Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:02, 27 January 2006

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

Archives
July 2003 — November 2003 November 2003 — January 2006

Article Problems

Like the other controversial articles, the very nature of this subject makes it almost impossible to find a neutral treatment of it .

The disagreements generally seem to be about (1) what terminology to use, (2) what constitutes fact, and (3) what constitutes a valid line of reasoning. The matter of terminology can be most easily resolved by an introductory statement explicitly designed to explain the choice of terminology used in the article . Make it by stating at the outset that "We call it the HIV theory, but this should not be taken to imply the correctness of any particular viewpoint" or some such.

As for what constitutes fact, at least regarding the "facts" about how the disease is caused and develops, we could just stick with facts about viewpoints. Duesberg observed X, which he believes indicates Y, but Kary Mullis thinks Z. Making purportedly factual claims about the disease itself is where the trouble begins.

The third point, what constitutes a valid line of reasoning, is probably just as easily resolved. Again, the article should present information about those who hold these particular viewpoints; the article itself should not hold these viewpoints. Misplaced Pages articles can't hope to resolve the deeply philosophical matter of what approach to understanding "reality" is the most appropriate or valid. In general, science prevails around here, but since there is disagreement on what even qualifies as scientific, it's probably best to let the players speak for themselves, and let readers do their own reasoning.

All of the above is simply a re-statement of Misplaced Pages's NPOV policy, of course. We all gotta cooperate or we'll get nowhere. We know it can be done, since it has been done with so many other controversial topics. -- Wapcaplet 22:31, 3 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Protected

Ok, first of all, I've protected the page against an on-going edit war. I'm not going to take sides, and I think you both need to read WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. I suggest you resolve the dispute on the talk page to prevent further edit warring. If you want, you can take your case to the WP:MEDCAB or through the formal Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution processes. - FrancisTyers 19:17, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Preparing replacement content offline

I'm preparing a neutral, NPOV, referenced, wikified article. Sgactorny 22:17, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Please let us know about how long your effort might take. That will help us decide whether to wait for your proposal or to petition for this page to be unlocked in the meantime. The Rod 18:07, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Proposed AIDS reappraisal criticism content

In 1994 the journal Science conducted a 3-month investigation to examine the validity of the dissident claims. They interviewed AIDS supporters and detractors, examined the primary AIDS literature including Duesberg’s publications. This investigation found that “...although the Berkeley virologist raises provocative questions, few researchers find his basic contention that HIV is not the cause of AIDS persuasive. Mainstream AIDS researchers argue that Duesberg’s arguments are constructed by selective reading of the scientific literature, dismissing evidence that contradicts his theses, requiring impossibly definitive proof, and dismissing outright studies marked by inconsequential weaknesses.” The Science investigation also found that although Duesberg and the dissident movement have garnered support from some prominent mainstream scientists, most of this support is related to Duesberg’s right to hold a dissenting opinion, rather than support of his claims that HIV does not cause AIDS.

What do you think? Nrets 02:41, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

That version does a good job of only making citable claims. The Rod 04:26, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I propose that we move the above paragraph from the introduction to a new "Criticisms" section after the main points of the article. The Rod 20:13, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree the paragraph should be moved to a new "Criticisms" section. Side note: the journal "Science" doesn't appear to be following the scientific method in its purported debunking of AIDS dissidents' claims. zen master T 21:05, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Source request

Could someone find a source for this sentence: "AIDS dissidents have little or nothing in common with those who view AIDS as a government or military conspiracy"? Seems in opposition to reality. Some segment of the media, due to their portrayal of AIDS, would have to be at least inadvertantly complicit in vast error should the highly buttressed "mainstream view" of AIDS be incorrect. zen master T 00:53, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Should this article call AZT an antiretroviral drug?

Mainstream science classifies zidovudine (AZT) as an antiretroviral drug, but the AIDS reappraisal movement specifically disputes its effectiveness and thus does not similarly classify it. So, how should this article classify AZT? I suggest that this article only needs to refer to "antiretroviral drug" in its terminology section, e.g.:

AIDS terminology

...

The AIDS reappraisal disputes the mainstream classification of Zidovudine (AZT) as an antiretroviral drug.

...

The rest of the article could then refer to AZT without saying "antiretroviral", except to make explicit claims about its effectiveness. How does that sound? The Rod 01:11, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

it sounds wrong. Dissidents argue that calling AZT, and other drugs like it, "anti-retroviral" is a symptom of what is wrong with the AIDS orthodoxy. the drug what the orthodoxy calls it is no solution . So lots of the problems caused by the AIDS orthodoxy in fact revolve around using terms that don't actually match . is to put in orthodox POV. Sgactorny 01:36, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Hardly any dissidents???

List of dissidents, including PhDs, MDs, from all over the world...hundreds... Sgactorny 04:47, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

That is a good source. It would be inaccurate to refer to the purported mainstream view of AIDS as something approaching a consensus scientific view. zen master T 09:18, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Hey, I'd like to remind people that if you wish you can seek mediation from the mediation cabal, I won't be your mediator as I am involved (I locked the page), but I'm sure one of our competant mediators will be able to help you resolve your dispute. As an aside, please remember that the talk page of an article is for discussing the article in question, I don't see much of that going on. - FrancisTyers 10:41, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Insertion of unsourced material

Dear user S.G. Actor NY, please stop inserting POV material. If you want to legitimately edit this article you have to insert sourced claims. If you think Science did not call for a close examination of Duesberg's claims and that the article's author was "out to get" Duesberg, then you must find an actual source for that. This is not a matter of MY POV versus YOUR POV, it is a matter of neutrality, which is achieved by using external sources. Nrets 21:18, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Since you do not understand dissident or orthodox claims, you frequently use orthodox terms and don't even know it. Your insertion of an orthodox editorial, 8 pages long, is an attempt to discredit the AIDS reappraisal movement, isn't that right? Or are you going to pretend you are just putting it in there with no agenda? Admit your agenda, again...you already have before. You are here to censor dissidents as much as possible, and to promote your orthodox view about AIDS. And every sentence I wrote is referenced now. So stop inserting orthodox POV into this document, flawed as it already is. Sgactorny 22:02, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics