply. If you would like me to explain this to you in greater detail on your or my talk page, let me know. Antelan^talk 23:02, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please, enlight me. Here, if it is convenient for you: User_talk:Randroide#.22Sum_of_human_knowledge.22.2C_policy_of_what

To go back to the original question: I believe that the specifics of the rebuttal are covered at length in the cited source. We also link to several sites, on both the "mainstream" and "dissident" sides, which argue specific points back and forth at great length. For instance, the sources on Celia Farber's article and the rebuttal are detailed and immediately accessible. MastCell ^Talk 03:55, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not "going back", sir. There are basic unanswered questions (vide supra) here. We can "go back" once those questions are properly answered. Randroide (talk) 12:24, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is nonsense to suggest that Wikipedia not contain a sourced claim merely because that information is readily available off wikipedia. It is nonsense to suggest that making a short article longer by providing relevant details in any way violates "due weight". There is no consensus for omitting this information. WAS 4.250 (talk) 12:38, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it is nonsense. On that basis the whole Wikipedia should be deleted. After all, Wikipedia it is a tertiary source, which by definition depends in other sources "out there". And not, there is not consensus the remove that info. I only ask (again): Where is the proper place at Wikipedia to restore sourced information under the format "In 19XX notable AIDS denialist XXXX XXXX said this and that about AIDS. AIDS consensus scientists YYYY YYYY disagreed with him for these and those reasons" ? Randroide (talk) 13:01, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The section "Points of contention" is a good place for that if that is in fact a major point of contention and the consensus scientist response. WAS 4.250 (talk) 14:01, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you. If the article becomes too long, we segregate a section creating a new article per WP:SIZE (and because Wikipedia is not on paper). Per WP:PARITY I suggest to stick to what "denialist" Scientists said, and leave untouched assertions by "activists" and journalists. We counterbalance every "denialist" sourced assertion with the "scientific consensus" sourced rebuttal and that´s it Randroide (talk) 14:43, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think something along the lines of top 5 claims and their rebuttles would fit in this article without needing to be split off. WAS 4.250 (talk) 15:17, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If we do not stumble upon WP:SIZE limitations, that would be fine with me Randroide (talk) 15:23, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. WAS 4.250 (talk) 15:35, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

:-) Randroide (talk) 15:41, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

← This thread seems to have devolved into strawman-bashing. Wikipedia does contain sourced claims about what denialists believe. They have not been "omitted". The discussion is about how much space to give them, and how in-universe our presentation of this subject should be. I've already elaborated the problems with a point-counterpoint presentation, beginning with the difficulty of determining which are the "top five" denialist arguments, which are the most appropriate "AIDS consensus" (?) rebuttals, and how to juxtapose them. This is an open invitation to cherry-pick and refight the debate here, which is exactly what took place on this page for years. On a meta-level, I'm opposed to the idea that Wikipedia suggests an active scientific debate exists where in reality there is none. Perhaps the best way forward is for you to put together a draft of what you'd like this section to look like, for discussion on the talk page. MastCell ^Talk 16:23, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion is about how much space to give them, and how in-universe our presentation of this subject should be.

How much space, sir?. Please, tell us. Remember that Wikipedia is not on paper.

Could you please elaborate what do you mean with that "in-universe" line. WP:NPOV forbids any "in-universe" view, if I understand you well. Randroide (talk) 16:28, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not necessary to use bold type, especially on such short posts. Re: "in-universe" - there are basically two ways this article could be written. One is "in-universe", in that it accepts the denialist belief that there is ongoing scientific debate about HIV as the cause of AIDS and therefore focuses on the ins, outs, and what-have-yous of who claims what about retrovirology and CD4 counts. The other approach would be to represent this movement objectively, as independent, outside reliable sources perceive and describe it - as a scientifically discredited movement with an ongoing, though waning, sociopolitical impact. I favor the latter, and I believe that WP:NPOV does as well. MastCell ^Talk 16:38, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is necessary: You failed to answer my question, with bolds and all. Again: How much space, sir?.

