This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
HIV/AIDS denialism article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
Archives:
Index,
Index,
1,
2,
3,
4,
5,
6,
7,
8,
9,
10,
11,
12,
13Auto-archiving period: 365 days
![]() |
![]() | The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to
pseudoscience and
fringe science, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
![]() | There have been attempts to recruit editors of specific viewpoints to this article. If you've come here in response to such recruitment, please review the relevant Wikipedia policy on recruitment of editors, as well as the neutral point of view policy. Disputes on Wikipedia are resolved by consensus, not by majority vote. |
Frequently asked questions Q1: Why does this article dismiss AIDS denialism as a valid scientific hypothesis?
A1: Wikipedia relies on
reliable sources that have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. The
Neutral point of view policy, especially the sections
Undue weight and
Equal validity, requires that editors not add their own editorial biases when writing text based on such sources. As the relevant academic field universally rejects the several hypotheses grouped under the umbrella of AIDS denialism, it would be a disservice to our readers to fail to report this as part of a full treatment of the topic. Further advice for how to treat topics such as this one may be found at the
Fringe theories and
Reliable sources (medicine-related articles) guidelines. Q2: Why does this article use the term AIDS denialism? Why not AIDS dissent, AIDS reappraisal, or some similar term?
A2: There are several alternative terms describing the same constellation of ideas, and Wikipedia articles should use the most
widely accepted in the most
reliable sources; the word "denialism" is frequently used in the sociological and other professional literature on the topic. Furthermore, "AIDS denialism" adheres to both the
neutral point of view policy and the "
words to watch" guideline. It reflects the consensus among editors here and has been discussed several times in the past (see
this archived discussion for such an example). Before starting another discussion about the article title, please consult the above policy and guideline, and read through the archives to see if your concern has already been addressed. Q3: What about the famous and respectable scientists who dispute the role of HIV in causing AIDS?
A3: The scientists most often cited by the AIDS denialism movements are usually speaking outside their field of expertise, and generally have not published their disputes in reputable journals. For instance,
Peter Duesberg is a groundbreaking cancer researcher and
Kary Mullis invented
PCR. Within the virology research community, however, there is no longer any doubt that HIV causes AIDS. Q4: Doesn't Wikipedia's policy on "neutrality" require a neutral treatment?
A4: No. Wikipedia's policy on
neutrality does not require that all hypotheses be treated as equal or valid, nor is neutrality decided by the opinions of editors. On Wikipedia, neutrality is represented by a fair summary of the opinion found in the relevant reliable, independent sources. If those sources reject an idea with unanimity or near-unanimity,
due weight requires that that rejection be presented. |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I am opening this discussion after the recent series of back-and-forth reverts that started as a result of my addition of the word "erroneous" into the first sentence of this article. Per the scientific consensus on the HIV pathogen, it does indeed cause AIDS if left untreated, and denying said fact is by definition erroneous, since denialists do not have any factual or scientific basis at all for their claims and are repeating incorrect statements, which I have clarified in my edit summaries. The definition of "erroneous" is also clear according to the Oxford English Dictionary:
"Wrong; incorrect."
So why were my edits still reverted in spite of my explanation and the fact it didn't damage the article? Even when I cited WP:DONTREVERT to hopefully end this edit war, Antandrus swiftly came in and rolled it back with the same reasoning of "no improvement", even though the very page I have cited contradicts said reasoning, as it states:
"Do not revert an edit because that edit is unnecessary, i.e. the edit does not improve the article. For a reversion to be appropriate, the reverted edit must actually make the article worse. Wikipedia does not have a bias toward the status quo (except in cases of fully developed disputes, while they are being resolved). In fact, Wikipedia has a bias toward change, as a means of maximizing quality by maximizing participation." Kaltionis ( talk) 00:59, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
'Erroneous' and 'contradicted by conclusive evidence' is the same thing. No need for tautology" [1] and "
it does make the prose style less encyclopedic and less grownup". [2] Yet you simply continued to revert, referring (with I suppose unintentional humor) to WP:DONTREVERT. I don't really see how I can "clarify" it further than I already did, but I'll try one more time: making the style less grownup damages the article. Bishonen | talk 11:56, 13 November 2019 (UTC).
Hi Ezequiel, ¿cómo sos vos? ¿Todo bien?
GorillaWarfare, fyi and for the record: the recent IP vandalism at the article is highly reminiscent of indeffed
EzequielBelaus (
talk ·
contribs) (sock:
Riveronthemountains (
talk ·
contribs)) and a slew of IP addresses, many of which are enumerated at
User talk:191.85.20.46#Dynamic IP. See also:
User talk:190.173.150.216#Range blocked again,
User talk:190.173.138.153,
User talk:190.173.161.2, and
User talk:191.85.20.46#HIV/Aids denialism. I tried my best to bring Ezequiel (in 2018, a minor child) back into the fold, but was unable to. Sad to see he's still at it.
Ian.thomson was heavily involved and may want a ping; as was
Bishonen who was very helpful; so were a lot of other admins, notably Huon, Kudpung, Yamla, 331dot, and others.
Mathglot (
talk)
22:07, 1 February 2021 (UTC)