This article has had a scientific peer review which has now been archived.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.

WikiProject Alternative Views	(Rated B-Class, Mid-importance)	Alternative ViewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative ViewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative ViewsAlternative Views articles
v • d • e This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative Views, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.  B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.  Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

edit

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)

Q1: Why is this article so critical of its topic? Would it not be better to devote this article entirely to the whys and wherefors of the arguments disputing the material already presented in AIDS? A1: Wikipedia relies on reliable sources that have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. The Neutral point of view policy, especially the sections Undue weight and Equal validity, requires that editors not add their own editorial biases when writing text based on such sources. As the relevant academic field universally rejects the several hypotheses grouped under the umbrella of AIDS denialism, it would be a disservice to our readers to fail to report this as part of a full treatment of the topic. Further advice for how to treat topics such as this one may be found at the Fringe theories guideline. Q2: Why is the title of this article AIDS denialism. Why not AIDS dissent, AIDS reapprisal, or some similar term? A2: There are several alternative terms describing the same constellation of ideas. If a term receives significant coverage, it should be mentioned in the article and a redirect created. There can only be one title, though, which should be the most commonly used and recognized term. Whether and how a particular source is used is governed by Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Reliable sources (medicine-related articles)

[edit] Using the term "Denialist" is inherently biased

It lumps scientists who have alternative hypotheses with Holocaust "deniers".

Could a less-pejorative term be used? Perhaps "AIDS Alternative Hyphothesism", or something similarly neutral.

Sceptic is an accepted, neutral term used by the critics themselves. "Denial" means refusing to believe in truth, hence this term is implicitly biased and partial to one side of the debate. Geira (talk) 17:05, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree, the title of this article makes it a joke. There is no neutrality at all in the title. These people seem to have a theory that HIV/AIDS is not transmitted sexually, but that doesn't mean they are deniers or whatever. I don't see how such a POV article has gone unchallenged for so long.JettaMann (talk) 21:29, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Calling someone a "denier" already sets up battle lines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.14.154.3 (talk) 07:17, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Battle lines? No, the battle is over, although some people are denying that. Hence the term. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 19:11, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

The debate is not over unless both parties agree to end it. To claim you have won the argument is a partizan view, not appropriate for Wikipedia.Geira (talk) 17:35, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Please point out the scientists that have this alternative hypothesis and their foundation. From what little i've seen of this so far, those who deny the connection between HIV and AIDS have no science behind them and are not reliable evaluations.-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 19:02, 24 October 2008 (UTC) (forgot to log in previously)

Well, there's Peter_Duesberg. I'm really rather shocked at how non-neutral the terminology in this article is. Psychobunny2412 (talk) 19:24, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

There are others listed on [[1]], among them a Nobel Prize winner and several university professors. Are you claiming that those are not scientists? Geira (talk) 17:05, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

How about http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_of_American_Physicians_and_Surgeons#Journal_of_American_Physicians_and_Surgeons —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.176.28.39 (talk) 09:11, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Wow, this is the single most biased page I have ever read on Wikipedia. AIDS "denialists"?? Could you get more one-sided? I agree with one of the above posts- "AIDS: Alternative Hypotheses" is much more neutral. Articles should not be written like all of science agrees with the mainstream opinion, and that opinion is infallible. There have been countless times throughout history when the commonly-held opinion was proven wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.43.163.33 (talk) 15:16, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

• Claiming the eart is flat does not a debate make. It is "one-sided" since there is no "other side!" Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 15:28, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Just because something is held as truth by most of the scientific community, does not make it 100% true. Truth is not democratic. Of course there are things that are trivial to be proved as being true, that can be tested by any person without specialist equipment and knowledge. But the things that are very hard to prove, like HIV causing AIDS, or reality being better described by Newton's theory of gravity or by Einstein's theory of relativity, even if backed up by the entire scientific community, should not be considered fault proof. We should take truth as the authority and not authority as truth. In the movie Einstein and Eddington (2008) Einstein was considered by the scientific community to be a Isaac Newton denier, then anyone claiming his theory was flawed was considered an Einstein denier, then when Quantum Mechanics was proven right Einstein was again called a denier since he disagreed with it's findings. So I think that word is wrongly employed as it implies the wrong thing, and I urge the use of more appropriate words such as AIDS: Alternative Views. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.176.28.39 (talk) 09:26, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

There is most definitely another side to this debate, and they never, repeat never, call themselves "denialists." They are AIDS dissidents. "Denialist" is very one-sided. It is obvious to me that the Wiki AIDS community is heavily biased and this heading is proof. The main denial here is the active denial of the existence of any debate. Everyone here is ignorant of the claims made by dissidents, and proudly so. There are hundreds of scientists and medical doctors who dispute the HIV hypothesis for AIDS. Two of them are Nobel Laureates (yes in pertinent realms) and Peter Duesberg is consistently nominated for a Nobel prize for his cancer research (since the AIDS grants dried up when he stepped out of line with the HIV-as-cause theorists). AIDS dissidents are portrayed as crazy, and these discussion pages always devolve into slandering and debates on the issue instead of anything useful to the page, but when anyone brings up the dissident viewpoint, many "hey this isn't for deciding the issue"s are posted.

Beri-beri was thought to be contagious. It isn't - it's thiamin deficiency. Scurvy was thought to be contagious. It isn't - it's vitamin C deficiency. Pellagra was thought to be contagious. It isn't - it's niacin deficiency. SMON was thought to be a new, contagious virus. It isn't - it was caused by pharmaceutical drugs. Influenza was thought to be a bacteria, but they found out it's a virus. Childbed Fever was thought to be non-contagious. It wasn't - it was contagious, and doctors using unsanitary practices spread it.

Everyone is acting like nature is a democracy. It is not. We have been wrong before and are probably wrong now and will be wrong in the future. To act like we have it all figured out is the most amazing, idiotic hubris. The important thing is to keep debate open, listen to dissenting views, and dispute or synthesize with them using facts and studies. Period. It is precisely the circle-the-wagons approach that the AIDS orthodoxy takes to AIDS dissidents that fans the flames. All the ad hominems, all the silence, all the denial of study grants to people who dare propose studies that step out of line from the AIDS orthodoxy which is unscientific. Any Wiki community that steps in as an enforcer of the "democracy" of science, rather than an unbiased dealer of facts, is not worth anything except a laugh in the future. I'll get off my soapbox when people get off their soapboxes about flat-earthers and holocaust deniers.

The term "denialist" in entirely pejorative. In the south and the north of the US, many white folks called African-Americans... well we all know the N word. It's insulting. But southerners claimed it was simply an innocent descriptor. You guys think it was? But African-Americans requested that, out of respect, that word not be used by general society. True, some African-Americans eventually "reclaimed" the word, but only to take the pain and oppression out of the word. The point is, "denialist" is pure propaganda. No one denies the existence of AIDS. But dissidents do dispute the cause of AIDS. It's that simple. No one calls themselves a "denialist" - that word is meant to deride and invalidate, not to describe. It is used exclusively by those who disagree with AIDS dissidents, and was in fact invented by them. It brings to mind holocaust deniers, and is effective propaganda. Worst, it is an entirely incorrect descriptor. "AIDS denialists" do not deny AIDS! Haytham2 (talk) 22:54, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

The fact that scientists are sometimes wrong doesn't make them deniers. It doesn't even make them bad scientists. Science progresses when scientists take new data into account to formulate new theories. If a scientist sticks to his old, disproven theory, he denies the new evidence that points the way to a more accurate theory. When someone initially theorized that AIDS was caused by poppers, for example, it was certainly a tenable theory. But the actual facts now show that that theory was mistaken; the predicted correlations were not found when actual data was examined. Someone who prefers his theory to actual data has become a bad scientist and has certainly earned the title of "denier". - Nunh-huh 23:07, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Dissident is mentioned in the second sentence. The reliability-weighted preponderance of sources use denialism, so we follow that. - Eldereft (cont.) 23:34, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Sadly in the real world even scientists are human, and I highly recommend Thomas Kuhn's book, The Structure of Scientifc Revolutions, as a good illustration of how scientific paradigms shift from one to another. I wish the scientific method was followed exclusively, but the human politics of science doesn't let it play out like that. Cliques get and hold power, to the exclusion of genuine science. Speak with any research scientist for awhile. They'll surprise you.

I am interested to see which studies deny the correlation between poppers and AIDS, because published studies have not only established correlation but also causation between poppers and AIDS-defining diseases. You are mistaken. There are many published studies that dispute the HIV hypothesis's validity, and I recommend you scroll down from:

http://healtoronto.com/nih/

to peruse the links to those studies. I'm sure you would agree that Current Medical Research and Opinion Journal, Bio/Technology (now called Nature Biotechnology), and Emergency Medicine are all professional, reliable sources for published REAL science, not "pseudoscience." They are peer-reviewed, which generally means "not remotely pseudoscience."

In other words: these are collections of actual data, cemented by scientific reason. So who is denying these papers, if not the AIDS orthodoxy? I know of no AIDS dissident who doesn't refer to actual scientific data. Indeed, all the prominent dissidents I'm aware of are scientists who rely on papers. Look up the Padian study (Padian N, Shiboski S, Vittinghoff E, Glass S. Heterosexual transmission of HIV: Results from a ten year study. Am J Epidemiol 146:350-357, 1997) then try to explain how AIDS is an STD. The issue is NOT decided. Although many scientists have decided HIV is the cause, not all of them have. And the minority have peer-reviewed papers to back it up just as the majority does. And although Wiki treats science like a democracy, which it is not, Wiki certainly shouldn't be painting dissidents as psycho idiots by calling them "denialists." Sorry to spoil your tea party, but there is a debate still. It's just that it keeps getting shut down by the AIDS orthodoxy, which is distinctly unscientific behavior. And Wiki apparently? So widespread ignorant misuse of a word rubberstamps it? Haytham2 (talk) 00:39, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not going to spend a lot of time digging out references that you'll just ignore; have a look at [2], have a look at Kennedy, Edward, U.S. Senate, Chair Committee on Labor and Human Resources. "REPORT of the Committee on Labor and Human Resources." Comprehensive Alcohol Abuse, Drug Abuse, and Mental Health Amendments of 1988. Section 4015. 1988, or better yet do a medline search. If you stop getting your information from denialist sources, you can predicate your opinions on science rather than on books about the philosophy of science. And as pointed out, Wikipedia merely reflects labels given by others. - Nunh-huh 01:16, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Any assumption that the term "denialist" equals "psycho idiots" seems yo be your own. The term does in fact describe what AIDS denialists do, which is deny the well supported thesis that HIV causes AIDS. As has already been said, if you wish to see the use of this word change Wikipedia is not the place to do so. We report culture, we do not make it. Natalie (talk) 03:02, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

As I've pointed out before, NO ONE denies AIDS. No one. If you are especially attached to a propagandic term specifically invented to evoke holocaust deniers (which everyone here seems to be) then simply be accurate: HIV denial. There are some who deny HIV's existence, not surprising given the quality of science that supposedly proves that, and the rest call HIV a harmless passenger virus. But AIDS dissidents all deny that HIV causes AIDS. So "HIV denialist" would be accurate. I realize that using that term would rob you all of your invalidating power by painting someone who denies the reality of people dying from suppressed immunity, for whatever reasons. But the fact remains that both "psycho" and "idiot" are both very apt in describing how posters here feel about dissidents. In one discussion thread I read that dissidents should be roasted over a pit for all eternity. (I think the Christine Maggiore article). It's that kind of pure-orthodox there-is-no-debate "We just report culture" bias that made me think commenting here would be fruitless, as it has proved to be. At least I have the respect for discussion to not immediately change the article, as the AIDS orthodox mob has done consistently. There are articles about communism that do not simply deride communism as an idiotic position, because this is an educational tool, an encyclopedia. You would think an encyclopedia would not use values-heavy "F-off, debate over" terminology like "denialist" since there is no article about common usage "pinkos" (a word unironically broadcast daily on right-wing radio and TV) but rather what they prefer to be called "communists" or "socialists." No matter how many people communist governments have killed, their position in political science is treated as valid. Because that debate is not over either, although many people would like it to be. To eradicate the "communism" article in favor of one entitled "pinkos" is what happened when dissident went down the memory hole, to be replaced by "denialist."

Similarly, the "denialist sources" above merely point to articles originally published in peer-reviewed professional, scientific journals. That is not a "denialist" source. Such invalidation sounds like McCarthyism in its inherent mindlessness. Similarly, Kuhn's book is not about philosophy but about the actual practice of science, in reality, not as idealized by those trusting souls who don't practice it. I am already familiar with both sides of this issue, yet I can't say the same for others posting here. Instead of commenting on anything I have posted, you spew the same papers that are always spewed by "AIDS apologists." Perhaps those who believe that HIV is proven to cause AIDS should be called "AIDS apologists?" Dissidents wouldn't get on that train because it shuts off dialog, which is crucial in REAL science. Invite the crazies to say their peace. The more that is said, the more you can see what the issues are, what studies say. The term "denialist" is partisan, similar to the N word, or calling the AIDS orthodoxy "AIDS apologists." I know I'm pissing in the wind here with such single-minded folk, but the occasional lament that there are no "denialists" to comment on these matters I took as an invitation. My bad? Haytham2 (talk) 04:59, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

If the vast majority of economists and political scientists referred to communists as "pinkos" then, yes, that is what the Wikipedia article would be called. That is not the case, and thus the article is Communism. Your rant doesn't change the fact that the most common term used for this opinion or theory or whatever you want to call it is "AIDS denialism", and the policy and consensus on this encyclopedia is to use the most common term. If you want to have an effect, you need to either show that there is a more common term used or take your criticism to the sources themselves. Wikipedia is not the place to fight this battle. Natalie (talk) 05:16, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

"but the occasional lament that there are no "denialists" to comment on these matters I took as an invitation. " If you read the entire discussion, you will see that you are not the only person making this argument, unless you are one of the editors above no longer signed in. Unfortunately you have not actually addressed the issue and appear to either not understand or not care about the policies of this website. Natalie (talk) 05:18, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I am the only Wiki poster (that I know of) to ever identify myself as an AIDS reappraiser (another respectful, accurate term besides dissenter), the lack of which I have seen lamented in Wiki discussions. I have trouble with "common usage" being evoked where obvious "lack of faith" exists where this term "AIDS denialists" is concerned. Ah, if only the internet were around a couple centuries ago, where Wiki would (apparently?) have a heading called "[The N word]" and "common usage" would be invoked, racist theories defended on the [the N word] article, because that was the scientific consensus of the day, and all would shrug and go on upholding the status quo of the day. Consensus One, Truth Zero. Do you get my point? Intentional demonization of one side of a debate is antiscientific, to say the least, and certainly not consistent with any kind of respect for knowledge. "AIDS denialist" is in use in AIDS orthodoxy, a term specifically invented by that faction to libelously evoke holocaust deniers, rather than be a descriptor, where it fails miserably since literally no one "denies" AIDS (another intentional muddying of the waters by HIV theory proponents). I am new to Wiki and apologize for my slowness in getting that Wiki is not reflective of truth but rather of consensus, which has a long history of making tragic and fatal mistakes, and requires much less rigor, hence anyone can sign on here and take part. I assumed an encyclopedia would strive for truth rather than consensus. That was my mistake. This is why I suspected that this would be a waste of time for me, since I noticed an alarming lack of rigor in some Wiki articles I've seen. I will leave you to your consensus, as I see libel is all part of any groupthink/consensus ideology, and apparently none of us will profit from my posts calling anyone out on this. MastCell has messaged me specifically to tell me not to engage in "general" discussion, despite the fact that my sole criticism in every post I've made is the "lack of faith" in the term "AIDS denialist", which is singularly discouraging. Wiki is a wonderful experiment, gaining credibility every year, and I wish it the best when I return someday! <smiley face> Haytham2 (talk) 09:05, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

This is not a forum for general discussion, see WP:TALK. Wikipedia reflects common usage, and you'll have to change the common usage before you can change wikipedia. See WP:ADVOCACY. Also, see WP:No Legal Threats - do not use terms like libel. Verbal chat 10:39, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

• "Ah, if only the internet were around a couple centuries ago, where Wiki would (apparently?) have a heading called "[The N word]" and "common usage" would be invoked, racist theories defended on the [the N word] article, because that was the scientific consensus of the day, and all would shrug and go on upholding the status quo of the day." Yes, actually, we would. If Wikipedia had existed in 1750 its coverage of race would have reflected the racism of the day. Why is that so hard to believe? If you ever get the chance, pick up an encyclopedia from 200+ years ago and check out their article on, say, the Congo. (By the way, we do already have the article Nigger.)
• "Consensus One, Truth Zero." You are closer than you probably think. WP:Verifiability, not truth. We are not concerned with The Truth™ because we can't be - that isn't anything a group of mostly anonymous people on the internet can objectively determine. All Wikipedia is capable of doing is relaying the "truth" of various other groups.