I am not here to talk about "beliefs" ("denialist" beliefs or "officialist" beliefs), but about facts. The fact that this or that "denialist" scientist said this or that, ar the response he got from the "consensus" (or the word you choose to name that group) field. Sorry but I fail to see the relevance of this "in-universe" debate if we are careful to stick to sourced facts. Randroide (talk) 16:47, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You asked several questions at once; you start several threads per day, not counting those you start on my user talk page, and rarely wait for any kind of resolution before moving on to a new one. If I failed to address one of your points, it's likely due to exhaustion rather than a lack of bold type. Adequate sourcing is one aspect of encyclopedic content. WP:V explicitly cautions against applying that policy in isolation. It needs to be applied in conjunction with WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. We're discussing (or at least, I'm trying to discuss) how various sourced facts can be presented in the context of WP:WEIGHT and WP:NOR. MastCell ^Talk 19:25, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One question at a time. Fair enough.

You wrote:The discussion is about how much space to give them, and how in-universe our presentation of this subject should be.

How much space, sir?. Please, tell us. Remember that Wikipedia is not on paper.Randroide (talk) 10:38, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion is that the current outline of the article is appropriate in terms of space, WP:WEIGHT, etc. It lists specific denialist claims with citations as well as links to rebuttals, but devotes more time and space to coerage of sociopolitical impact of AIDS denialism since this is, verifiably, where it has notability. MastCell ^Talk 17:35, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Two editors differ with you. What´s next?. Randroide (talk) 18:07, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. The answer is a few threads down. The best approach is to draft an example of what you'd like to see in the article. We may be closer to agreement than we think if we deal with specifics. MastCell ^Talk 18:12, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My answer to your sensible suggestion is also a few threads down: Talk:AIDS_denialism#.22draft_of_what_you.27d_like_this_section_to_look_like.22 Randroide (talk) 22:27, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Randroide, you identify yourself as a "dissident" on your user page and you have repeatedly attempted to change POV of this article. Could you explain how you justify your actions in terms of COI? Thank you, Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 16:56, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have nothing to justify, Keepcalmandcarryon.

• Please read WP:FAITH. I see no reason to focus on editors convictions, only in editors actions. Are theists forbidden to edit on articles about religion?. GOPers on articles about the GOP?. Communists on articles about the USSR?.
• I am not affected by any of the situations listed at WO:COI.
• Please note I also introduced "consensus" sources and assertions

[29][30][31][32][33][34][35] [36]

IMHO thee are not "denialist edits" nor "consensus edits", but simply good edits, i.e., NPOV edits supported by proper sources.

IMHO the article as it is is POV nightmare of epic proportions. That´s the reason I am here, sir. Randroide (talk) 17:19, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop calling everyone sir. You are starting to sound like that short-sighted character in Charlie Brown (Peppermint Patty?). As a general principle, do not assume that everyone here is male, and do not use a form of address that implies such an assumption. Thanks SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 17:32, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I shall be careful about not calling you "sir", my dear fellow Wikipedian. If anyone else is irritated by my wording, is his/her business to make me know it, not yours. BTW, I happen to be extremely short sighted and wear thick glasses a la Marcie way. Yes, I look like her. Have a nice day. Randroide (talk) 17:41, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Randroide, "justify" was the wrong word to use, and I apologize. But please read WP:COI, which does not outright prohibit COI editors from making edits but strongly discourages the practice. Admitting your ideological affiliation on your talk page is good. It shows you aren't trying to deceive anyone about where you stand. But it is also an admission of COI on the topic. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 17:45, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I actually agree with Randroide here; there is no evidence of COI. COI means having some vested interest in a subject, not simply being interested in a subject and having a personal opinion on it. There is a general recognition that no such thing as absolute objectivity exists with regards to determining NPOV, and that's why we have things like consensus and dispute resolution...Someguy1221 (talk) 17:51, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:COI does not distinguish between "vested interest" and "being interested." It mentions "interest." Randroide states on his page that he belongs to a dissident group. This article is about dissidents. That sets up COI under the WP definition. Not as clear-cut as a person editing an article on their own company, where the organization is more regimented and the interests more closely vested, but still COI. Randroide or anyone else with COI isn't prohibited from editing here, and Randroide has followed WP recommendations by disclosing his conflict. The COI is still there and should be recognized. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Keepcalmandcarryon (talk • contribs) 18:33, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but if you're reading COI like that, you're completely wrong. Such a strict interpretation would make it bad form to edit any article on which one has opinion. By such logic, you should be cautious here as well, unless you actually have no opinion on the existence of HIV :-p But anyway, Randroid's suggestions on the matter are correct. COI was never meant to stop Christians from editing Jesus, or Bush supporters from editing War on Terrorism. Just the same, it does not restrict people who have an opinion on the existance of HIV or the HIV-AIDS connection from editing this article.Someguy1221 (talk) 19:12, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Any reference I make to prohibition against editing is not meant to imply I believe COI completely prohibits editing. It advises against it, and for the simplicity of wording I'm not going to word that correctly. Now you know what I mean Someguy1221 (talk) 19:31, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your polite words, Keepcalmandcarryon. I appreciate.

