Talk:HIV/AIDS/Archive 16

message: I dont know what to make of this article. what do you all think?--Gozar 00:32, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Try this link and this link (abstracts only I'm afraid, unless you have a subscription) to read about how the estimates are made. This link has recent data from South Africa, and more recent death statistics can be found here. Evidence that HIV causes AIDS in Africa can be found here (quite near the top) and here (near the end). Trezatium 21:39, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Afrol article is largely based on another article by Rian Malan, to which a rebuttal can be found here. Trezatium 18:15, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, you're right. Ten cases from the whole of Italy, and 47 from the whole of the USA (see here). Such cases are extremely rare, but I agree they're worth mentioning. Trezatium 21:14, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  inflated numbers? 

message: I am in the process of going through the article, removing duplications, adding in more detail and giving it a major overhaul. Some sections have been dropped as they are better described in HIV and AIDS pandemic and IMO don't contribute to the AIDS article, instead, they confuse it. I am trying to keep the language basic, for most people to understand with correct links to other articles as I go through it. I will also add some diseases and more specific symptoms and prevention strategies. It would be good if it was a good standard for national AIDS day. --Bob 19:44, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This is done. Now I will look for references and start to cite sources throughout the article as I did over at HIV.--Bob 23:36, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Haven't done this yet, but is on my list of things to do... --Bob 23:46, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I just glanced through the article, and noticed that the main body is a bit disorganized (it reads in a very 'disjointed' manner, with topics being dropped and/or interrupted, and then resumed (and subsequently dropped again) farther down the page). I don't really trust myself quite yet to re-structure it at that scale, so I thought I'd mention it here. DarkMasterBob 10:08, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Major edits

message: under Infection by HIV heading, "the median survival time after developing AIDS is only 9.2 months",
and under symptomology, "After the diagnosis of AIDS is made, the average survival time is estimated to be 2-3 years".
Do the two pieces of information contracted each other? i know that median is different from average, but the difference here is so huge.
Fangyuan1st 19:04, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The 9.2 months is without antiretroviral therapy, and is what is found in developing countries and in developed countries before the advent of ART. 2-3 years is with ART. This has now been clarified. --Bob 18:44, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Discrepancy?

message: The first paragraph looks like literature review than the encyclopedia to me. It's totally way off from other articles in Wikipedia here. ^_^ --manop 04:54, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the references make the intro very hard to parse on a scanning read. Most of these facts will be discussed (and cited) further down in the article. As the intro should only cover the content of the remainder of the article, I would not object to the removal of the Harvard references, or the change to footnotes. JFW | T@lk 14:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is true that the references do make it harder to read, but the references were added because of repeated removal of huge chunks by Sciguy and cronies because of the lack of citations. Foot notes may make it easier to read, but that would entail carrying over this format for the rest of the article. --Bob 21:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  First paragraph (Section 0) 

message: Is there a way to number the references in the reference section with the numbers generated throughout the text? As it is, it is difficult for the user to determine which reference is being referred to. --Bob 22:57, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The template  is probably what you want. See its documentation at Template talk:Ref. The Rod 23:12, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So the numbers have to be put in manually then... not good if the references are changed and added to over a period of time by different authors. --Bob 23:37, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, I misunderstood your motivation for including numbers in the footnote seaction. Since the references throughout the body of the document use , they each get their own number, so what about ordering the footnote section to match and changing its unnumbered list ("*...") to a numbered one ("#...")? The subsequent challenge is to keep the order of the references in the document the same as the order in the footnote area. The Rod 23:49, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Wow, that's nice! Is there documentation somewhere on the  and  tags? The Rod 17:13, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Here you go: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Cite --Oldak Quill 17:24, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That looks and sounds better, but am I mistaken in saying that the PMID external references are then lost? --Bob 22:15, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Scratch that, we can use PMID in the ID box... I will start to renumerate them. May take a while --Bob 22:53, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done --Bob 20:06, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: References

message: This automatically numerates the list and allows links both to the reference section and back up to the context.
--Oldak Quill 16:09, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, that's nice! Is there documentation somewhere on the  and  tags? The Rod 17:13, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Here you go: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Cite --Oldak Quill 17:24, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That looks and sounds better, but am I mistaken in saying that the PMID external references are then lost? --Bob 22:15, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Scratch that, we can use PMID in the ID box... I will start to renumerate them. May take a while --Bob 22:53, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done --Bob 20:06, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: References

