Talk:HIV/AIDS/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions about HIV. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

DO NOT EDIT OR POST REPLIES TO THIS PAGE. THIS PAGE IS AN ARCHIVE.

This archive page covers approximately the dates between Feb 3, 2004 and May 25, 2004.

Post replies to the main talk page, copying or summarizing the section you are replying to if necessary.

I have read this article and I can't see anything substantially wrong with it. There are of course sections which could be expanded or improved, but nothing I would dispute the factual accuracy of. Therefore I think the accurary dispute tag should be removed. Does anyone want to suggest why it is there and why it should be retained? Adam 09:31, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I was thinking the same thing myself. This article seems to cover the basics fairly well with nothing bad enough in it to merit the dispute notice. I say just remove it. --mav 09:34, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The message was there when I first encountered the article. Then I made a major overhaul, and asked (see above) if we could no remove the "disputed" message. I also posted on Wikipedia:Peer Review to ask people to look it over and give their opinions. There was no response. I agree, I think we should just remove it (although there is the poster just above... But I think his objections have been answered?) Exploding Boy 09:37, Feb 3, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for those comments. I found the notice at Peer review, and I have peer reviewed it. I agree that the accuracy dispute tag should be removed, so I will remove it, in the course of copy-editing the article. I am also archiving all this ancient Talk. Adam 09:48, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The article has now been copy-edited, updated, reordered and in places rewritten. I hope other users feel it has been improved. Adam 11:32, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Good job. I'd like to make a few small changes here and there, but nothing major. I still think there could be a little more in some sections, but all in all it's looking pretty damn good.

made a few smallish changes here and there. Am wondering aboutt he term "venereal disease" as I thought this was more or less obsolete? Exploding Boy 12:08, Feb 3, 2004 (UTC)

Yes that's probably true sexually-transmitted disease or sexually-transmitted infection would probably be better. I'm nost sure what other articles here call it. Adam 22:52, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)

FWIW, venereal disease redirects to sexually transmitted disease (without the hyphen). - Jim Redmond 23:19, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Thanks. I have made that change. Adam 23:49, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)

As is common for long articles, this is quite verbose compared with the amount of useful information it contains. I just trimmed 87 words (86 with Adam's correction, thanks) off the first couple of sections without removing any information, and I wasn't really trying very hard.

To-do:

Work out what belongs in HIV and what belongs in AIDS. (Any separation is awkward; what's the least awkward arrangement?)
The "Symptoms" text should be part of "Current medical understanding". (Especially since it doesn't mention any actual symptoms!)
"Current status" logically belongs immediately after "History".
"Prevention" logically belongs before "Treatment".
Should there be an "AIDS in culture" section? It could discuss the relationship with homophobia, how teaching prevention is tied up with difficulties in sex education, World AIDS Day and the AIDS quilt, and perhaps put the "Alternative theories" in context.

-- Mpt 14:36, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Like everyone who has been reading articles about AIDS for 20 years, I am very tired of seeing irrelevant cutaway diagrams of HIV used as an illustration because no-one can think of anyting better. This picture belongs at HIV. I will try and find a better one to replace it. Adam 10:54, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Recently reverted edit

Just wanted to let everyone know I recently reversed an anon who had edit this article. As best I could tell, it was POV in the extreme and hopeless to attempt to fix. →Raul654 06:44, Mar 23, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks. I think we got into an edit conflict doing the same thing! Exploding Boy 06:46, Mar 23, 2004 (UTC)

I'm surprised the Duesbergers haven't tried to hack up this article before. Adam 08:13, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC) PS I still hate this photo.

I actually like it. First, it's a helleva lot more interesting than a ribbon. Second, it's extremely relavant to the article. That was the reason I added it in the first place - to me, it looked like the article was missing something. →Raul654 08:16, Mar 23, 2004 (UTC)

This is not a technical article about HIV, which is where a technical diagram of the virus belongs. This is a broad medical, social and political article, and needs an image appropriate to that. As it is (without even a caption) it's just an abstraction. Adam 09:01, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Have you had any further thoughts about what you'd like to see there instead? Exploding Boy 09:10, Mar 23, 2004 (UTC)

Something illustrative of the broad social response to AIDS would be appropriate at the top of the page. More "medical" images can appear further down. I think one of those World AIDS Day everybody-being-since-to-everybody kind of pictures would do. Adam 09:12, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I agree with Adam that the picture belongs on the HIV page. Although since there's already a picture of the actual virus on that page, maybe this picture should just be deleted altogether, and replaced with something more appropriate, like a World AIDS Day picture, as Adam suggested, or a picture featuring the AIDS quilt. Rainier Schmidt 10:00, Mar 23, 2004 (UTC)

Except that the picture here is much better than the one currently on the HIV article. I would suggest that both pictures should go on the HIV article, and that it should also stay here (among other pictures). There's no reason an article has to have just one. And btw - we do have a pic of the aids quilt. I put it there myself ;) →Raul654 10:03, Mar 23, 2004 (UTC)

I agree that this HIV photo is better than the one at HIV. It should be moved there, and something else run here. Adam 23:38, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I'm having problems with T-cells vs. CD4. Are they CD4 or CD4+? T cells. Could someone fix these links and create a disambiguation page. --Gbleem 00:23, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

T-cells that express the CD4 marker on their surface are CD4+ T cells. But in "shorthand" they are referred to simply as CD4 cells. I think the problem you are having is that you can't put "+" into a link. You could, I suppose, use ([[CD4+ T cells]] = CD4+ T cells) but I think CD4+ T cells would suffice. - Nunh-huh 00:33, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Were the early T-cell tests of T-cells in general or did they specify CD4+ T cells? Is it safe to assume that today's test test specifically for CD4+ T cells?