OTOH I think this section is totally baseless. Please read Wikipedia:Coi#Examples: I fit NO ONE of these examples.

• Not obviously Citing oneself, Financial, Legal antagonists, Self-promotion, Autobiography, Close relationships, Promotional article production on behalf of clients.
• Not to Campaigning because I am not involved with any AIDS Reappraisal organization, and even individuals involved would not be barred from editing by WP:COI, if you read the section.

Could you please point to the WP:COI statements that (allegedly) would affect me?. I see no one and -frankly- I do not understand why we are debating this pointless issue instead of improving the article. If I missed something, please be more specific (linked texts, please) with your WP:COI claims about me.

I beg you to please focus on edits, not on editors. Randroide (talk) 19:29, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just to chime in - I don't see any demonstrated COI here. Unless Randroide has revealed something about real-world identity, profession, investment, etc that I'm not aware of, there is no case to answer. I agree that Keepcalm seems to be over-reading WP:COI. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 19:43, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did not, SheffieldSteel, I am be very careful with the information about my real life persona here, at Wikipedia. Randroide (talk) 19:53, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, my opinion doesn't reflect consensus on this. Sorry if I over-read Randroide's self-ID as a dissident as being more than just having an opinion. I commend Randroide again for disclosing his interest and for taking care to discuss things appropriately on the talk page. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 19:57, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is an understandable good faith error, Keepcalmandcarryon. I really understand your position. I have lost track of the good faith errors I have commited only in this page. The good thing about commiting errors in a forgiving enviroment like the en:Wikipedia is that you learn new things. Randroide (talk) 20:06, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MastCell says "Perhaps the best way forward is for you to put together a draft of what you'd like this section to look like, for discussion on the talk page." I think that is an excellent suggestion. Such a draft can be written on this page, on a sub page of this page, on a sub page of someone's user page, or elsewhere. Anyone who wishes to flesh out the specifics is encouraged to do so in a proper venue. Right now, a non-combat area for such an endeavour is AIDS denialism/points. Go for it. WAS 4.250 (talk) 23:00, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I went for it. The link has been blued. Randroide (talk) 15:48, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is an interesting problem. From a Wikipedia policy perspective, we need to describe in this article what these people say and believe, just as we describe what any other extreme group might say and believe. However, I do agree that wild claims that have not gathered much attention do not belong here. Underlying any decision is our moral responsibility: we cannot allow a Wikipedia article to become a soapbox for the promotion of beliefs, but equally we can't simply ignore what denialists claim, since then readers will not get reliable information rebutting these harmful ideas and will go elsewhere and may be misinformed. In short, we have a responsibility to present the notable facts. Tim Vickers (talk) 15:57, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to incorporate some material from this source: PMID 14872076. I believe the full text of the article is freely available through a link from PubMed. I'm posting it mostly because I think it's an interesting article with relevance to some of the issues discussed in our article. MastCell ^Talk 17:53, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Since this ultimately is a sociopolitical discourse, and not in any way scientific, it certainly warrants a paragraph discussing the sociological and political views and their effects on AIDS prevention/treatment. For that purpose it seems like a good ref. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 17:59, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What would happen if now I would say "My opinion is that the current outline of the article is appropriate in terms of space, WP:WEIGHT, etc." ? Randroide (talk) 18:05, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You would present the reasons for your opinion and try to convince us, or at least most of us, of its validity. Failing that, if you still felt strongly, you would solicit outside input as described in dispute resolution. MastCell ^Talk 18:10, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead with your addition and congratulations to a fellow wikipedian for improving the article with new data. I never oppose the addition of sourced data. 30 minutes ago you stated that "space" was one of the reasons to delete an assertion by Peter Duesberg [37], and now you propose to add (kudos for you for that) new properly sourced data from the AIDS Officialist POV. Can you see some incoherence in your behaviour? (BTW, feelings are not tools of cognition) Randroide (talk) 18:16, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't see the difference between a peer-reviewed article from the Journal of Medical Ethics and a self-serving claim from an extremist book authored by Peter Duesberg, then it may be worth reviewing WP:V and WP:RS again and leaving terms like "officialist POV" at the door. My opinion has been, and is, that a focus on the sociopolitical impact of the movement is more appropriate than a focus on the scientific side, since the movement has been a complete failure scientifically but has had a significant cultural impact. What you describe as inconsistency is actually the opposite; the addition of another reliable source describing the sociopolitical impact of AIDS denialism furthers my view of appropriate WP:WEIGHT. MastCell ^Talk 18:59, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

