Talk:AIDS denialism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is a controversial topic that may be under dispute. Please read this page and discuss substantial changes here before making them.
Make sure to supply full citations when adding information and consider tagging or removing uncited/unciteable information.
The scientific peer review symbol, a compasss. This article has had a scientific peer review which has now been archived. It may contain ideas that you can use to improve this article.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the AIDS denialism article.
Article policies
Archive
Archives

/Data mining at PubMed about the topic

Contents

[edit] "Annotated bibliography"

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)

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)
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 [1] 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 [2] once I learnt about it from your feedback [3]) 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)
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)
"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)

[edit] This edit of me

[4]

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)
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)
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)
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)

[edit] Duesberg's PNAS paper

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.[1] Ultimately, Duesberg's article was published in PNAS;[2] 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.[1]

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)

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)

[edit] Major removal of information by User:MastCell

Could User:MastCell plase comment this edit? [5]

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)

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)
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)

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:

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

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 NescioGnothi seauton 20:50, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
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)

[edit] Removal of information

I do not get the rationale for this edit [6]

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)

For the shake of consensus, I trimmed down the contentious text and removed the (apparently) offending verbatim "apparently" [7], as I wait from feedback from fellow editors. Randroide (talk) 22:34, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
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)
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 [8] 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)
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)
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)

[edit] Would it be a good idea to link source 11?

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)

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

[edit] Change in order to conform to WIKIPEDIA'S NEUTRALITY POLICY

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)

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)

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)

(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 }}

[edit] EM picture

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)

(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)

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)

  • 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. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 14:27, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
  • 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)

{{RFCsci }}

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

[edit] Robert Gallo on EM images

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)

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)

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)

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. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 14:00, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
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)

[edit] Compromise?

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 NescioGnothi seauton 08:28, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
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)
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 [9]
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)
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)
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)
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)
Or even taught by degrees, things like grammar? Shot info (talk) 23:52, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
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)

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)

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)
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)
False premise that HIV causes AIDS? Prove it. Give me a peer reviewed article. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 21:52, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
  • 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)
Actually, a clear statement from an established umbrella group would be acceptable as a source for "denialists claim X" (though not much else). SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 21:57, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
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)
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. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 22:13, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)

"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)

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)

"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)


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)

(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)

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)

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)

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)

I was not aware that being a head of state is a valid part of the scientific method. Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 10:20, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitrary break

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)

"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)
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)
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)
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)

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)

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)

[edit] In case anyone's wondering why it's been a bit noisy around here lately...

FYI. MastCell Talk 18:19, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

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)
When so-called scientists keep ignoring a major health risk we should not listen to them. Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 18:46, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
I can't tell if you're being serious or sarcastic? OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 18:55, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
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)

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)

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)
"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)

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)

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)

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)
"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)
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)

[edit] RfC on AIDS denialism

{{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)

  • 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)

[edit] Responses from uninvolved editors

  • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)

[edit] Discussion (including involved editors)

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)

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)
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)
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)
"This 2,000" can be seen at [10]. 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)

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)

Use of "denialism" in reliable sources:
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)
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)

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)

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)

"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)

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)

[edit] Closed

Even though I commented here, I'm closing this inactive RfC. Consensus is clear: "denialism" is an appropriate term, as determined by relibale sources and a common sense definition of the term, for the suite of varying stances that make up this loose movement. — Scientizzle 19:40, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RfC on HIV EM image

{{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)

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

[edit] Responses

  • 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)
  • 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'." SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 13:22, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
  • 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)
  • The caption is absolutely fine. Yilloslime (t) 19:07, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Caption and image look good, not sure why there would be an RfC on this. R. Baley (talk) 08:24, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I agree with R. Baley - looks fine, not sure why there's a problem here. Guettarda (talk) 08:28, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
  • 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. Antelantalk 16:10, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Nothing wrong with the caption. It reflects scientific consensus and is therefore unremarkable. --Aunt Entropy (talk) 18:38, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Further discussion of EM images of HIV

"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)

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

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)

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. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 13:57, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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 NescioGnothi seauton 09:32, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

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)

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). SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 13:38, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

