Talk:HIV/AIDS/Archive 2

message: DO NOT EDIT OR POST REPLIES TO THIS PAGE. THIS PAGE IS AN ARCHIVE.
This archive page covers approximately the dates between Feb 3, 2004 and May 25, 2004.
Post replies to the main talk page, copying or summarizing the section you are
replying to if necessary.
I have read this article and I can't see anything substantially wrong with it. There are of course sections which could be expanded or improved, but nothing I would dispute the factual accuracy of. Therefore I think the accurary dispute tag should be removed. Does anyone want to suggest why it is there and why it should be retained? Adam 09:31, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I was thinking the same thing myself. This article seems to cover the basics fairly well with nothing bad enough in it to merit the dispute notice. I say just remove it. --mav 09:34, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The message was there when I first encountered the article.  Then I made a major overhaul, and asked (see above) if we could no remove the "disputed" message.  I also posted on Wikipedia:Peer Review to ask people to look it over and give their opinions.  There was no response.  I agree, I think we should just remove it (although there is the poster just above... But I think his objections have been answered?) Exploding Boy 09:37, Feb 3, 2004 (UTC)
Thanks for those comments. I found the notice at Peer review, and I have peer reviewed it. I agree that the accuracy dispute tag should be removed, so I will remove it, in the course of copy-editing the article. I am also archiving all this ancient Talk. Adam 09:48, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)

text: Good job.  I'd like to make a few small changes here and there, but nothing major.  I still think there could be a little more in some sections, but all in all it's looking pretty damn good.
----
made a few smallish changes here and there.  Am wondering aboutt he term "venereal disease" as I thought this was more or less obsolete? Exploding Boy 12:08, Feb 3, 2004 (UTC)
Yes that's probably true sexually-transmitted disease or sexually-transmitted infection would probably be better. I'm nost sure what other articles here call it. Adam 22:52, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)

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

message: Just wanted to let everyone know I recently reversed an anon who had edit this article. As best I could tell, it was POV in the extreme and hopeless to attempt to fix. →Raul654 06:44, Mar 23, 2004 (UTC)
Thanks.  I think we got into an edit conflict doing the same thing! Exploding Boy 06:46, Mar 23, 2004 (UTC)
I'm surprised the Duesbergers haven't tried to hack up this article before. Adam 08:13, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I actually like it. First, it's a helleva lot more interesting than a ribbon. Second, it's extremely relavant to the article. That was the reason I added it in the first place - to me, it looked like the article was missing something. →Raul654 08:16, Mar 23, 2004 (UTC)
This is not a technical article about HIV, which is where a technical diagram of the virus belongs. This is a broad medical, social and political article, and needs an image appropriate to that. As it is (without even a caption) it's just an abstraction. Adam 09:01, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

text: Have you had any further thoughts about what you'd like to see there instead? Exploding Boy 09:10, Mar 23, 2004 (UTC)
Something illustrative of the broad social response to AIDS would be appropriate at the top of the page. More "medical" images can appear further down. I think one of those World AIDS Day everybody-being-since-to-everybody kind of pictures would do. Adam 09:12, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

text: Except that the picture here is much better than the one currently on the HIV article. I would suggest that both pictures should go on the HIV article, and that it should also stay here (among other pictures). There's no reason an article has to have just one. And btw - we do have a pic of the aids quilt. I put it there myself ;) →Raul654 10:03, Mar 23, 2004 (UTC)
I agree that this HIV photo is better than the one at HIV. It should be moved there, and something else run here. Adam 23:38, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Recently reverted edit

message: AIDS is a human disease
Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't certain animals suseptible to AIDs too? (In particular, I'm thinking of chimpanzeezes and other monkeys) If that's the case, I think we should remove the word 'human'. →Raul654 07:01, Mar 28, 2004 (UTC)
Apes and monkeys can be infected by one or other of the simian immunodeficiency viruses (SIV) and may (though because of natural adaptation they usually don't) get an illness called simian AIDS. The characterisation of AIDS as a human disease is correct. Adam 07:23, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Seemed like a much more prevalent spelling. Dictionary.com lists oesophagus as a variant, but esophagus as the preferred spelling, and I think it's more recognizable to the average reader of the article. May I ask why you use the word 'insists'? Had we gotten into an edit war at this point, 'insist' would be the right word. In this case, it's not. Anyway, does that clear it up for you? Grendelkhan 02:09, 2004 Apr 26 (UTC)
There is no "preferred" form. Oesophagus is British / Australian, Esophagus is American. Both are perfectly correct (alothough Oesophagus is of course more consistent with the Greek stem). It is Wikipedia policy not to change these spellings: Wikipedia is not an American encyclopaedia / encyclopedia. Adam 02:29, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

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