Talk:Christine Maggiore/Archive 1

message: After going over this article for some time, I, repectfully, think it's important for everyone reading and, especially, editing to look over the reliable source policy of Wikipedia. Here's a key quote from the guidelines that we should all remember:
:"Wikipedia articles should use reliable published sources... The two policy pages that discuss the need to use sources are Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Verifiability... If you can provide useful information to Wikipedia, please do so, but bear in mind that edits for which no reliable references are provided may be removed by any editor. The responsibility for finding and adding references lies with the person adding material to an article, and sources should be provided whenever possible."
It goes on to define what is a reliable source and what isn't. Those should also be looked over. There is simply too much unsourced and unreliably sourced information in this article and that's just bad for Wikipedia and the people using it as a reputable source. Roguegeek 02:49, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reliable Sources 

message: There are several defining statements in the article that are made without a reliable source. Since some of these statements are so key to this article, they must be encyclopedic. As per Wikipedia policies,  tags must be addressed or the statements can not be made. Since there are several tags placed throughout the article, it's valid to lay an   tag at the top. I'm not going to do that yet in hopes editors can find sources for the statements cited. Thoughts? Roguegeek 02:21, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: After going over trying to verify the info in the article with WP:RS, I've come to the conclusion that there's just too much bias, unsourced, and unreliably sourced information. Due to this fact, the entire article has qualified for not just the unreferenced tag, but the  tag. I have entered it on the top of the page. In accordance with Wikipedia policies, all citations must have reliable sources and any biased statement must be addressed. If you disagree, that is fine. Let's discuss it here instead of having an edit war and let's be respectable to each other. Roguegeek 03:24, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Totally Disputed 

message: :"Despite the fact that Maggiore's last PAP smear was normal and Maggiore was never diagnosed with cervical cancer or any other AIDS condition, anti-Maggiore activists continue to assert Maggiore has at least one AIDS-defining illness."
This statement shows bias all over the place, but if it is true, it definitely needs to have a WP:RS as definied by Wikipedia. Roguegeek 02:21, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation Needed: PAP smear, diagnosed, anti-Maggiore activists statement 

message: :"Fourteen years after testing HIV positive, Maggiore is in excellent health without taking AZT or other anti-retroviral treatment"
A key statement that could completely change the entire article, but, unfortunately, it must be deleted without a WP:RS as definied by Wikipedia. Roguegeek 02:21, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation Needed: excellent health 

message: :"Opposing experts attributed her death to a toxic reaction to a common antibiotic prescribed for an ear infection."
What opposing experts? Stating multiple experts will need multiple WP:RS as definied by Wikipedia. Roguegeek 02:21, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation Needed: opposing experts 

message: :"Maggiore's husband and partner of nine years, filmmaker Robin Scovill tests repeatedly negative despite what Maggiore describes as "a decade of normal, latex-free relations" as does their son Charlie born in 1997."
This is, yet, another key statement that influences the article greatly, but doesn't have a WP:RS as defined by Wikipedia. One must be provided or the statement can not exist here. Roguegeek 02:32, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation Needed: unprotected sex, testing, and quote 

message: :"Dr. Mohammed Al-Bayati, who has a PhD in comparative pathology and is dual board certified in human and veterinary toxicology, and who holds an upaid position on the scientific advisory board of Alive & Well offered to examine the hospital and coroner reports."
Although it may be true, the original sources cited were not WP:RS as defined by Wikipedia. Please find sources for all of it or the statement must be deleted. Roguegeek 03:13, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation Needed: Dr. Mohammed Al-Bayati verification 

message: :"His report has been published in the allegedly peer reviewed journal Medical VeritasMedical Veritas official home page, of which Al-Bayati is the only "Featured Author"."
Where is the resource that shows this to be true? The home page is listed, but no resource showing this is, in fact, fact. A WP:RS must be provided or the statement can not exist here. Roguegeek 20:57, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation Needed: report published 

message: I think this article can be improved and made NPOV. There are a number of decent sources; will work on sourcing some of these statements and removing the more POV, unsourcable ones. MastCell 19:25, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent! I've been dying to bring a NPOV to this article and am happy to see someone else helping out. There are simply too many problem areas to address and people who are highly sympathetic to Maggiore's cause have a tendency to put a very large POV curve on anything they edit here. I, for one, originally came to this article because I was interested in finding some well sources info (not to edit) and was frustrated to see almost every statement here just not fit WP:NPOV policy. As an active and always practicing Wikipedian, I felt compelled to help bring this article up to Wikipedia standards and am just happy to see someone who is looking to do the very same. --Roguegeek 05:41, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality 

message: I'd like to propose removing the "neutrality" tag. Comments? MastCell 22:54, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality tag 

message: As this page has been controversial, it would be helpful to discuss edits (particularly inflammatory ones such as those made by User:69.252.201.61) on the talk page prior to making them. MastCell 04:40, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. The talk page for this article isn't utilized enough. Roguegeek (talk) 19:32, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edits 

message: Probably trivial considering the other issues of this article, but as a biographical article I couldn't help notice the year of birth was missing, so I added the applicable category. In searching Google, the best I could find was a claim that she was 49 years old in 2005 . So uh, just explaining why I added the category. --Ed Word 17:27, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  year of birth 

message: I've removed the edit by 142.179.182.247. First of all, the edit made factually incorrect assertions. The study in question in fact did define breast-feeding: "Compliance with the formula-feeding intervention was defined by complete avoidance of breast milk. Compliance with the breastfeeding intervention was defined by any use of breast milk." The study did not "allow" cross-over (it tried to prevent it), although it could not prevent mothers from breast-feeding their kids if they wanted to. The effect of crossover is analyzed in the study; if anything, it would lead to an understatement of the risk of HIV transmission through breast-feeding. I did add a few more studies, since 142.179.182.247 wasn't satisfied; it's not just one study documenting the risk. The take-home points are: a) this is not the place for OR criticisms of the medical literature, especially ones which misrepresent the study in question; b) when citing additional studies, one needs to provide a reference; c) such additions may be best discussed here before they're added to the article. MastCell 04:19, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Further additions by 142.179.182.247