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. Antelantalk 16:05, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Closed

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

[edit] A list of AIDS dissidents

http://groups.msn.com/DissidentScientists

and at

http://www.virusmyth.com

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

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)


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

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)
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)
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)
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)

[edit] Suggestion

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)

User MastCell removed that info months ago [12] Randroide (talk) 22:04, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
If you actually read that diff, you'll find that he summarized the list and properly referenced his version. Antelantalk 22:08, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
"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)
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)
(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)
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)
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)
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)
Yes, it's hard to convince a scientist without doing any actual research. MastCell Talk 05:26, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

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. Antelantalk 01:31, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

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)
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)
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)
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)
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)

[edit] (just) Another deletion of sourced data by User:MastCell

[13]

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)

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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)

[edit] Please flesh out the details.

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)

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)
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)
The sum of human knowledge is not a Wikipedia policy, whereas WP:UNDUE and WP:N are. Antelantalk 22:16, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
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)
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. Antelantalk 22:47, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
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)
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. Antelantalk 23:02, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)

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)

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)
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)
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)
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)
If we do not stumble upon WP:SIZE limitations, that would be fine with me Randroide (talk) 15:23, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
LOL. WAS 4.250 (talk) 15:35, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 :-) Randroide (talk) 15:41, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

← 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)

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

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)

[edit] Alleged COI

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)

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 WP:COI.
  • Please note I also introduced "consensus" sources and assertions
[14][15][16][17][18][19][20] [21]
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)
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 SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 17:32, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 19:43, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)

[edit] "draft of what you'd like this section to look like"

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)

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

[edit] New source

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)

  • 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 NescioGnothi seauton 17:59, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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 [22], 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)
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)
...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)
OK, I've struck that as it's not worth sidetracking. No big deal. MastCell Talk 19:11, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)
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. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 18:34, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)

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)

Done with the "mainstream" issue [23]. What else, please? Randroide (talk) 11:10, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Michael Callen

What´s wrong with linking Michael Callen. Why the wikilink was removed [24] by User:MastCell? Randroide (talk) 21:29, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

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)
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)
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)
Another denialist added to a list is fine. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 22:25, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
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)

[edit] AIDS denialism/points

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)

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

[edit] Analysis of sourcing for the disputed section

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)

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)
The only way to correct the presentation is to do it without using sources that have nothing to do with AIDS denialism. One way to do that would be to chuck most of the section. Another way to do it would be to merely describe their opinions and not use synthesis to rebutt them (though I woulc not recommend this). What policy supports this? Undue weight, as has been mentioned here before. My own analysis has converted me on this point to the view that had been suggested by another; there is ample evidence that the sociopolitical impact of AIDS denialism is quite notable, in and of itself; it has received considerable coverage from independent and reliable sources, clearly making it "significant" as per undue weight. But as demonstrated, and short of new sourcing, most of the denialist beliefs are very much insignificant. And as per undue weight, it is quite inappropriate to stuff insignicant factoids alongside significant ones, as the significant aspects should be given clear prominence. So like I said, there needs to be some standard as to what we put on this page, and "some random denialist said this on his website" is not enough. Someguy1221 (talk) 21:09, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Randroide: See WP:FRINGE as well. A general bar for the inclusion of fringe beliefs on Wikipedia is that they are notable enough that a reliable source has taken the time to address them. MastCell Talk 21:19, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
MC, I've mentioned to this editor on at least three occasions to review the appropriate NPOV guidelines on here. Randroide is approaching raspor-like tendentious edits to this discussion. Have we not exceeded the patience of the remaining NPOV editors pointing Randroide in the right directions? OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 00:33, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
While some aspects of this discussion are becomingly depressingly circular, I'm feeling remarkably patient (for me, anyway). For the record, while Someguy's changes were reverted by FeloniousMonk, I think they were reasonable and I'd welcome more discussion on the topic. MastCell Talk 05:11, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
I support Someguy's version and would favor reversion. The denialist claims in many parts of this section are based on simple misunderstandings, such as the confusion of surveillance criteria or staging systems with diagnostic criteria (AIDS definitions). I oppose the template, denialists claim this, the scientific community responds thusly. Scientists do not respond to denialist claims with scientific research. At most, and rarely, they respond in the press or privately, citing existing data. This is because, as others have stated ad nauseum, there is no scientific debate on whether HIV exists or causes AIDS. I also object to the formulation, "the scientific community's view is..." Shall we re-write all of Wikipedia like this? The scientific community's view is that plasmacytoid dendritic cells "can produce (what they consider to be) high amounts of (what they call) interferon-alpha..." (see dendritic cell). Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 14:42, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
A common misconception of WP:NPOV is that it mandates that we say things like: "The consensus view of the mathematical community is that 2+2=4. However, dissidents argue that the conventional mathematics establishment suppresses alternate views; see articles on 2+2 controversy, addition reappraisal, etc..." I think this article has a tendency to go down that road. Any suggestions on alternate phrasing here? MastCell Talk 17:53, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Alternate phrasing...I found Someguy's conclusions to be, well, conclusive. Why not just revert the FeloniousMonk edits? I think most of this section should be re-canned given the reliability of the denialist sources and the synthesis problem. If not, I would start by removing the "scientists counter" language and ending the pretense there's a 2+2=4 debate. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 19:30, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
  • To User:Someguy1221 and User:MastCell: Thank you for the links. Following those links you kindly provided I found this:

Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Arbitration_cases

Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, a fundamental policy, requires fair representation of all significant points of view regarding the subject of an article
Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, a fundamental policy, requires fair representation of significant alternatives to scientific orthodoxy
Alternative theoretical formulations which have a following within the scientific community are not pseudoscience, but part of the scientific process.

WP:WEIGHT

Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views...Minority views can receive attention on pages specifically devoted to them—Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. But on such pages, though a view may be spelled out in great detail, the article should make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant, and must not reflect an attempt to rewrite majority-view content strictly from the perspective of the minority view.

To my understanding these policies encourage the inclusion the inclusion of fringe views in the article about those views, always -of course- with the relevant mainstream view as a counterpoint.

I beg my fellow co-editors to please cite verbatim the lines of the policies supporting the deletion of those views, because I am unable to find those lines. Plase stop to link me "in bulk" to WP:NPOV (for instance) and please quote. Thank you.

  • To User:Keepcalmandcarryon: There´s no consensus for the reversion. I think we are tied 3 to 3, so I suggest to keep improving the section. Randroide (talk) 20:42, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
OK. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 21:13, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Randroide, when people keep telling you you're misinterpreting policy, and you keep mining quotes, it eventually becomes wikilawyering. If you want more outside input, you can ask, but again at some point it just becomes forum-shopping for the answer you want to hear. MastCell Talk 23:35, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
MastCell: One of the first dozen of things I was taught about the English language is that "people" is a plural word. In the forum you gently linked -so far- I obtained only one response (and the user agrees with you 100%, oh yes). Therefore the use of the word "people" is simply incorrect. I invite you to seriously consider the possibility that the "some point" you cited is not reached with just one answer.
Wikipedia:WL#Negative_connotations. It is all I have to say about that issue.
Finally: I beg your pardon, you have questions to answer. Randroide (talk) 07:26, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
People here have told you. You dismissed what they said. Dorvaq, an outside editor at Wikipedia:Editor_assistance/Requests#AIDS_denialism confirmed what you were told here, that NPOV is satisfied, and also said the discussion here is representative. You have dismissed Dorvaq, too. Is there a particular number of confirmations that would satisfy you? Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 16:42, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
I was talking about the feedback I got at Editor_assistance/Requests, where unfortunately I only got feedback by one editor, Dorvaq, and that´s not "people". I dismissed no one, sir. If most of the feedback I get is going to be like the one that Dorvaq gently provided, then I shall stop trying to improve this article, because then (and only then) I shall understand that my personal understanding of how to improve this article is out of the consensus. Randroide (talk) 20:02, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
You've gotten plenty of outside input. You can keep asking till you get the answer you want, but it's becoming kind of forced, and starting to approach WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT territory. MastCell Talk 22:57, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
In the English dictionaries I studied "plenty" is not "one". Just one editor kindly provide me input. BTW: Three editors at this page expressed desire of "denialist" views being fleshed out. Read from Talk:AIDS_denialism#Please_flesh_out_the_details.. OrangeMarlin acted [25] against consensus. Randroide (talk) 23:16, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Incorrect and misleading use of the term AIDS dissident versus AIDS denialist