...leaving terms like "officialist POV" at the door How do you want to call those positions?. "AIDS Consensus", "AIDS Mainstream"... my intention was not to be offensive, but clear. Randroide (talk) 19:07, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've struck that as it's not worth sidetracking. No big deal. MastCell ^Talk 19:11, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. If you have any preference about the wording to name one field or the other, please let me know. I shall use "quotes" to (try to) distance myself from "charged words".

My opinion has been, and is, that a focus on the sociopolitical impact of the movement is more appropriate than a focus on the scientific side

Excuse me, is there any Wikipedia policy supporting that "focused" approach?. AFAIK this is an encyclopedia (i.e., a recollection of facts), so there is no "focus" here, simply facts. Randroide (talk) 21:32, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Read WP:NPOV. If you want to talk science, then edit the AIDS or HIV pages. You won't get anywhere, because there is no science supporting AIDS denialism. If you want this article to be about the history of AIDS denialism, the culture of the same, and the key personalities, then we can do that. But there is no scientific evidence supporting AIDS denialism, so we could just delete this article and redirect to AIDS. So, let's take MastCell's suggestion, which is a wise one, and remove the science, and keep it a sociological article. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:36, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, it's my opinion. I believe it to be supported by WP:V, which indicates that the article should be based on reliable independent sources with a reputation for accuracy and fact-checking; such sources tend to focus on the sociopolitical impact of the movement. I also believe it to be supported by WP:WEIGHT, in the sense that we should represent the movement in the context of its acceptance and impact in the real world as demonstrated by reliable third-party sources; again, these focus heavily on the sociopolitical impact with much less focus on the scientific side. MastCell ^Talk 21:37, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So, there is no Wikipedia policy supporting the "focused" approach?. Randroide (talk) 21:49, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Policy? In an intelligent world, we don't need rules for every little step we take. The broad methodology for writing articles

1. WP:NPOV
2. WP:VERIFY
3. WP:WEIGHT
4. WP:RS
5. WP:FRINGE

If you want to discuss science, this isn't the place, because we aren't going to give any weight to fringe theories that aren't verified by reliable sources. So if you want an NPOV article that isn't just a list of how science doesn't support denialism, then we can do that, but really, that type of article is kind of useless, since it's elsewhere. Stick with the sociology. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:30, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The WP policy applicable to this page:

"Questionable sources are those...express views that are widely acknowledged as extremist...Questionable sources should only be used in articles about themselves" WP:QS

This article is about "themselves", sir. We are not here to argue about if "denialists" o "consensus" scientists are right or wrong, but to cite what "denialists" said and what "consensus" replied.

Incidentally: It is quite interesting for me to read your posts, Orangemarlin Randroide (talk) 22:36, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So if you want an NPOV article that isn't just a list of how science doesn't support denialism, then we can do that, but really, that type of article is kind of useless, since it's elsewhere.