Even very early on it was known that the ratio of CD8+ and CD4+ t-cells, determined by flow cytometry, was more important than the raw number of T Cells. Since you more or less need to know the surface markers to identify a cell as a T cell (CD3+ cells are T cells), there was no appreciable period of time when T cell number alone was used without reference to CD4 markers, since techniques for identifying the various markers are similar. - Nunh-huh 00:45, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Question

Latest comment: 20 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

AIDS is a human disease

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't certain animals suseptible to AIDs too? (In particular, I'm thinking of chimpanzeezes and other monkeys) If that's the case, I think we should remove the word 'human'. →Raul654 07:01, Mar 28, 2004 (UTC)

Apes and monkeys can be infected by one or other of the simian immunodeficiency viruses (SIV) and may (though because of natural adaptation they usually don't) get an illness called simian AIDS. The characterisation of AIDS as a human disease is correct. Adam 07:23, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

There's also a cat condition called F (Feline) IV. Exploding Boy 10:15, Mar 28, 2004 (UTC)

There are probably analogue retroviruses in most mammals. But because of natural adaptation over many generations, they do not cause illness. It is of course not in the interest of any parasite to kill its host. The reason HIV kills humans (and thus itself) is that it is a recent crossover from another species to which we have not had time to adapt. Adam 10:45, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

moved from top of page:

I am an author of a theory of civilization that explains why our community has become deluded. It also puts forward independent, but complementary, views from a Professr Caton which claims AIDS is a myth; and Dr Mohammed Ali Al-Bayati which explains why people develop AIDS.

I have tried to show the two conflicting medical opinions, but I am constantly thwarted. An action that can only be described as tyrannical, and a suppression of truth.

It is clear that the conceit of the gay man (see below ) precludes him from accepting that he is ever wrong, or that people should be allowed to make up their own minds.

He is a selfish fool who is happy to risk lives rather than admit he may be mistaken.

The simple truth is that to accept the popular opinion about AIDS demands refuting three separate independent works:

The following words reveals how self-important this man is:- (see quote at top of page) (User: Ourcivilisation)

I don't mind you abusing me, but please do it at the bottom of the page where people can see it. Adam 06:10, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)

As to the substance of your edits, they are garbage and will be reverted no matter how many times you post them. Adam 06:23, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)

May I ask why user Grendelkhan insists on changing the spelling of oesophagus? The spelling was correct as it was (it's also correct now, of course), and Wikipedial policy is that we stick with the regional forms of spelling extant in the article. Exploding Boy 06:39, Apr 25, 2004 (UTC)

Seemed like a much more prevalent spelling. Dictionary.com lists oesophagus as a variant, but esophagus as the preferred spelling, and I think it's more recognizable to the average reader of the article. May I ask why you use the word 'insists'? Had we gotten into an edit war at this point, 'insist' would be the right word. In this case, it's not. Anyway, does that clear it up for you? Grendelkhan 02:09, 2004 Apr 26 (UTC)

There is no "preferred" form. Oesophagus is British / Australian, Esophagus is American. Both are perfectly correct (alothough Oesophagus is of course more consistent with the Greek stem). It is Wikipedia policy not to change these spellings: Wikipedia is not an American encyclopaedia / encyclopedia. Adam 02:29, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

...Which was exactly my point. Exploding Boy 12:30, Apr 26, 2004 (UTC)

Is the writing in the photo really graffiti as captioned? In Africa those kinds of pictures (often with graphic artwork) were part of the official government aids awareness compaigns. --BozMo 10:02, 24 May 2004 (UTC)

"Graffiti" is anything written or painted by hand on a wall. It can be official or unofficial. It is not a value judgement on the content. Adam 11:20, 24 May 2004 (UTC)

"Graffitti" tends to have a negative connotation in the U.S., though - it implies "vandalism". Perhaps we could change the caption from "piece of graffitti" to "mural"? (That'd also solve the awkward way we avoided the grammatically-correct-but-obscure word "graffitto".) - jredmond 20:37, 24 May 2004 (UTC)

Mural would be fine. Adam 03:03, 25 May 2004 (UTC)

Ahhh, cooperation in action. Warms the heart. Exploding Boy 09:05, May 25, 2004 (UTC)

Although I agree with the article philisophically regarding circumcision, i believe a little NPOVing is in order. I just want to get some other information before editing a high-profile article, as i'm still relatively new and most of my articles aren't serious in nature.