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)

Both those who deny the existence of HIV and those who admit its existence but deny its role in causing AIDS are denialists, both by common definitions and, more importantly, in the eyes of indepedent, reliable sources. MastCell Talk 21:17, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
This definition does not stand up. An AIDS denialist by definition is some one who denies the existence of AIDS. Not one of the more vocal HIV dissidents disputes the existence of AIDS. (http://duesberg.com, to start with). AIDS is a reality, it exists and it is not disputed.
But what is being disputed is whether or not HIV is the actual or sole cause of AIDS. It is therefore inappropriate and misleading to label HIV dissidents AIDS denialists. To do so implies motives other than one of exact definition of the term AIDS denialist or HIV dissident, such as attempting to discrediting reputable scientists that happen to disagree with current AIDS theories by associating them with terms such as 'denial' instead of 'dissent'. Dissent or a dissident is the correct term to describe all those who disagree with the notion that HIV is cause of AIDS. AIDS denialist is not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.21.155.14 (talk) 07:30, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
I think the previous user is on to something. HIV denialist would fit better because the main point of view is that either HIV doesn't not exist or it doesn't cause AIDS. Nobody is denying AIDS itself. Asinthior (talk) 11:58, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Every denialist denies AIDS itself. AIDS denialists believe that AIDS (a syndrome of otherwise unrelated conditions unified by an underlying acquired, i.e. infectious, cause, known to be HIV) does not exist. Some denialists accept that the immunodeficiency part of AIDS exists, but deny the acquired part and believe it is caused by drugs, a "gay lifestyle," a group fantasy, or another hypothetical cause. Some denialists accept that individual AIDS-spectrum diseases and opportunistic infections exist, but are not connected in a syndrome. Some denialists accept AIDS as a syndrome with an infectious cause, but deny the demonstrated role of HIV (hypothesizing a "mycoplasma IDS"). The farthest fringe denies the existence of all infectious diseases. They all deny at least one major, defining aspect of AIDS. Changing AIDS denialist to HIV denialist would exclude many denialists, including Peter Duesberg, who accept that HIV exists. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 14:21, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Are "denialists" also those who say that HIV is not enough to cause AIDS and that a mycoplasma is needed to develop AIDS? Randroide (talk) 16:16, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
The article makes it clear that "cofactor" proponents are not denialists unless they deny a role for HIV. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 16:29, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

← There are those who deny that HIV causes AIDS; there are also those who deny that AIDS itself exists, claiming that it's a "misdiagnosis" of several other ailments. Either way, they are denying the scientifically accepted consensus on the syndrome, and are accurately labeled denialists. It ma help to distinguish between HIV denialists and AIDS denialists, but the term "denialist" itself is correct. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 18:52, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