You and some of the other people who have raised this issue in the last few days seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of the purpose of Wikipedia. This is not a place to advocate for a political position or a fringe theory. Dozens of new accounts show up everyday thinking that WP will make them famous, spread their neologism or catch phrase, legitimize their fringe political theory or legitimize their pseudoscience. All of these people are wrong, yourself included. If you are ever able to accept that, I for one invite you to return. Natalie (talk) 12:46, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

[edit] section break

I'm back! And why? All because of WikiProject Alternative Views! A good idea! If it was around in Aristarchus' day, there certainly would be more progress toward the idea that the earth goes around the sun, and not vice versa. I find the policy of simply defending whatever the dominant paradigm is to be both intellectually lazy, and a bit too wishy-washy relativist for my personal liking, but then some might say I am overly devoted to the scientific method, rather than guy-on-TV-said-so-ism. Sometimes common sense must come into play, instead of whatever our scientist-priests tell us, don't you think? I could go on and on about how all the reactionary defenders of AIDS orthodoxy here on Wiki would have just as insultingly attacked anyone like Aristarchus, who dared question the scientific consensus of his day, and kept science on the wrong paradigm for 1700 years, but that would be petty. In fact, the sole reason I came to Wiki was to cast legitimate doubt on the intentionally insulting and invalidating term "denialist." The discussions on Wiki are so willfully and proudly ignorant of AIDS dissidents and their work, that some people even drew laughable divisions between "denialists" and deissidents, as if there was any difference. All I wanted is to get rid of this insipid and inaccurate term "denialist" so that some semblance of a respectful discussion might exist. I didn't even change anything in a single article. Posting on the discussion page was enough for people to start saying I was on a soapbox, but my intent was merely to point out that rethinking AIDS is a legitimate scientific position, held by legitimate scientists, on a legitimate scientific basis, not pseudoscience, not sociopolitics, but on a scientific basis. So it is a science-versus-science debate, not science vs. pseudoscience, as the AIDS industry likes to portray it as. Every word of mine was to point out that the term denialist is NOT the right word to use, since it is both innacurate and intentionally invalidating and obfuscating. It's not using Wiki like an "AIDS-denialist blog" to point all this out. In fact, it's an important first step in WikiProject Alternative Views, to cover these views "without bias." Using the term "denialist" is HEAVILY biased. It is also wildly "misrepresenting" rethinkers. Am I correct in assuming nothing has changed here? This new movement is far more PR than anything else? Tell me now so I don't waste anyone's time.

And yes I know there is an entry on the N-word, but it accurately speaks of how it is a pejorative term, which is more than I can say about the word "denialist" bandied about here. And my point was that a 19th century Wiki would have upheld the violent racism of its day with its lazy pre-WikiProject Alternative Views consensus-parroting. As far as me coming here to "get famous"? Are you serious? With a pseudonym? (Haytham is not my real name, by the way). Did any moderators come and post on your page how you are supposed to "stick to the subject?" I somehow doubt this. By using the term "denialist", Wiki is misrepresenting the rethinkers/reappraisers/dissidents - who NEVER use that term to describe themselves - EVER. I think replacing the insulting term "denialist" to something *neutral* would be a step in the right direction, the goal of the project to strive towards more "neutrality." Haytham2 (talk) 10:38, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately for your argument, your saying that there is a "science-versus-science" dispute doesn't make it so. Also unfortunately, you seem to want Wikipedia to distort information by portraying denialist objections to scientific fact as scientifically based. We don't distort the 'sides" of an argument on WIkipedia to be "neutral"; instead we make sure that the depictions of each view reflect the relative levels of support for them. Please see WP:NPOV. Wikipedia is not the place to crusade for Aristarchus or for denialism; it's the place to accurately depict the current understanding of a subject. - Nunh-huh 10:53, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Your understanding of my argument is sketchy if you believe that I ever claimed that my mere say-so makes anything so. It is not how I characterize something, but the FACT that scientific studies, published in peer-reviewed professional scientific journals, are what dispute the HIV hypothesis. How else would you characterize that, beside science versus science? But you seem oblivious to this as well, and no one has responded to my above post about these studies either because (wild guess here) you know next to nothing about what dissidents believe, since you only consume biased media, which would stand to reason with your staunch defense of the biased insult "denialist." The WikiProject Alternative View seeks to redress this absurd oversight of Wiki philosophy by at least treating alternative views in a neutral manner. Calling dissidents "denialists" is not neutral. The game has changed. It has been recognized that Wiki can be very reactionary propaganda because of certain of its standards, HENCE the WikiProject that AIDS "Denialism" is now under. I am well aware of WP:NPOV. Please consult Wikipedia: WikiProject Alternative Views for a clearer understanding. I also suggest studying the claims of both the AIDS industry and actual AIDS dissidents if you truly strive towards an understanding of the controversy. Haytham2 (talk) 11:49, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

My understanding of your argument is just fine, thank you, it's your argument that's sketchy. Present your reputable supporting sources, if you care to; without them your "argument" is pointless. - Nunh-huh 12:09, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Please start paying attention. I have already presented my supporting sources. Scroll up, please. Thank you. Haytham2 (talk) 12:31, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I've already paid too much attention. Crusade on, and see how far this style of discourse gets you. - Nunh-huh 12:36, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, but I am already well aware of the mentality and bias of this community since a poster in an AIDS Wiki talk page has already publicly wished for dissenters ("denialists" (s)he called them) to be roasted on a spit for all eternity. This comment went entirely without comment or warning from any moderator.

It is inaccurate and probably intentionally dismissive of you to call a good faith effort to eliminate bias as per Wikipedia: WikiProject Alternative Views a "Crusade." and pardon me for expecting more from this community. But since you refuse to pay attention to a discussion you are actively taking part in, I will waste the bandwidth you request me to by reposting from above a study you should consult: (Padian N, Shiboski S, Vittinghoff E, Glass S. Heterosexual transmission of HIV: Results from a ten year study. Am J Epidemiol 146:350-357, 1997) Please stay on topic. Thank you. Haytham2 (talk) 13:02, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Haytham, I understood your point that "a 19th century Wiki would have upheld the violent racism of its day with its lazy pre-WikiProject Alternative Views consensus-parroting." - I already responded to it upthread. To repeat: You are exactly correct. A 200 year old encyclopedia would (and does, they are still extant) reflect the racial attitudes of the time in which they were written. I don't understand why you think this is surprising or some kind of dynamite argument for your cause. Note, also, that I did not say you were trying to get famous. That sentence contains the word "or", meaning that not all of the clauses apply to you. And incidentally, I am not using a pseudonym.