Elsewhere?. But we are HERE, at Wikipedia. What´s the point with that "elsewhere"?.

Stick with the sociology.

Why?. Is there any WP policy I failed to notice?. Links, please. Randroide (talk) 22:42, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think completely leaving out the scientific debate is inappropriate, but so is including everything. First of all, the ability to use an extremist source does not mean it should be used. And to tackle that directly, everything said by not-you is mostly right. By NPOV, this article should focus on the major viewpoints as reported in reliable sources, and it has also been ascertained that the denialist view is itself scientifically insignificant. Therefore, the only scientific discussion that should appear is that which reliable sources of the mainstream view have explicitly responded to or reported. If a denialist claim has gone completely unnoticed by mainstream reliable sources, then it should not be mentioned. If we want readers to have access to an exhaustive list of such claims, we can link around. Tomorrow, I'll go through the subpage to think more about this, as I haven't actually decided whether our stubbish summary is sufficient. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:46, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But there is no scientific debate. There was one, which is documented in the timeline. The position of the denialists is summarised in the lead, and covered in more detail in "Points of contention". I agree with MastCell and Orangemarlin (and have already said, further up the page) that what this article should document is the sociopolitical movement and its effects. If any change is to be made to the article's balance, I think that less weight should be given to scientific papers, perhaps less to European/American campaigning, and more to sub-Saharan Africa, which is where the effects of AIDS denialism are really felt. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 18:34, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Denialists always think there's a bunch of scientists in a room, they have no clue what's going on, they debate various theories, come to a consensus, then announce it. That's not how it works. There's no debate amongst real scientists as to HIV causing AIDS. They may debate how to treat it, how many different strains there are, how communicable it is, etc. But not that HIV causes AIDS. About the only debates we had when I was in research (this was so long ago that I didn't have access to a computer to do analysis, I had a cool calculator though), was whether we were going to have pepperoni on the pizza. I usually pulled together verified sources that pepperoni enhanced the flavor of the pizza, but increased the fat level. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:46, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be curious to hear Someguy's and TimVickers' thoughts on this as well, since they've commented recently. MastCell ^Talk 18:57, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe the fact that one side of the debate, scientific or not, is utterly wrong should have any impact on whether we cover it. If there are indeed reliable, mainstream sources that are reporting or rebutting a denialist claim that is not presently mentioned on Wikipedia, then it may have a place here. Now I haven't actually looked at the proposed section yet (going to right now), but if it's nothing more than the large chunk that MastCell removed a while earlier, then it's nothing of the sort. Someguy1221 (talk) 21:16, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I started reviewing and editing the section to see if I could make it work. However, it's filled with POV verbiage (codewords like "mainstream" science, which sounds like a cabal of scientists who refuse to believe that magic crystals will cure AIDS. The references are really bad. The writing is OK, but not something overwhelming. It was so POV, I just gave up, and decided that it wouldn't work. But that's my opinion. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:47, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your time and work. Please change "mainstream" for "consensus position" or any other reasonable expression. POV?. Could you please present examples?. Could you please be more specific about what´s wrong with the sources?. Randroide (talk) 23:09, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done with the "mainstream" issue [38]. What else, please? Randroide (talk) 11:10, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What´s wrong with linking Michael Callen. Why the wikilink was removed [39] by User:MastCell? Randroide (talk) 21:29, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's a link to virusmyth, which is not a reliable source. Secondly, it's inaccurate, since Callen did die of AIDS and I corrected the paragraph to indicate this. MastCell ^Talk 21:39, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The deletion of the sentence was to fit into WP:MOS. If he's important to the article, write about it. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:41, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was not talking about the other deletions on that edit, but about the deletion of the intrawikilink to the Michael Callen article (look at the bottom, please, forget now about the rest of the edit). Ehrrr...we have a section about "denialists" who died of AIDS, and a page about one of them (Michael Callen). It seems natural to link that page. Or not?. Sorry, but I do not get the rationale for that deletion. Please, explain. Randroide (talk) 21:46, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another denialist added to a list is fine. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:25, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see. Yes, the "see also" was sort of out of place. If there's a context where he could be linked in a sentence, that would be OK. Alternately, he could be added to the "See also" section at the bottom of the article, per WP:MOS. MastCell ^Talk 00:08, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved this out of the article namespace, where it existed as a standalone article, and into a subpage of this page. Guettarda (talk) 05:55, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. That's where I had meant to point to. WAS 4.250 (talk) 23:33, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've just finished going through the entirety of the sourcing for the disputed sections, and I've found that it is almost entirely inappropriate. Most of the subsections follow a similar pathology of presenting the claims of denialists, sourced to the denialists, and then rebutting with mainstream sources. However, upon reading these mainstream sources, there is zero mention of the denialist community or its claims. Thus, virtually the entire section is in technical violation of original synthesis (John says X, but Bob says Y, so John must be wrong), although I would not bother pushing that. In any event, while this article is meant to be comprehensive, it remains necessary to determine which aspects of denialism are worth noting (readers interested in everything they've ever said can follow links to their own sites). The best proof of such worthiness is that someone who's not a denialist has published a report or rebuttal of that claim in a reliable source. From the 49 references used past the summary, which is not in dispute, only four met these criteria (13, 49, 50, 58), although the reliability of two of those may be debatable (not that I would argue it either way). Slashing out everything I feel is unnecessary, the section would be left as it stands now in my sandbox. Below, I have left my finding for each of the references used in this section past the first nine which are for the section not in dispute (the numbering is mapped from this version of my sandbox).