message: This article has become the medical collaboration of the week. Thanks to the several editors who have already worked very hard on this article, I suspect the focus will not be so much on the content (which is excellent) but more the presentation. A few more images (e.g. a good-going Kaposi's sarcoma, oral hairy leukoplakia, an MRI scan of PML) would be nice.
The exact role of AIDS/references is unclear - which of those references is relevant? Can't they be moved back into the main article? JFW | T@lk 15:20, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: the references sitting in AIDS/references are not referred to in the text at all any more. They can probably be deleted for the most part. --Bob 16:08, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  MCOTW 

message: Since the main AIDS article is so long, and since there is already an article for Antiretroviral drug, I suggest moving most of the content there. The Rod 00:44, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't like to see too much being chopped off, especially given the prominence and length of the "Alternatives" sub-section. Perhaps if we remove the section from However, treatment guidelines are changing constantly to lopinavir boosted with ritonavir + zidovudine + lamivudine or emtricitabine. Then integrate the data on pediatric cases and the concerns about these drugs, it could be ok? --Bob 23:24, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  OK, I moved the indicated text and accompanying references into Antiretroviral drug (and duplicated the concerns). Doing so reduced the article size only sightly—from 54 KB to 52 KB. The Rod 17:38, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Most of the size of the article has to do with the length of the reference section, the external links, the links to other wikis etc. If you take these out, the article size is cut dramatically to just 35kb. Just 3 kb more than recommended. Many FA are over the size limit. --Bob 18:38, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

text: But nice work, thanks --Bob 18:46, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Treatment section 

message: No objections to the above... and it might give room for a suggestion for one more portion for the prevention section--something like "other prevention technology" which would include post-exposure prophylaxis, and vaccine and microbicide development. I don't have time to do this in the next couple of days but can help later if folks are interested. Joewright 15:46, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I like this idea, and have an extra paragraph to suggest at the end of section 4.1 ("Sexual Contact", under "Transmission and Prevention", to discuss a previously unmentioned potential protective measure which I think should follow on well from the previous paragraph on current research into circumcision.  This paragraph would go as follows:
"Current research is also in progress towards the development of microbicides: creams or gels containing pharmaceutical agents and lubricant properties which might help prevent the transmission of HIV and/or other STIs.  The advantage of such an intervention is that it might allow a woman in a relationship with a male partner who is unwilling to use a condom to have some measure of protection, and it might also provide an extra security net in the case of condom breakage.  "  
If nobody objects, I'll append this paragraph to the indicated section next week or so.  Vaccines and PEP would probably deserve a separate section, however.
Procrastinator supreme 16:11, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Prevention section

message: Forgive me if I've missed this, but is it not odd that this article doesn't at all deal with the topic of AIDS-related complex (ARC)?  I realise HIV/AIDS is an inherently voluminous topic, but this is a significant enough and distinct notion that deserves brief mention here (a la GRID, wikifying and notations for which should also be refined).  What's more curious is that there isn't an article in Wp regarding ARC (note the redlink above).  Thoughts? E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 19:45, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I know that is a term that is rarely used anymore, but of course you could create a page for it. --WS 20:10, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I realise that ARC is infrequently used; however, so is GRID (and, unlike ARC, that isn't listed in either Webster's nor Oxford dictionaries); moreover, ARC is still listed among the WHO afflictions related to HIV (B24).  I'll make appropriate additions.  Merci!  E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 20:19, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ARC, etc.? 

message: Here are some useful references (all free full text access) that could be helpful for improving the article:
* 
* 
* 
* 
* 
* 
* 
--WS 01:02, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is great; thanks!  (A segue: I study biology and work in the HIV/AIDS milieu, so I know a bit about the topic.) ;) E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 01:09, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ABC of AIDS 

message: Under Epidemiology, it is stated 'In the United States, for example, the number of persons with AIDS has increased from about 200,000 in 1996 to over 400,000 in 1996.' This does not make sense, and no reference is given to fix this. -- Mithent 21:45, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: this has been changed. --Bob 00:57, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Contradictory statistic

message: The data on the African map is sadly out of date. I checked just two countries (Senegal and Zimbabwe) against the UNAIDS website, and both are shaded the wrong colour for their relevant AIDS range. The info on the image suggests that it's based on 1999 data, and the AIDS situation has changed for a number of sub-Saharan African nations in the last seven years. It should probably be updated...The Disco King 16:38, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've just changed the map to one of the world based on more recent data. --Bob 00:57, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good job Bob! Thanks! The Disco King 04:07, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Map of Africa

message: I'm doing a report in school about aids and this really helped me a lot!! thanks
:Same here. But not about AIDS. And more than once. Wikipedia rocks! Twilight Realm 03:27, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  YO! 