If you want to argue this point about the term "denialist" I have two suggestions. Respond to points that people are actually making, for starters. And base your arguments on actual evidence rather than 3500 bytes of logical fallacies. Natalie (talk) 12:52, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

So is Haytham's account of WikiProject Alternative Views an accurate summary of its raison d'être? If so this wikiproject sounds very worrying indeed. Needless to say, I still think, as does the preponderance of WP:RS, that the title of this article, and use of the term "AIDS denialist," is appropriate and meets NPOV, etc. Verbal chat 14:03, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Natalie, I apologize for saying you accused me of seeking fame here on Wiki with a pseudonym, I should have said "intentionally implied" instead, which any reasonable reader would infer from what you wrote. And I am interested in knowing which logical fallacies you claim I employ here. The logical fact remains is that humans are not robots, and humans are inherently biased, as are human endeavors. I think it is an impressive attempt to rise above this and to try and portray both sides of a controversies in an unbiased way, as much as possible. The fact is that this article, indeed all AIDS dissidence articles on Wiki, are heavily biased through one main tactic: the employment of the pejorative term "denialist" used to describe the politically weaker side of this scientific debate. Yes, it is true that the preponderance of AIDS industry professionals use a biased and insulting term to describe those they consider their enemies. If I disagreed with someone, and refused to debate the issue, as so many AIDS apologists do, should I simply not call them by the names they go by, "Frank" for example, and instead call them "puppy-fucker"? That would be insulting, inaccurate and obfuscating. The fact that Frank does not fuck puppies would be ignored if Frank was unpopular enough, and his protests in favor of respectful dialog would go unheeded. The fact that everyone here seems to support using an intentionally obfuscating and inaccurate term like "denialists" speaks more to the wish to propagandize in one certain way, rather than call everyone what they want to be called, as well as should *accurately* be called. - My point about how typically reactionary Wiki can be, vis a vis the N-word, is to point up that Wiki is not a moral soapbox, yet some of the posters on AIDS dissident entries have called for the importance of defending against the evil menace of "denialist" thought. Which is also absurdly biased. I don't think this is unbiased - it is unacceptable as per the guidelines of Wikipedia: WikiProject Alternative Views Verbal, click on that link for more information - its aims are stated clearly. Thank you. :)

The fact remains that the AIDS industry supporters here are entirely ignorant of the claims made by dissidents is absurdly biased. I am well versed in what the AIDS industry claims. As well I should be, being a part of such a debate.Haytham2 (talk) 00:15, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that us "AIDS industry supporters" are necessarily ignorant of denialist claims. For instance, I'm familiar with both Nancy Padian's work and with the twisted misrepresentations and out-and-out lies propagated about it by AIDS denialists. I don't think you really understand the concept of bias, at least as it applies here. One idea is supported by thousands of scientific papers as well as every reputable scientist and medical body in the world. The other is the province of a shrinking handful of discredited zealots. It would be biased to pretend that there is a real scientific debate here. It would be biased to pretend that these two ideas are on anything like an equal footing. Any truly unbiased presentation will make clear the relative weights assigned these two views by experts in the field.

The fact that AIDS denialists consider this article "biased" is, to my mind, a reasonable confirmation that we're fulfilling the project's goals. I'd be much more concerned if an AIDS-denialist agenda account was happy with this article's presentation of the concept. MastCell ^Talk 04:21, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

The goals of Wikipedia: WikiProject Alternative Views are simply not being met in these entries dealing with AIDS dissidence, which is specifically why this WikiProject has under its heading all these entries. The fact that you think (or at least it sounds like it to me) that you believe this article, indeed any article, is "unbiased" betrays your lack of understanding of the concept of bias. There is no way to include all information on any given topic. Some facts are included, some are left out. Included data is arranged in certain ways. Certain words are chosen over others. These are all steps that erode the perfect neutrality that is ideally sought. So no, there is no such thing as an unbiased report or article, period. Any other belief can only be described as self-serving delusion. If you are familiar with Padian's ten-year study on seroconversion, then you are well-aware of the results of the study. However Padian chooses to misrepresent her own work, and however she futilely tries to explain away the fact that not one HIV- person became HIV+ while regularly having unprotected sex with their HIV+ partner over the entire 10 years, is propagandic work I am not interested in, since the facts speak loudly for themselves. After all, if she stated the obvious about her own study, her research funds would dry up. Perhaps you are one of those trusting people that believe that research science is an industry magically free from politics? Maybe you also believe that the judicial branch is a politics-free zone? There are certainly those happy souls who cling to those reassuring beliefs. But a "shrinking" group of "zealots"? That is yet another blatant lie. In fact, the Group for the Scientific Reappraisal of the HIV/AIDS Hypothesis has a roster of signatories, and that list has been growing constantly for years. People take their names off from time to time, because the social and political pressures against publicly dissenting against the AIDS industry is enormous. In fact, as any reasonable person would realize, those that bravely sign onto that organization are in the minority, the tip of the iceberg, most people (such as myself) couldn't hope to retain any professional credibility in the face of overwhelming ignorance on the subject and the scientific McCarthyism it engenders. In fact, there are 2,641 dissenters listed on their official website. Note (before this portion of this post is erased) how many of them are MDs and PhDs, or otherwise professionals who might have some level of authority: http://www.rethinkingaids.com/quotes/rethinkers.htm I wouldn't have mentioned or posted any of this, but I am merely responding to your mistaken impression of the state of AIDS dissidence, and you did specifically askbeing to get people to respect Wiki's decision to enact the Wikipedia: WikiProject Alternative Views, and realize that using a pejorative term to describe the lesser politically powerful side of this scientific debate is neither acting neither "fairly" nor "without bias." (those are the WikiProject's words in quotes, not mine). I suggest taking this WikiProject into serious and honest consideration, since Wiki has decided not only to enact it but to bring all the entries dealing with AIDS dissidence under its heading. Thank you. Haytham2 (talk) 07:24, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

This article is neutral. If these are the aims of this project then it should be investigated and shuut down if its goals are to destroy NPOV. However, it could be that Haytham2 is misrepresenting the project, and there is a lack of support for his biased views here by members of the project. Verbal chat 07:35, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Verbal, I urge you to to click on the project's link and read it for yourself. This article is not neutral specifically because it refers to the minority side of the debate, using solely an inaccurate, pejorative term. That is neither fair nor unbiased. Please acquaint yourself with the project. Its aims are admirable, to bring respect to the minority side as well, which is the best way scientific truth can be striven for. Science has such an embarrassing history of completely false ideas that the orthodox clung to, at times for purely political reasons, that I think it is still a valid way to portray scientific issues openly and as un-propagandically as possible. I also agree with its aims to note the relative strength of support of each side. Don't take my word for it: click Wikipedia: WikiProject Alternative Views. Thank you. Haytham2 (talk) 07:46, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Haytham, I "intentionally implied" nothing, and I respectfully suggest that you check your bad faith at the door. I meant exactly what I said - reread it if you are unclear on what that was. Among your logical fallacies, you continue to conflate scientific consensus with racism, for what I assume is an attempt at guilt by association. You also appear to believe that, since scientific research has not been 100% correct historically, your particular view is de facto true. Your frequent use of the term "AIDS industry supporters" to refer to everyone who disagrees with you here is poisoning the well.

As far as Alternative Views WikiProject is concerned, they have no power to set policy or override long consensus. The guidelines posted on their page outline the purpose of the project, not Wikipedia policy. That said, I believe you have misjudged their purpose. I think if you invite them to join the conversation here, you will find that they have a different view of our policies that you do. Natalie (talk) 13:04, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Let's call a spade a spade: as much as one valiantly strives towards neutrality, one is in fact supporting the AIDS industry by using the term "denialist". That is not even debatable, but fact, as unseemly as it sounds. Thank you for mentioning poisoning the well, Natalie. I didn't want to be the first to mention it. That is precisely what is happening by Wiki choosing to use the term "denialist" at all. And to correct you: I never said that BECAUSE so many orthodox scientific views were wrong, therefore my particular view is correct - I never stated nor implied any such causation. I was merely pointing out the proven, lethal habitual failings of science taken as dogma, in order to remind you that not all scientific orthodoxies are correct, in order keep the reader's mind open, since what I have seen here mostly is a remarkable ignorance on AIDS dissident's viewpoints. All my posts have been in direct response to other posts, after all. Haytham2 (talk) 23:03, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