Koch's postulates:

• Refs 10 - 11: Duesberg and Perth
• Ref 12: HIV satisfies them, mentioned already
• Ref 13: good ref: explicitly responding to Duesberg, could be mentioned in this article, could be left at his
• Refs 14 - 16: Sources on the postulates themselves, thus irrelevant/unecessary

Pattern of spread:

• Ref 17: Duesberg again
• Ref 18: No mention of denialist claims
• Refs 19 - 30: For these references, I only looked at abstracts instead of the actual papers. From what I discern, then make no mention of at least modern denialism; some of these papers are from the early days of AIDS, which has sufficient coverage in the timeline.

HIV harm questioned:

• Ref 31: Denialist source, doesn't seem credible or noteworthy
• Ref 32: No mention of denialist claims, irrelevant/unecessary
• Ref 33: Source on hepatitis; i.e. much more blatant violation of original synthesis

AIDS definition:

• Ref 34: Self-published denialist source; not credible
• Ref 35: Duesberg again
• Refs 36 - 41: Yet again, these sources make no mention of denialism (although again, I only looked at abstracts for several)

HIV test accuracy:

• Ref 42: Duesberg again
• Refs 43 - 48: Yet again, these sources make no mention of denialism
• Refs 49 - 50: These explicitly discuss and respond to denialist claims
• Ref 51: No mention of denialist claims

AIDS treatment toxicity:

• Ref 52: Duesberg again
• Ref 53: Another denialist source
• Refs 54 - 57: Again, these make no mention of denialism
• Ref 58: This article is explicitly about AIDS denialism

I think this is pretty conclusive. Someguy1221 (talk) 09:42, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your extensive review of the sources, Someguy1221.

Most of the subsections follow a similar pathology of presenting the claims of denialists, sourced to the denialists, and then rebutting with mainstream sources

Could you please suggest an alternative "non pathological" presentation?.

The best proof of such worthiness is that someone who's not a denialist has published a report or rebuttal of that claim in a reliable source

Could you please cite a Wikipedia policy supporting that requisite?. This article is about the "denialists", therefore (AFAIK) "denialist" sources are accepted here sourcing claims "denialists" make about themselves. Randroide (talk) 20:18, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The term AIDS denialist is used on wikipedia to describe scientists that area clearly not denying the existing of AIDS, but dispute that HIV as the cause of AIDS.

Using the term AIDS denialist is therefore incorrect and misleading. The term AIDS denialist should therefore be replaced with the term HIV dissident, as it describes the onghoing discussion as to whether or not HIV ios actually causing AIDS more accurately.

---

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.111.83.118 (talk) 11:50, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]