message: From the article (at AIDS#Epidemiology): "Sub-Saharan Africa remains by far the worst-affected region, with an estimated 23.8 to 28.9 million people currently living with HIV. More than 60% of all people living with HIV are in sub-Saharan Africa, as are more than three quarters (76%) of all women living with HIV." However, the picture in that section  says otherwise. What's going on here? Twilight Realm 03:26, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nothing. You simply failed to understand the data and the map. --Bob 16:34, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradictory statistics 

message: There were red links for both "sick leave" and "sick pay". I've directed them both to disability management, an article create to address precisely such issues. This at least turns the red links blue, but ... the disability management article is a really terrible article, needing a lot of work. --Christofurio 14:50, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps something could be done then. —Eternal Equinox | talk 22:58, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sick Leave and Sick Pay 

message: it's been a while since i've contributed in the AIDS article here, but i wanted to ask anyways. :)  does the CDC definition of AIDS diagnosis only apply to those when they are unmedicated? for instance, if one is HIV+ and the cd4 drops under 200, yet after HAARTs they pop up to say 350, do they still have AIDS? for that matter, if they develop say esophageal candidiasis, an opportunistic infection, and it is successfully treated, does that change the AIDS diagnosis? i was under the impression once you are diagnosed that was it, but nothing is stated to this in the text (or maybe so and i just haven't seen it). the article should say 'regardless of treatment effects' if it is true just to make things more clear. JoeSmack Talk 02:10, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, there is no change in diagnosis. The person is still considered to have AIDS. However, this may change in the future if diagnostic tools and definitions change.  --Bob 18:02, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, then I shall add "(when without the effects of medication or treatment)" next to the definition of AIDS from the CDC where it occurs in the article.  If someone has a better way to phrase it, by all means, change it in the text. :) JoeSmack Talk 15:42, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  real quick question 

message: Hi all. There is a proposal  to create and use a CSS class "references-small" which would specify the font size for references in articles where small reference font is wanted, as in AIDS. The proposed changed to AIDS would then be to replace
:    
with
:    
The manual of style favors font-sizes in CSS instead of in articles (Formatting issues). The definition for references-small in the CSS would be
:.references-small { font-size:90%; } in Mediawiki:common.css. 
So there would be no visible change for the AIDS article. I also have no intention to ever change the definition of "references-small" to a larger font, despite me wanting to have a 100% font for the references. The advantage of moving the font size into CSS is that I (and others) can use my own private CSS file (which overrides the default only for me) (example: User:Ligulem/monobook.css). Please support me at the above referenced proposal page. Thank you for your careful consideration. --Ligulem 08:05, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Font size for references 

message: I am admittedly not an expert on AIDS, but...
As I understand it, AIDS is not exclusive to humans.  Following that, this article is unfortunately neglecting like...all other creatures and immunodeficiency viruses, etc..  SIV is mentioned once (ironically in a section devoted to the origin of HIV), and is not even defined.
Please let's be more accurate. ¦ Reisio 20:55, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  AIDS in nonhumans 

message: In the Stigma section, the ordered list items are stuffing up because of the Ref tags. I can't figure it out - someone else can? --203.206.245.238 02:00, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stigma section error 

message: Guys, this thing is written like an 8th grader with a medical dictionary. How did this happen? It first of all needs to be a bit more accessible; it isn't actually that hard. For example 'malignancies' to 'malignant cancers'. Also, the long run on sentences are tiring, especially when packed with like 8 diseases in their original latin that you'd never remember anyways. Try and keep examples to 2 or 3. Here's what i mean:
   High-grade B cell lymphomas such as Burkitt's lymphoma, Burkitt's-like lymphoma, 
   and diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL), including primary central nervous system lymphoma, 
   have substantially increased incidence in HIV-infected patients and often portend a poor prognosis.
to something a little easier on the eyes:
   High-grade B cell lymphomas such as Burkitt's lymphoma, Burkitt's-like lymphoma, and diffuse
   large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL), show up a lot more in HIV-infected patients. These particular 
   cancers often foreshadow a poor prognosis.
I'm pretty sure this is all related to people adding little bits here and there, but it just kinda got out of hand. This whole article could use a good thorough copyedit. Anyone else agree? JoeSmack Talk 17:51, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  This article is needlessly overloaded with medical terminology in parts. ---Robert Merkel 05:50, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ease of reading