We shouldn't creating subcategories of denialism. Those individuals in the world that push an anti-scientific POV need to be categorized here. We should also create a huge AIDS category for every article on here that discusses the accepted science, but why do that?  :) OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 19:00, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
"Cofactorialists" deny HIV being a sufficient cause to cause AIDS. Or not?. Randroide (talk) 20:06, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Again, AIDS is the Aquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome." If you deny it is acquired or that it stems from immunodeficiency or is a syndrome, then you are an AIDS denialist. If you deny it is caused by HIV, you are also an AIDS denialist, since the definition of AIDS includes HIV.
Co-factors are irrelevant. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 20:29, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Didn't mean to italicize that whole paragraph. -The amateur Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 20:30, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
And if you are in denial about AIDS being caused only by the HIV?. Then: Are you a denialist?. Randroide (talk) 20:31, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Randroide, you have made your position clear. You disagree with the use of the term "AIDS denialist." Your opinion is duly noted but does not change the verifiable use of the term as it is used in this page in Wikipedia-reliable sources. Aimulti submitted a request for comment on this very issue, and the consensus was also clear. Your return to this topic after consensus was reached resembles nothing more than a soapbox. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 20:38, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, we are denying the denialists. But this could go on forever, and it makes no sense. Let's be clear, there is no scientific evidence of any other cause of AIDS other than HIV. One cannot "deny" anti-science and pseudoscience statements, such as what Randroide is espousing, one can only reject them, because they are junk science without any scientific merit. On the other hand, denialists deny science. Simple actually. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 20:40, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
I was just trying to show you where your own logic leads. But -of course- I forgot for a moment that Wikipedia is not a forum. We are here to improve the article. I Beg your pardon and close with this message my intervention in this section. Randroide (talk) 20:42, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
You know orange marlin, you could learn something from Randroide. He doesn't usually use verbal violence to make his point. If it is so irritating to you to discuss this article, then don't. I know I probably I'm breaking a 100 wikipedia policies (I keep hearing about a new one every time I check this page), but I don't mean this as a personal attack. You're comment makes your opinion about "aids denialists" pretty clear, but doesn't really add anything on the appropriateness of the use of the term "aids denialist". I know you are going to accuse me of just making this comment because I am probably a denialist myself (which might be true, I have my own opinion on the matter and I don't know if it coincides with denialists' point of view), but you got to admit that unlike you keepcalmandcarryon did make a contribution on the issue of the use of the term. I also wanted to say that the many changes that have taken place since I last wrote something here have made the article much better. Thanks everyone. Asinthior (talk) 09:39, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I have my own opinion on the matter and I don't know if it coincides with denialists' point of view Excuse me, are you saying you don't know what you are talking about? If not, could you clarify? SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 18:28, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reverted

Randroide, please bring your edits to AIDS or HIV. This is not an article about the science of AIDS and HIV, it is about the sociological and historical political movement of AIDS denialism. If you want to write science, I invite you to edit AIDS or HIV. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 22:23, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your gentle invitation. IMHO AIDS or HIV are not articles about science. I have a different suggestion for you: Read Joseph_Goldberger#Pellagra. I hope you will enjoy it, and I am talking dead seriously, Orangemarlin. Randroide (talk) 23:02, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
I've read over and over about how this article is not about science. And while I agree that the focus needs to be placed on the sociological, historical and political aspects of aids denialism, one has to admit you cannot write over those without explaining the point of view of the "denialists". Otherwise people won't understand the article (which is what happened to me the first time I read it, which compelled me to take part in this discussion for the first time).Asinthior (talk) 09:40, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
To explain the scientific points of contention requires only a few short sentences - which is what the article had before this enormous and contentious section was added. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 18:24, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "citation needed" tag above source 42, removed by MastCell

[26]

No, MastCell, your say-so (any editor´s say so) or a "Come on" uttered by you (or by any editor) is not a source.

The "source" ("AIDStruth") MastCell says supports the claim that Gilbert was a "denialist" says:

But if Walter Gilbert was ever a denialist, does he remain so today? Apparently not

"if Walter Gilbert was ever a denialist". The source asserts nothing about the "denialist" status of Gilbert.

Moreover: The source says that "apparently" Gilbert is no longer a "denialist".

Moreover: Based on "e mails" published "in a blog" not linked by the link provided by the source.

Moreover (just in case you need more red flags about this source): The PDF containing all this "information" also tells us that Linus Pauling and Wangari_Maathai had been listed by "denialist" sources as denialists. This piece of "information" is false

Again: Per WP:Sources I ask for the removal of any reference to Walter Gilbert in the article, unless better sources appear.

Frankly: This whole Walter Gilbert affair seems to me as a very cumbersome and nonfunctional solution to a problem we never had. Why in heaven we have to cite Walter Gilbert at all if the only source mentioning him is unreliable?.