It is unfortunate that the term "denialist" has such negative connotations, but it remains the most accurate word for what is described in this article. If those who dislike the term "denialist" can come up with an alternative, then obviously it should be considered, but so far no viable alternative has been suggested. The word "dissenter" does not quite work, IMO, because a dissenter is usually someone who belonged to a certain organisation and then broke away from it. -- 41.208.48.176 (talk) 17:55, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you on "dissenter"; I disagree that "denialist" can be changed simply by those who dislike it providing an alternative. On Wikipedia, we use the term used in reliable sources. Recent reliable sources use "denialist". Other terms occasionally used are also mentioned in the article. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 20:55, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Hyatham2, I'd really hope you'd realize that it's a waste of your time to keep on beating this extremely dead horse. I'll try to follow through in a very simple, logical train of thought: The neutral point of view is the honest reporting of the significant views that have been presented by reliable sources. Supportors of fringe science cannot be reliable authors or publishers on fringe topics. These points are held by most of the editors who maintain this page, and arbitration hearings on similar matters on other pages have fallen in favor of the idea that pushing the fringe point of view (as defined on Wikipedia) is disruptive. This means that most active editors as well as the higher ups support the idea that the mainstream scientific POV is the only significant POV on most fringe topics. And that means that the terms used to describe AIDS denialists (or whatever you call them) will be the terms used in mainstream scientific publications. Now, you seem to come off more as a crusader for the AIDS denialist community than someone actually concerned with NPOV. If you are concerned with NPOV, here is a very simple reason, given the preceding, that you are wasting your breath: The prevailing consensus amongst editors, administrators, and arbitrators on Wikipedia is that the fringe point of view is insignificant. You will not achieve a change on this page because the consensus is that on a fundamental level fringe publications are not reliable, and so fringe views can never be significant. And if you are a crusader, this should convince you that you're preaching to the same evil conspirators that want you to keep quiet out in the real world, so wherever the salvation for AIDS denialism lies, it's definitely not on Wikipedia. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:27, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Someguy1221, Thank you but I am already aware of all you have posted (scroll up). So what of Wikipedia: WikiProject Alternative Views? Is it mere public relations? It is precisely my interest in NPOV which first got me involved here, but I am also interested in this WikiProject, which alters things slightly. I shouldn't have to quote from its page, since I link to it so often, correct? Please review its scope, goals and motivations and ask yourself honestly if calling dissidents "denialists" is in any way "fair" or "unbiased." True, I have admitted candidly that I am an AIDS dissident, while many people have either candidly owned up to believing the AIDS orthodoxy, and some might even honestly believe they have no bias. I am simply honest on that point (I wish more people were candid/self-aware as to their bias) and I am not particularly concerned with how I "come off" since my aim is to provide constructive input here, in good faith. I have a major problem with the pejorative "denialist" for reasons I have repeatedly expressed, and no one has answered these concerns in light of Wikipedia: WikiProject Alternative Views, a WikiProject which I feel validate these concerns. Thank you. Haytham2 (talk) 09:05, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

The existence of a wikiproject validates nothing, and you are misrepresenting the view of the project its members (apart from one). Verbal chat 09:25, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

In its own words, Wikipedia: WikiProject Alternative Views is involved in "describing not just the dominant view, but significant alternative views as well, fairly, proportionately, and without bias. Because alternative views lack the widespread acceptance enjoyed by dominant views, fewer editors know or care about them, and this imbalance puts alternative views at risk of neglect, misrepresentation, and a level of coverage not in keeping with their relative notability. This project aims to counter that tendency by facilitating collaboration among interested editors." as it says under its Motivation. The "AIDS Denialism" is a perfect example of a significant alternative view, and in fact now has this WikiProject's heading over it. Calling dissidents "denialists" is an intentional misrepresentation, just as is calling someone named Frank "Jessica" or some other inaccurate pejorative. Do you see my point? I also know about this subject, and care to improve it. I have the respect to take my concerns up herre in the discussion page and have never changed any article whatsoever, even in the smallest detail. I am not misrepresenting the project, and am curious as to how you even got this idea, Verbal. Please explain. Thank you. Haytham2 (talk) 10:05, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Haytham, if you believe the members of the WikiProject would support your position, I again suggest that you invite them to join this conversation. Natalie (talk) 03:16, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't want to enter this discussion, except to note that "no one denies AIDS" (as stated by Haytham2 above) is wrong. Stefan Lanka (to take one example) did exactly that, and quite likely would accept being called an "AIDS Denialist." Born Gay (talk) 07:23, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Haytham is right, "AIDS denialist" is a misleading term, as no one denies AIDS, only that HIV causes AIDS. And the term denialist is wrong. The fact is that HIV still has not been isolated, and that HIV tests do not prove the existence of HIV in the blood, only of antibodies to HIV, which are often cross-contaminated with other cultures. In fact, in spite of scientists' claims to the contrary, no HIV has ever been found. So what scientists are denying is the existence of HIV, not of AIDS. Mister Hospodar (talk) 05:38, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Already discussed in a RFC

See Talk:AIDS_denialism/Archive_8#RfC_on_AIDS_denialism --Enric Naval (talk) 22:41, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm an "HIV Believer" but this may get the prize for wikipedia's most polemical, biased article. I came here looking for a sober description of the "other side" of the argument, and found a hatchet job. Of course words like "denier" and "denialist" are biased. This article is typical of the modern epidemic of confusing science with activism. As a reader, I'm simply extremely disappointed. The whole thing needs a rewrite from scratch, by editors who can approach it encyclopaedically, rather than as a chance to attack their perceived ideological enemies.82.71.30.178 (talk) 15:30, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

You'll have to take up your complaints with the writers of the sources for the article, rather than with Wikipedia's editors. The neutral point of view requires the article to reflect reliable sources, and not to describe a subject as the subject itself would prefer. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:15, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Pseudoscience Category

I feel strongly that this article should be moved away from the pseudoscience category, as it does fulfill any of WIkipedia's requirements of pseudoscience. Wikipedia states:

Other things usually should not be called pseudoscience on Wikipedia:

Alternative theoretical formulations: Alternative theoretical formulations from within the scientific community, such as Modified Newtonian Dynamics as opposed to dark matter, are not pseudoscience, but part of the scientific process. Such theoretical formulations may fail to explain some aspect of reality, but, should they succeed in doing so, will usually be rapidly accepted. For instance, the theory of continental drift had quite a lot of evidence, but was heavily criticised because there was no known mechanism for continents to move, and thus such evidence was dismissed. When such a mechanism was discovered, it became mainstream as plate tectonics.

To determine whether something falls into the category of pseudoscience or merely an alternative theoretical formulation, consider this: Alternative theoretical formulations generally tweak things on the frontiers of science, or deal with strong, puzzling evidence which it is difficult to explain away, in an effort to create a model that better explains reality. Pseudoscience generally proposes changes in basic scientific laws or reality in order to allow some phenomenon which the supporters want to believe occurs, but lack the strong scientific evidence that would justify such major changes. Pseudoscience usually relies mainly on weak evidence, such as anecdotal evidence or weak statistical evidence at just above the level of detection, though it may have a few papers with positive results, for example: parapsychology and homeopathy.

"AIDS denialists" are not proposing a new form of science based on non-scientific methods, they are merely disputing that the claims that other scientists make, and these disputes arise ENTIRELY from science. In fact, "AIDS denialists" claim that MAINSTREAM scientists are not using science correctly. In fact, all they are doing is asking for scientific proof of what the mainstream scientific community insists exists but can't verify.

Mister Hospodar (talk) 01:49, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

No, AIDS denialism in its current form is not part of science, nor an "alternative formulation". Perhaps back in 1986 a reasonable person could be skeptical about HIV as the cause of AIDS... perhaps. But with the evidence available today, it takes an enormous amount of willful rationalization, selective belief, and denialism to believe that HIV does not cause AIDS. The idea is not taken seriously by the scientific community. As to whether it's "pseudoscience", I don't really care. It's more trouble than it's worth to fight about the label. I'd be fine with removing the category, because categories aren't meant to make a point - they're just meant to help navigate articles. I think this indisputably belongs in Category:Denialism, on the basis of available reliable sources, but I would be fine with either keeping or removing Category:Pseudoscience. MastCell ^Talk 04:23, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

AIDS denialism is pseudoscience. All reliable sources that have weighed in on the subject state that no available data support AIDS denialism. No primary research has been published to support AIDS denialism. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 15:56, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Agree, AIDS denialism isn't an alternative view to the mainstream scientific opinion the same way creationism isn't an alternative view to evolution. Pseudoscience is appropriate. Sources - [3], [4], [5]. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 21:58, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Yes, categories are to aid in navigation, and that's why it's important to categorize this article properly, so that people researching AIDS, AIDS denialism, denialism in general or pseudoscience in general can find it. Nightscream (talk) 23:50, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Membership of Perth Group

The following information in this article, "AIDS Denialism", has no source and is factually incorrect: 'Organizations of AIDS denialists include the "Perth Group", composed of two Australian hospital workers.'

