Jump to content

Talk:HIV/AIDS

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Arcade222 (talk | contribs) at 04:08, 15 August 2023 (Is it a pandemic or is it not a pendemic?: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Former featured articleHIV/AIDS is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Good articleHIV/AIDS has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on June 15, 2006.
On this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
March 12, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
April 8, 2006Featured article candidatePromoted
May 18, 2008Featured article reviewDemoted
August 6, 2012Good article nomineeListed
On this day... Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on June 5, 2012, June 5, 2014, June 5, 2019, and June 5, 2021.
Current status: Former featured article, current good article

Semi-protected edit request on 9 February 2022

Hey, Wikipedia Team, I wanted to Edit the HIV/Aids Page, and want to Add some Matter on this page. Taazeemshaikh (talk) 20:59, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. —GMX(on the go!) 21:12, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 4 July 2022

In the information box prevention section, this article cites circumcision as a method of prevention. This is not proven, carries its own risks of serious injury or death and is an immoral act of genital mutilation on non consenting children. 2A00:23C6:22A7:8101:BDA4:B78C:67AF:EDB3 (talk) 22:44, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Nythar (talk) 22:50, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'd propose two changes to go along with this edit request:
1) Remove 'male circumcision' from the 'Prevention' section of the infobox.
2) Change the first sentence of the second paragraph under the Prevention section from "Circumcision in sub-Saharan Africa "reduces the acquisition of HIV by heterosexual men by between 38% and 66% over 24 months"." to instead read: "A study showed that Circumcision in sub-Saharan Africa reduced the rate of acquisition of HIV by heterosexual men from infected partners by between 38% and 66% over 24 months".
I'm proposing these two changes as they are slight misinterpretations of the cited study, and are misleading. Additionally, the study states "at a local level, further research will be needed to assess whether implementing [circumcision] is feasible, appropriate, and cost-effective in different settings." Sourpanda (talk) 15:28, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hiv

Ok 103.203.230.29 (talk) 12:01, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Citation n. 185 ("Half of infants born with HIV die before two years of age without treatment.")

The article states:"Half of infants born with HIV die before two years of age without treatment.", but the citation (UNAIDS 2011 pg. 150–160) is not valid, the document I found with this title (https://www.unaids.org/en/resources/documents/2011/20111121_JC2216_WorldAIDSday_report_2011) has no 150-160 pages, and this is not found in it. It is quite a big claim with no credible reference. 2A02:AB88:368D:F680:46E:24D9:A6A1:5356 (talk) 21:55, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for identifying a problem. Unfortunately the subsection defining these references was renamed and modified over time so its purpose became unclear until it was eventually removed back in 2018 [1]. I have added it back with a hidden comment to try and prevent this happening again. The correct reference is Global HIV/AIDS Response, Epidemic update and health sector progress towards universal access [2] which sort of supports the claim. On page 159 (our article uses a wider page range, in part because the reference is used for two different things) it says "Without diagnosis and effective treatment, one third of infants living with HIV die before the age of one year and almost half during their second year of life." I'd interpret this to mean 1/3 die before 1 and nearly 1/2 (of all, not of those still alive) die between 1-2 meaning nearly 5/6s have died before the age of two so well over 1/2 have died before the age of 2. However perhaps I'm reading this wrong. I've added a tag on our article to request clarification perhaps via a better source. Nil Einne (talk) 13:05, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion to change order of table "Average per act risk of getting HIV by exposure route to an infected source" by lowest chance of infection

The below is ordered by highest chance of infection first then the lowest chance of infection second. I think this helps communicate that for HIV/AIDS insertive penile-vaginal intercourse is more risky (in the worst case) than receptive penile-vaginal intercourse (in the worst case), and is easier to read.

Blood transfusion 90%
Childbirth (to child) 25%[clarification needed]
Receptive anal intercourse* 0.04–3.0%
Needle-sharing injection drug use 0.67%
Insertive penile-vaginal intercourse* 0.01–0.38%
Percutaneous needle stick 0.30%
Receptive penile-vaginal intercourse* 0.05–0.30%
Receptive oral intercourse 0–0.04%
Insertive anal intercourse* 0.03%
Insertive oral intercourse 0–0.005%

Wallby (talk) 15:14, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 12 April 2023

Hi, there's a mistake in the page. It says Kaposi's Sarcoma and Burkitt lymphoma are both associated with HHV-8 (human herpes virus 8), but this isn't true. Kaposi's Sarcoma is, but Burkitt lymphoma is actually associated with EBV (Epstein-Barr virus). Medical fanatic (talk) 08:15, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Medical fanatic: Thanks. However, WP:MEDRS does require a source for that. Kleuske (talk) 10:11, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. M.Bitton (talk) 11:15, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Almost certainly the editors who replied here cannot easily WP:V the article's claim that is being disputed by the person they've replied to, because the ref used is a chapter of a book (Principles and Practice of Infectious Diseases) that costs - probably a lot of - money. Now that someone has disputed the claim, my opinion is that the existing ref could be tagged with {{Request quotation}}, or something similar. The book is used as a ref a whopping thirty times in this article, so likely one or more editors have access to it, and can add a relevant quote. This would allow the person replied to, and the rest of us, to at least get a better idea of the validity of the article's claim. --2001:1C06:19CA:D600:E8FE:CF10:D669:77BC (talk) 06:32, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rent

In § Stigma, you could internally link Rent to Rent (musical). --2001:1C06:19CA:D600:DFCE:FF65:E3F7:5139 (talk) 20:30, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 10 May 2023

From § Stigma: "To get a better understanding of the anti-homosexual attitudes around AIDs the musical Rent explores this."

This sentence has a typo ('AIDs'), is generally poorly constructed/unclear, and likely out of place (better suited for HIV/AIDS#Media portrayal?). Recommend deletion, but open to alternatives GlobalHyperstition (talk) 00:08, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is it a pandemic or is it not a pendemic?

The opening summary states that "HIV/AIDS is considered a pandemic—a disease outbreak which is present over a large area and is actively spreading." with a citation from 2008. It should be noted that 15 years is a very long time with regards to the notion of a "pandemic", nor does this text identify who exactly has decided that it is a "pandemic". Are they an acknowledged public authority on the subject?

Later in the "Epidemiology" section it curtly states that "Some authors consider HIV/AIDS a global pandemic." First of all, "Some authors" are not a credible and authoritative source of information of whether something is or isn't a pandemic, global or otherwise. "Some authors" could be anyone. Second, this citation is yet another 15 year old article.

Is it a "Global Pandemic", a "Pandemic" or is it not "Pandemic" at all? Is it just something "Some authors" think or is it a widespread scientific consensus about this determination? Shouldn't this be determined by actual up to date information rather than what the situation looked like 15 years age? Again it should be stressed that 15 years is a very, very long time with regards to "Pandemics". Arcade222 (talk) 04:08, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]