Randroide (talk) 23:02, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not seeing the problem with MastCell's edit that you're going on about here and on the article... FeloniousMonk (talk) 05:09, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
The "source" for Wally Gilbert's alleged recantation is a second-hand recounting of a personal blog in a non-peer reviewed self-published publication written by a graduate student. "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, forum postings, and similar sources are largely not acceptable.[5]" What part of this don't you understand?? 69.45.178.143 (talk) 06:25, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I would further point out that the very same criterion for "unreliable source" (Amazon review) has been used to NOT reference Lynn Margulis as a dissident. By the very same people here. In other words, an email excerpt (which could easily be faked) is published on a personal blog, referenced by a grad student in a non-peer reviewed, self-published PDF at a website whose explicit aim is to "expose denialists", and it's OK to use it as a "reliable source". But when Lynn Margulis publishes a review of Harvey Bialy's book at Amazon.com, somehow it's NOT ok to use as a "reliable source". NEITHER should really be used, if the policy is followed true to form. But it seems that wikipedia guidelines are only followed when convenient. 69.45.178.143 (talk) 06:34, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I've removed the info on Margulis being an AIDS dissident, based on a lack of reliable sources. The item was sourced to an Amazon.com book review (?!?!) and a few comments in the "responses" section of blogs. These clearly fail Wikipedia's guidelines for attribution, as anyone could log in to Amazon.com or post responses on a blog claiming to be Lynn Margulis. As this is a living person, we should be especially circumspect. The item could be reinserted if reliable sources can be found. MastCell Talk 05:25, 18 March 2007 (UTC) 69.45.178.143 (talk) 06:36, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Verifiability, not truth is the standard for inclusion. Blogs, Amazon.com reviews, and "I called the author" are not reliable sources, particularly for controversial information on a living person. You'll have to find a source that meets Wikipedia's guidelines. Sorry. MastCell Talk 17:26, 24 March 2007 (UTC) 69.45.178.143 (talk) 06:46, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
@Randroide: anyone objectively reading the source will realize that it states that Gilbert previously expressed skepticism about HIV as the cause of AIDS. Quote: "Walter Gilbert, a respected scientist by all accounts, voiced concerns about the rigor of HIV science. Following Peter Duesberg’s curious interpretation of “Koch’s Postulates,” Gilbert questioned whether HIV truly had been proven to be the sole cause of AIDS." It's hard to take seriously your claim that the source doesn't support Gilbert's prior skepticism.
@Revolver's IP: There is an obvious difference between an Amazon.com book review and material from AIDStruth.org. AIDStruth.org has an editorial process and has been the subject of a favorable review in Science. Per WP:PARITY, it's actually significantly better from a reliablility pespective that 99.5% of the denialist sources in this article. If Lynn Margulies publishes something on her website, or anywhere with at least some editorial oversight, then it would presumably be acceptable for inclusion here, but drawing a false equivalence with Amazon.com reviews is a non-starter. MastCell Talk 18:45, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
You are totally right about that point, MastCell. I missed that line. I struck my lines about that issue: Yes, we do not need a citation for that because AIDS truth provided the citation. Mea culpa and sorry for the inconvenience caused by my slopiness.
But what happens with the issue of the email published in a blog that can not be reached with the link provided by AIDStruth and that "apparently" (verbatim) proves Mr. Gilbert is no longr a "denialist"?. Do you have a functional link to examine the evidence provided by AIDStruth.com? Randroide (talk) 19:24, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
OK. I appreciate your willingness to concede the first point, and I don't mean to be ungracious, but... I quoted the same passage in my edit summary, which you disparaged as relying solely on "my say-so" in yet another thread accusing me of various malfeasances. I appreciate that you're willing to strike the incorrect parts now, but in the interest of successful collaboration, can I ask you to take a few extra minutes before launching a new, confrontational thread to review its underlying assumptions for correctness?

As to Gilbert's blog post, I'm on the fence about it. It's not great sourcing; on the other hand, it's better than any of the sourcing which claims him as a denialist. I'm open to other opinions as to whether or not to include it. However, opinions which attempt to create a non-existent inconsistency in my approach are not particularly persuasive, at least to me. MastCell Talk 22:23, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh no. You are not being ungracious. You are simply doing the right thing gently pointing to my errors. Yes, I must be more careful before making an issue where there is no issue.
"On the fence". Nice idiom I did not know about. I agree with you "It's not great sourcing" in the same sense a Trabbie "It´s not great motoring". If you would not allow an underage son/daughter to drive a Trabbie (I would not), please ask yourself what´s the point in having a "fact" in this article sourced by a site that says that "Apparently" a blog published an email saying this or that. For Peter´s sake: Please re-read source 42 again and think again if that´s a proper source. I have not seen a so bad source since I read "Eye witness" as a "source". It is up to you to erase that desgrace from the article, sir. Randroide (talk) 14:44, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Three points. One, Randroide said above that the correspondence referred to by the source "can not be reached with the link provided by AIDStruth." I just looked it up two minutes ago and the link is functional. Two, as far as I know, Wikipedia's guidelines on reliable sources refer to the sources themselves, not the sources of the sources. We don't throw out a reliable source as unreliable if we don't have access to a recording of the interview it was based on. Third, it looks like the correspondence with Gilbert was with a member of AIDSTruth, so even if you are worried about the sources of the sources, AIDSTruth could presumably verify the email's authenticity. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 15:49, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh my G*d. The link of course it works, it is garbled in the upper part in my browser but it works. After reading your post, Keepcalmandcarryon, I breathed deeply and actually started to read all the postings at that blog. I failed to do so until now, because I simply could not believe we are citing here using as a final source something someone posted in a blog, so I keep searching for the source at the garbled text in the upper part. Alas: The "source" is at the bottom of the posts. Yes, a post in a blog. I could go to that blog, log in, claim I am Walter Gilbert himself and that I support 100% "AIDS denialism". That pointless prank would be as "solid" as the current source.

As sources go, "AIDStruth" is a very bad source, endorsement by "Science" or not. Randroide (talk) 17:17, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Randroide, you now admit you failed to read the blog, yet you've started multiple arguments about it. Please take care to support your future arguments before you waste others' time.
The source here is AIDSTruth, not the blog, and your opinion of the source does not reflect consensus. As you know, since you probe it and try to change it almost daily. If I am wrong about policy, refer me to the Wikipedia guideline that says not only must a source be reliable, but its sources also have to be reliable. Sources Wikipedia considers unreliable are the basis for almost every reliable source out there, including primary documents, first-hand knowledge, interviews, original research. What makes it reliable is that professionals have fact-checked, reviewed, and published, staking their reputations on their conclusions.
If today you post a comment as "Walter Gilbert" on a blog, fully embracing denialism and denouncing AIDStruth, your hoax will be taken seriously the moment a reliable source takes it at face value and puts it in circulation. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 17:37, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Okay, Keepcalm, what's to stop me from then posting at say, Henry Bauer's blog citing Margulis's Amazon review, based on your reasoning, you would have to accept that source to Bauer's blog as sufficient to say Margulis was a dissident... except, oh I forgot, that's right, Bauer's blog ISN'T A RELIABLE SOURCE. Again, what's the different between YBYL, Bauer, etc. etc., and AIDStruth? They're both just a bunch of people who got together and made a website. The only difference is you accept one and not the other. Self fulfilling prophecy. You'll be the one with eggs on your faces though when this is all over. 69.45.178.143 (talk) 01:03, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Please read the archives for discussion of this subject, and remember that Wikipedia is not the appropriate forum for airing your personal views. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 17:50, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict) It's not quite as equivalent as you make it out to be. AIDStruth was reviewed (in a generally favorable tone) by Science, and is run by a group of established, prominent AIDS researchers under their own names. It therefore has a bit more credibility than an Amazon.com book review or run-of-the-mill blog. Certainly by the terms of WP:PARITY, and in comparison with many of the denialist sources used in this article, it seems reasonable to me. MastCell Talk 17:51, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Death of denialists

So I know people is going to eat me alive for this one but I've been meaning to ask for a long time now. Why is it relevant how denialist died? I mean, probably the reasoning is that by dying from aids they actually proved they were wrong. Am I the only one seeing a problem with this logic? I mean, should we also include information of how people who support mainstream view of aids die? I mean, if a researcher or physician that upholds the current aids model dies of aids, does that prove that the current theoretical paradigm is wrong? I always forget the tildes, damn.... Asinthior (talk) 09:49, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

You are not the only one. I agree with you. From time to time I have thoughts about creating a (unfortunately very long) list of "AIDS mainstreamers" who died while taking AZT. Of course I inmediatly remember WP:POINT and stop that kind of thinking. And now, I am going to be the devil´s advocate and to avance the point I think that MastCell is going to do: The notoriety for those deaths of "denialists" is provided by AIDStruth.com listing those deaths. If we accept AIDStruth as a valid source, it is legitimate to cite those unfortunate deaths Randroide (talk) 10:59, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I have a confession to make, I had only read the article completely the last time I took part in this discussion (weeks or months ago, I'm not sure). So I just reread the section and it has changed from a list of deaths to just commenting on the matter, which as you say is legitimate. So I won't pursue the matter any more. Asinthior (talk) 15:31, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
AIDStruth is not a reliable source, as are any website. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 18:33, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Could you please elaborate, Orangemarlin? Randroide (talk) 15:05, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
I imagine what he is replying to is that any claims on the AIDStruth website would only be reliable for the beliefs of the operators of the site and would not be enough to build this so called article of yours about "Aids mainstreamers" dying from AZT. It is also barely able to qualify any claims that Aids denialists died from something other than AIDS (ie drug addiction or the like). I'm a big giant idiot and forgot to read through this whole post. Defer to MastCell below. Baegisthesock (talk) 15:32, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
barely able to qualify?. It is able or not?. If not, that info should be retired from the article. Could you please explain why do you think it is not able to qualify those claims?.Randroide (talk) 16:58, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Randroide, you have had this conversation with numerous editors, including MastCell and Eldereft. They have concluded that the source is reliable in this context. Everyone knows you disagree, you have made your point, and it's time to move on. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 17:11, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
To go back: the fate of HIV-positive denialists is relevant. The denialist movement itself continually trumpets the fact that a handful of HIV-positive denialists are alive 10-15 years after their diagnosis, as evidence that HIV is harmless. Furthermore, one might conceivably wonder what happens to these folks. When they develop AIDS, do they change their minds and seek medical treatment, or do they find alternate explanations for their opportunistic infections? Perhaps most importantly, the question has been addressed by reasonably reliable sources, among them POZ and aidstruth.org.

The comparison to "mainstreamers" taking AZT is erroneous. Yes, if there were people who denied that AZT had any side effects at all, and such people were shown to have died from side effects of AZT, then that would be a valid analogy. However, I'm not aware of any such cases. MastCell Talk 17:49, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I do not see this section as it currently is written as making some mean-spirited pedagogical point about tragedy. As a subsection of The AIDS denialist community, it complements the Former dissidents subsection as a distinct endpoint. The information might also fit as a subsection of AIDS denialist claims or Potential harm from AIDS denialism, but presenting it here I think fits better with a neutral description of the movement rather than an attack on its views. The sourcing, as mentioned above, is perfectly valid for the claims made per the WP:PARITY guideline. - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 19:23, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The title "AIDS denialism" is inaccurate and inappropriate.

No one is denying that acquired immune deficiency syndrome does not exist. They only question the role that the suspected particle known as "HIV" has any role in the syndrome. I suggest the title to this article be change to "HIV denialism" instead. Even that would be a bit offensive in my opinion since "delialism" seems to suggest that the researchers in question have closed their minds to the possibility that some agent has a role in AIDS. Heck, "denialism" isn’t even a real word, more like a slur term.

For more eye opening research in to the seriously compromised "AIDS" science, please read this interview of with Dr Eleni Papadopulos-Eleopulos of the Perth Group:

http://ourcivilisation.com/aids/hivexist/index.htm

In this interview, she details why every single EM photo we have of supposed "HIV" is a fraud. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.137.88.236 (talk) 09:03, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Covered above, [27]. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 14:09, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Annotated bibliography

Re: the "annotated bibliography": there appears to be no consensus that we should have such a section, and it's been tagged as "in use" for some time without discussion. This section should be developed in talkspace before being considered for re-addition to the article. I've moved it to Talk:AIDS denialism/Annotated bibliography. MastCell Talk 17:15, 30 May 2008 (UTC)