The Perth Group states at its website, http://www.theperthgroup.com/aboutpg.html, that it originally had three members and that its membership has varied over the years. There is no statement anywhere that it has two members or ever had. Since the incorrect information in the article has no source, I will remove it. I have no problem with other aspects of the article, but it cannot retain this mistaken and unsourced claim. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.48.117.135 (talk)

[edit] Reverts

Here is the revert claiming I introduced grammatical errors. Can we take the changes I made, point by point? For example I prefer 'is the view' to 'refers to the view'. I removed "The causative role of HIV in the development of AIDS has been established by multiple lines of evidence as a subject of scientific consensus." as barbaric. For example 'causative role' is superfluous. Use 'role'. 'Estimates' do not attribute, people attribute. And so on. Please do not roll back many different changes. Thanks. The Rationalist (talk) 15:45, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

PS I had another go, replacing the clumsy "The causative role of HIV in the development of AIDS has been established by multiple lines of evidence as a subject of scientific consensus." with "There is a large amount of evidence supporting the scientific consensus that HIV causes the development of AIDS". Simplicity = beauty. The Rationalist (talk) 21:30, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

There's a tag at the top of this talk page that says this:

This is a controversial topic that may be under dispute. Please discuss substantial changes here before making them, making sure to supply full citations when adding information, and consider tagging or removing uncited/unciteable information.

The reason people were reverting was because that has gotta be the most important sentence in the article. Your new wording is quite muddling. Also the two refs attached to that sentence don't say that, they support the former wording. JoeSmack ^Talk 21:51, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

The two sentences say entirely different things, and the thing that needs to be said in an article on AIDS denialism is that it is an established scientific fact that HIV causes AIDS, rather than that there's "a large amount of evidence" that HIV causes AIDS. - Nunh-huh 21:55, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Also your grammatical changes change the weight of the wording considerably. JoeSmack ^Talk 21:57, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with JoeSmack and Nunh-huh. I also find it somewhat irking when a user accuses others of using poor grammar while introducing phrases such as "There is considerable scientific evidence about". As for The Rationalist's various edits (earlier and today):

• "AIDS denialism" (as in the PHRASE) refers to a set of beliefs or views. There's nothing wrong with this phrasing.
• "held by loosely connected group of individuals and organizations" is poor grammar.
• "There is considerable scientific evidence about" is wrong. There is evidence for or against, not about.
• The Rationalist's edits remove wikilinks from the lead, such as to denialism and scientific consensus. Why?
• "predominantly" is replaced with "mostly"...why?
• "the scientific community" was removed. Why?

Several editors have now weighed in against the changes. There seem to be two major issues, one being accuracy and the other being personal preference. Re: the latter, I would urge The Rationalist to consider that while "simplicity = beauty", beauty is also in the eye of the beholder. (And some people happen to like long wikilinks and semi-colons!) Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 22:11, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

As long as I've weighed in against some of the changes, let me say that the one that absolutely makes sense to me is removing "refers". There's no need to make a use–mention distinction here. But the removal of "refers to" doesn't necessitate changing the rest of the sentence. "AIDS denialism is the view...." etc. Some rewording may be needed, but it would be better to discuss it rather than go back and forth in the article. - Nunh-huh 22:50, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Replying:

1. Mastcell [6] has replaced the deeply offending sentence with one that is much better, which disposes of one problem. I am puzzled how 'conclusive' might differ from 'scientifically conclusive' but that is a quibble.
2. I object, like 'Nunh-huh' to 'AIDS denialism refers to'. Obviously the term, not the thing is meant, but encyclopedia articles shouldn't begin 'snow refers to a form of frozen water' or 'William Pitt refers to a former British prime minister'. I propose to change that one back.
3. There are other problems but will leave for now.

The Rationalist (talk) 18:08, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Emphasis needs to be placed on the lack of questions about the cause of AIDS among real scientists - is there any reason not to use something as strong or stronger than "It is the scientific consensus that HIV causes AIDS"?

"Refers to" probably depends on the grammatical form of the page's subject - I'd use it for verbs perhaps, not nouns. I could go either way here.

Also, is AIDS denialism a "set of beliefs" (current) or "the promotion of the idea that HIV does not cause AIDS that is held by a loosely-connected group of individuals throughout the world" (proposed). Beliefs that aren't advertised are essentially invisible, it's the associated activities that are relevant. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 00:49, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't know why my word 'view' was changed to 'set of beliefs'. Surely there is only one view in question, namely that AIDS is caused by a virus. There may be shades of opinion within that single view (e.g. as to whether HIV exists at all), but it is a single view for all that. Also, why is it called 'AIDS denialism'? Who invented this term? Why isn't it 'HIV denialism'? The denialists don't deny the existence of a syndrome or disease. They deny that this is caused by a virus.The Rationalist (talk) 08:03, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

The article is not very specific (apart from the enormous list that appears after the introduction) about the reasons AIDS denialists hold their view, or about the arguments for and against the view. I have now read around the subject. Duesberg's argument is that casual sex and particularly drug use is responsible for the syndrome. He believes in the existence of HIV but argues it is a 'passenger'. In order to defend this there are a number of important counter-examples he must deal with, including the difficulty that the proposed cause of the syndrome, according to him, does not exist in Africa, namely drug use. But there appears to be a huge epidemic of AIDS in Africa. Accordingly, Duesberg explains the African variety of the syndrome as being something else. There are also other problems, such as the Thailand epidemic, and the haemophiliac phenomenon. None of this is dealt with sufficiently in the article. The article, in my view, should explain carefully the view, and the variations of it, explain the reasons this view is held, and the reasons why these are not taken seriously in the scientific community.

Here are the arguments which, according to Richard Strohman, Duesberg used in his article "Retroviruses as Carcinogens and Pathogens: Expectations and Reality"

1. There is HIV infection and low or no risk of AIDS; therefore, something other than HIV must be involved.
2. The long latent period between infection and clinical disease is inconsistent with the short generation time of retroviruses which is only 24­48 hours and with everything known about experimental retroviral disease. AIDS remains as the only claimed retroviral disease outside of the laboratory!
3. The levels of actual HIV found in the blood of AIDS patients is too low to account for observed loss of immune function.
4. There is no animal model for AIDS.
5. HIV is not directly cytocidal; it does not kill T cells.

Shouldn't these be included? I also looked at this [7] which is a MUCH better article summarising the reasons why AIDS denialists have got it wrong. I.e. it explains to someone who is not an expert (me) in clear and non-technical language, the evidence for HIV being the cause of AIDS. The article here explains hardly any of this. The Rationalist (talk) 08:36, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Please see the previous discussions on this talk page about why it's called "AIDS denialism" and not "HIV denialism".

About the article itself: the subject of this article is AIDS denialism; it is not meant to be a point-by-point explanation of the scientific evidence for the existence of HIV and AIDS. Nor is this talk page to be used for a "but, gee, I'm just asking questions" repetition of denialist arguments. There are plenty of blogs for you to visit if you want that sort of debate, and I urge you to find them. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 15:09, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. The important issue is that there are reliable sources pointing out that denialism occurs, and that they're wrong. A point-by-point rebuttal is inappropriate, per WP:IINFO and WP:UNDUE. In discussing angels, we don't have a loving discussion of the number that can dance on the head of a pin before labelling them fictional. Nor do we need to discuss the hand-waving by a minority to push their point. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 19:05, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

It would be useful to understand why AIDS denialists believe what they do, particularly when some of them have credentials. It would be more persuasive if it presented their views, and reasons why scientific consensus does not agree with them. The current article does not inform me about the debate in any way, and is poorly written to boot. Also, some of you seem to be implying I am an AIDS denialist. Why is this? The Rationalist (talk) 20:01, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

There are two schools of thought about the article. One school holds that the article should explain, point by point, what the AIDS denialists claim, and then offer point-by-point rebuttals of why these claims are considered ignorant nonsense by the scientific community. Personally, I see two problems with that approach. First of all, it creates the appearance of a scientific debate where there is, in fact, none. Secondly, it's very difficult to pull off without descending into original research and synthesis. Inevitably, the AIDS-denialist blogosphere contains newer claims which, while scientifically unfounded, have not yet been rebutted by the National Institutes of Health, who presumably have more pressing matters to attend to rather than proving again that the Earth is indeed round. So these claims either go un-rebutted (lending them a false air of correctness or at least sanity), or else they are rebutted through original synthesis.

A second school of thought is that numerous respectable sources already exist which outline both AIDS denialist claims and the reasons they are considered incorrect. We link those sources, so that an interested party can read them (I assume you found the AVERT site through links from this article). We don't need to re-fight the argument here. More to the point, AIDS denialism is a sociopolitical rather than a scientific phenomenon - it is beneath notice on a scientific level, but has obviously had a major impact in some nations in a political context. Presumably, our article should reflect this by weighting its coverage to the sociopolitical rather than scientific aspects of the subject - that's where the good sources are anyway. MastCell ^Talk 04:32, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Well put MastCell. JoeSmack ^Talk 05:29, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Seconded. The parallels to creationism are again interesting and quite clear. Evidence for the existence of AIDS should be in the AIDS article (which I'm pretty sure - yup, we link to). You've no consensus for your suggestions Rationalist, please don't beat the dead horse any more. Perhaps discuss on Talk:AIDS whether there's merit to a proof of AIDS article. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 12:53, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] HIV dissent

An article HIV dissent was recently created as an apparent POVfork of AIDS denialism. Please to be discussing the merger of these two articles. - 2/0 (cont.) 05:03, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Ugh, this is the result of a long debate over at Talk:HIV. It is very much a POV fork. JoeSmack ^Talk 05:08, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

None of the content seems usable. All of the claims in the article appear to be referenced by unreliable or outdated sources, except those that are not referenced at all or are synthesized. I'd recommend deleting the page outright, but I'll wait to hear what others watching this page think. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:10, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Related though not identical discussions at #Proposal: split Aids denialism and HIV denialism into two articles and Talk:AIDS denialism/Archive 8#Incorrect and misleading use of the term AIDS dissident versus AIDS denialist. - 2/0 (cont.) 05:16, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Textbook WP:POVFORK. It's a rewrite of the same material from a single editor's point of view, and an end-run around the consensus-building process. I've redirected it here. I think it should remain as such pending further discussion, especially given the weight of opinion expressed here thus far. MastCell ^Talk 05:18, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

This is not a POV fork. This article includes verifiable information that is not covered by AIDS denialism. It is the beginning of an article, not a fully complete article. However, the information contained in it is not duplicated in the denialism article. It has been made very clear that the information contained in HIV dissent is not welcome in AIDS denialism.

Furthermore, AIDS and HIV are not the same thing. AIDS denialism has many political implications regarding Africa in particular. HIV dissent does not duplicate that information, nor is it an attempt to do so. I would request that you look at the difference from an unbiased POV, and reappraise your dismissal of the information. Just because you don't agree with it, does not mean it is not worthy of inclusion in an article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Neuromancer (talk • contribs) 05:24, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I think you've actually illustrated the problem with your edits quite well. You say that "it has been made very clear that the information contained in HIV dissent is not welcome" here. In other words, a consensus of editors feels that the information is unencyclopedic. If you feel otherwise, then the correct approach is to try to convince those editors that the material should be welcome here, ideally with reference to Wikipedia's content policies. The incorrect approach is to take material which has been rejected by consensus and stuff it into a new article. The material hasn't become any more encyclopedic, plus you've tried to make an end-run around the way Wikipedia is supposed to work, which ends up irking people. MastCell ^Talk 05:33, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Note: some of this debate started on Talk:HIV_dissent. JoeSmack ^Talk 05:50, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

The information is well within the WP policies for content. It is verifiable, it is referenced, it is written from an unbiased POV, unlike AIDS denialism. It includes information that does not fall under the purview of AIDS denialism. The problem here stems from the idea that HIV and AIDS are indistinguishable, which is clearly the POV on the HIV article. The content under HIV dissent is not duplicated in either HIV or AIDS denialism and is worthy of encyclopedic inclusion. You don't have to agree with the information, but the information that I have included thus far is verifiable, peer reviewed, and presented in an unbiased fashion. Neuromancer (talk) 06:03, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps after reviewing Wikipedia:Reliable sources (medicine-related articles) you may wish to use the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. JoeSmack ^Talk 07:06, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I fully support the merge of the POV fork into this article, per all above (apart from Neuromancer). Verbal chat 13:46, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

(unindent)...and Alternative_HIV_viewpoints has been created by Neuromancer, the same material as he put in HIV dissent before it was redirected to AIDS denialism. JoeSmack ^Talk 15:39, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I believe that would make the new article an excellent candidate for speedy deletion. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 16:02, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

How so? It seems to me that this is censorship, not good editing. Neuromancer (talk) 16:27, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

No he means Wikipedia:Csd#General, G4 "Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion". No one is censoring you, you're certainly getting to say your piece. ;) JoeSmack ^Talk 16:44, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, seeing as how it was not deleted per a deletion discussion, but rather reverted to the forward that existed prior to me creating the article, while a current rfc and discussion were taking place... I am not worried about it. The article wasn't deleted, it was forwarded. Consensus cannot be reached in 24 hours. The article is more appropriately entitled Alternative HIV Viewpoints than HIV dissent, and since it was a forwarded page 3 days ago, it can remain a forwarded page. The information contained on the page is not duplicitous, it is researched, it is verifiable, and it is unbiased. It presents information without drawing a conclusion, and instead allows the reader to draw their own conclusions. Still a work in progress, perhaps it will remain up for more than 3 hours so that I can continue editing it. Neuromancer (talk) 16:53, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Recreating the same article under a different name is still recreating an article, and it is a violation of policy. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 17:05, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Just in regards to that last sentence, perhaps consider moving it to your own userspace and editing it until you feel it is just right. Like this, User:Neuromancer/sandbox. Create that, bring your work in, and work it until you feel it is at its best before putting it back in article space. That's totally kosher. JoeSmack ^Talk 17:09, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

That would be fine if Neuromancer is actively working toward creating an article that is encyclopedic according to this site's policies (which would involve building consensus about the wording with other editors). On the other hand, userspace is not intended to be a repository to archive "preferred" versions of disputed content. MastCell ^Talk 04:39, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Concerns

I feel that this page is being presented from a biased POV. Everyone talks about consensus, yet the information provided in the article has an obvious slant toward the derogatory and pejorative. Citations are not peer reviewed. Potential valid arguments are not presented. etc, etc.

I understand that there are points of view that the editors may not agree with, however, that does not mean they are not worthy of inclusion. The proper way to present a sensitive topic is to present all points of view, and allow a reader to draw their own conclusions. Censoring information regarding a topic is just that. Neuromancer (talk) 02:24, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Your concerns are unwarranted. We do not present absurd views as though they were plausible; our intent is to educate our readers, not misinform them. And presenting absurd views as absurd is not censorship. Please see Wikipedia:Fringe theories and Wikipedia:Reliable sources and undue weight. -- Nunh-huh 03:10, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

It is your opinion that my views are absurd. I respect that. However, as I have said in previous postings, give me information that contradicts what I have presented. Then present both points of view, and allow readers to draw their own conclusions. Neuromancer (talk) 03:22, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Neuro, you keep on saying that we don't agree with the POV and thus we don't think it's worthy of inclusion. This is not true. Additionally, no one is censoring you or the article. The real reason things are presented the way they are is because of wikipedia policies and guidelines. It would be of the utmost help if you could present a sentence that you think needs to be changed so we can focus on constructive discussion. Or say 'this journal, I don't think it is peer reviewed'. Specifics neuro, specifics. JoeSmack ^Talk 03:13, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

No matter how often you claim POV, and no matter how many different ways you try to phrase things, the answer is not going to change: fringe theories are not given equal weight as established scientific consensus. You have been told this on the talk pages of many different articles, including this one. How many times do we have to tell you this before you stop? TechBear | Talk | Contributions 03:17, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I will not stop. I will find a way to present information that I, as well as others, feel is important and valid. Just because you have a little cabal going, does not mean I will give up. There have been others who agree with me, and they have lost interest in fighting with you. I will not give up, and as others who share my viewpoints arrive, we will stand together as the existing cabal has done to make a change that we feel is in the best interest of the Wiki and the world. Only the best of intentions on my part. Neuromancer (talk) 03:21, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to echo what Joe said above. Please provide concrete examples from the article of POV violating sentences. Most of the content on this article has been subjected to extreme scrutiny by many editors, and there is a strong consensus that it accurately represents the views of reliable sources. That's a fact you should keep in mind when listing examples; the neutral point of view is the point of view that can be supported by reliable sources. If reliable sources treat a subject as being absurd, then so will Wikipedia. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:33, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I have cited numerous reliable sources, and without actually discrediting the sources, I am told they are not reliable sources. It seems that there is a consensus built by the WP:HIV cabal that is based on a common POV. That POV has deemed anything, regardless of reliability or verifiability, that goes against this common POV consensus as "nonsense," "denialism," "slant," "synth," etc. The fact remains that the citations I have provided are sound, and cannot be superseded by an actual peer reviewed source. There are consensus citations that discredit the overall idea, but there are no actual scientific papers available to refuse the references that I have attempted to include in the articles in question. Neuromancer (talk) 04:04, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

← Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and its content on scientific topics will primarily reflect current mainstream scientific consensus. Some people get that and some people don't. Dealing with someone who stubbornly refuses to listen isn't a good use of time, and eventually people will get frustrated and say things they'll regret. It's probably time to set some clearer boundaries for Neuromancer. Shunning might be a reasonable next step. Specific, concrete content concerns raised with reference to Wikipedia policy should be entertained and discussed, at least once. Everything else should be ignored, including repetitively raising the same rejected arguments and accusations time and time again. MastCell ^Talk 04:21, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree completely. Neuromancer has been reminded repeatedly that Wikipedia is not a forum, yet continues to insist that fringe viewpoints are "important and valid" until the rest of the Wikipedia community convinces Neuromancer that denialism is wrong. That's not how it works. Wikipedia doesn't make judgements on what is "valid", only what is notable and verifiable. AIDS denialism is notable; that's why it has an article. It's not considered valid by subject experts, and sources from those experts, by definition, constitute Wikipedia's current NPOV on the subject. The place for AIDS denialists to change this consensus and enable reporting of "validity" judgements is the scientific literature, not Wikipedia talk pages. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 14:22, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• I am perfectly agreeable to an alternative manner in which to discuss proposed edits to an article. I am not using this talk page as a forum. I am using it to present proposed edits in a good faith attempt to better the article. If there is a more appropriate manner or location in which to discuss such proposals in order to reach a consensus, please let know and I will take my concerns there. Neuromancer (talk) 03:37, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipolicy requires at WP:NPOV that “All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources.” It further requires at WP:YESPOV that “Article content should not be deleted solely on the grounds that it is "POV"" and that "The neutral point of view neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject, nor does it endorse or oppose specific viewpoints.”
Neuromancer (talk) 12:57, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

There's no need to shout, and even less to quote WP:NPOV out of context. The sections on undue weight and "equal validity", if read in their entirety, should clarify why the edits you're pushing are inappropriate. MastCell ^Talk 23:41, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] FAQ

Added a FAQ to the top of this page. Please feel free to improve or to remove for discussion. - 2/0 (cont.) 22:36, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I think it's a well written answer to some difficult questions. One comment, though - in the article itself, isn't the word "claim" used a bit too often given WP:Words to avoid. I've removed a couple of statements to the effect that denialists "argue" x or y as being inappropriate in my view, but think that overuse of the phrase denialists "claim" x or y is also inappropriate. A simple "claim" (or "argue")->"say" might be a solution. 86.165.41.194 (talk) 23:32, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV and “reliable sources”

My general understanding of Wikipedia’s NPOV policy has always been that information is supposed to be presented neutrally and fairly. The NPOV article bears this out:

All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles and all editors.

And the reliable sources article goes on to say:

Just because a source is reliable does not mean it should be included. All articles must adhere to Wikipedia's neutrality policy, fairly representing all majority and significant-minority viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in rough proportion to the prominence of each view. Tiny-minority views and fringe theories need not be included, except in articles devoted to them.

Several people here seem to be arguing that the manner in which reliable sources present something is how Wikipedia should present it—meaning, if said sources present something in a biased manner, even outright ridiculing the topic, then such ridicule can be copied directly into Wikipedia, suddenly becoming “neutral” simply because it came from “reliable sources” demanded by Wikipedia’s NPOV policy.

That is an incredibly disingenuous reading of the NPOV policy: It sounds like the kind of convoluted lawyering someone would engage in in order to find a way to inject their own biases into an article. NPOV requires both neutrality in Wikipedia and neutrality in the reliable sources one cites. If your reliable source ridicules a topic, find a better reliable source.

From the NPOV article on article naming:

Sometimes the article title itself may be a source of contention and polarization. This is especially true for descriptive titles that suggest a viewpoint either "for" or "against" any given issue. A neutral article title is very important because it ensures that the article topic is placed in the proper context. Therefore, encyclopedic article titles are expected to exhibit the highest degree of neutrality.

Using a pejorative name that the opponents of a theory use to label said theory, no matter the fringe nature of the theory, cannot possibly be justified as “representing fairly” a topic. There is absolutely no way someone can claim the word denialist is non-biased. It’s an ad hominem designed to make someone draw conclusions about a topic before they even start reading about it.

I can’t find an exact policy on this, but to me, the most intuitive policy for naming an article would be to use the name a group uses for themselves, with redirects in place for alternative names, including biased ones as used by their opponents. Some people have recommended using the word dissidents in this article title, but such terminology often has a positive connotation to people: Political dissidents are often portrayed as people who are brave enough to stand up against the status quo. So that’s not NPOV either. I would recommend renaming the article simply Alternative AIDS theories, which is the most neutral term I can think of.

And, if it’s true that these alternative AIDS theories are not “significant views” or are “fringe theories,” then the Wikipedia NPOV policy seems to lead to the conclusion that there should be no article at all on this topic, not one that ridicules the topic with a title of “AIDS denialism.”

 — J’raxis  ✆✍ 06:25, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Note that I came to this article looking for information, having clicked the link on another AIDS article, and have little foreknowledge of this topic other than a vague understanding that some people question the HIV–AIDS connection. I don’t have a dog in this fight on one side or another, other than to improve Wikipedia. I only looked at the title and the first paragraph before dismissing the entire article as so biased as to be useless for learning anything about this topic.

Actually, the way reliable sources present a subject is the neutral way to present a subject. "Neutrality" does not equate being kind to all viewpoints. To water down the only scientifically accepted viewpoint on the topic would be introducing an editorial bias against the reliable sources. Further, there is absolutely no person, no source, nothing of human creation, that is without bias. To assume that we mere editors can fashion an unbiased article, or even an unbiased title for this article, is simply...wrong. And that's why NPOV tells us to go with reliable sources. It prevents us from having to worry about the bias issue. If the reliable sources are biased, then so be it. A little further down the naming section of NPOV that you cite you'll find "Wikipedia article names should use the most neutral term that is widely used in reliable sources." It's been shown several times in the archives that "AIDS denialism" is precisely that term. The NPOV policy itself gives a two examples of articles that have have very loaded titles, and they do so because those are the most commonly used terms by reliable sources.

Another way you can think about this is to try and imaging the course of discussion that would take placed, depending on the understanding of NPOV. If editors were supposed to weed out the bias in reliable sources, the debate would have no end - no logical conclusion. No matter the arguments presented, there would always been accusations of bias from somewhere. But if neutrality is simply going along with reliable sources, the debate can actually end. It only gets complicated when multiple reliable sources are in opposition with one another, and this is certainly not such a case. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:38, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I've added a talk header that I found elsewhere that might help. Dougweller (talk) 12:04, 3 January 2010 (UTC)