Talk:Alive & Well AIDS Alternatives

	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.Alternative viewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative viewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative viewsAlternative views articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

AIDS Low‑importance

	This article is part of WikiProject AIDS, an attempt to build a comprehensive, detailed, and accessible guide to AIDS, HIV, and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate in the project, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.AIDSWikipedia:WikiProject AIDSTemplate:WikiProject AIDSAIDS articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Medicine: Society Low‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Society and Medicine task force.

Organizations Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Skepticism Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

NPOV

The recent edits by 70.35.30.54 do seem to have shifted the viewpoint of this article a bit and as a result I'm not sure that it's NPOV anymore. -- KurtRaschke 23:01, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute

User:Roguegeek escalated the dispute tag from "POV Check" to "TotallyDisputed". The text of the "TotallyDisputed" tag instructs us to turn to the Talk page for an explanation. Roguegeek, I sympathise with your tag; I hate the group this article is about too. But unless you explain your complaint, nothing good can happen. ACW 20:52, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa whoa whoa. I put it there because there are items in the article that need sources and show definite POV problems. NOT because I hate the people in the group. Not sure where you got that info from, but you're absolutely wrong in your assertion. Unfortunately, I didn't have the time I thought I might have had when I originally posted it and don't have the time now to explain. I'll do it later at another time and until then, I'll remove the "TotallyDisputed" tag. I'm also not going to put the "POV Check" back since no one has decided to explain why it's there (including User:KurtRaschke who originally put it there). If you have a dispute, place a tag and explain it here. Roguegeek 23:55, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I apologize for any unwarranted attribution of opinions to Roguegeek, though I stand by my feeling that any POV Check or Dispute tags should be accompanied by some sort of note on the relevant talk page. Of course, the best-laid plans gang aft agley, and I appreciate that one doesn't always have the time to do what one intends. Anyway, all of this discussion is mooted by User:MastCell's rewrite, which at a first glance looks pretty good to me. ACW 21:02, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not I believe in this foundations cause or not really doesn't matter here. The truth is I don't know enough about the subject to make to make any statements right now. My original concerns came from the POV and unreferenced statements. Ultimately, info needs to be NPOV and be well referenced. In an attempt to be a good Wikipedian, all I care about is making sure these things are in place in any article I have interest in. Roguegeek 02:35, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think this article is totally misleading and dangerous. The point with Chron's Disease is wrong as I know from my own familiy. However, I do not think that I have the expertise to take up the debatte on the issues presented here. Someone who can should give it try. --Philiboy 11:50, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mooted by MastCell's rewrite, no? ACW 21:02, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Expanded

I've tried to expand this article a little further. Comments? MastCell 19:43, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I like it. I'll like it even more when Roguegeek and Philiboy check in and say they like it. But this looks much more encyclopedic and level-headed now. I only worry that somebody inclined to the HIV-skeptic side might find it slanted in the other way, but I can't judge that; such people should step forward and express an opinion here on the talk page. ACW 21:07, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very informative with no POV or reference problems. Touches on all of the major aspects of the organization. I like the way it turned out a lot! On a personal note, I'm going to study and follow your contributioins MastCell simply because you seem to be a great editor for the Wikipedia community, something I'm striving towards myself. Roguegeek 02:28, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent. I agree completely. And I repeat my apology to Roguegeek for having digressed into unwarranted (and irrelevant) speculations about eir personal opinions. And I second Roguegeek's praise of MastCell's fine workmanship here. ACW 15:41, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No worries man. No worries. Roguegeek 18:28, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mastcell and ACW, you've done a great job! Thanks for the corrections!Philiboy 09:44, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing as this is a most controversial topic -- very much alike the Holocaust denial issue -- this article is very much on topic, neutral and "encyclopedic". By the by; on a personal note, I'd like to see these people (as well as the Holocaust deniers) slowly roast on an open fire for all eternity. But then again that's just me. --Tirolion 17:21, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To me the "in spite of extensive scientific evidence to the contrary" line is a huge red flag. It's unnecessary and completely inflammatory because one of the chief arguments of Alive & Well is that there isn't in fact extensive evidence behind the "mainstream" theory of AIDS. A better way of wording it would be to note that weight of opinion within the AIDS research community is solidly opposed to Alive & Well. But the way it is worded now seems highly prejudicial because it implies the mainstream research community is right. I don't necessarily buy in to everything Alive & Well is saying, but if you want a proven track record of failure and ridiculous, laughably wrong predictions, look no further than the mainstream AIDS research community. These are the same people who 20 years ago claimed that the weight of scientific evidence suggested AIDS would crossover in to the heterosexual community and become a epidemic. Bogan444 (talk) 14:08, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That prediction was actually correct, particularly in areas like Sub-Saharan Africa where the epidemic is primarily heterosexually transmitted. A "proven track record of failure" is ridiculous. AIDS was a completely new and deadly syndrome in the early 1980's. Medical research identified its cause, developed reliable means of testing and prevention, and produced highly effective treatments which have transformed the disease, in many cases, from a death sentence to a chronic ailment. All of this was accomplished in the face of an entirely new and previously barely described form of pathogen, the retrovirus, and it all happened in about 15 years. I'm not sure what "success" would look like to you, but I suspect your criteria are highly unrealistic. MastCell ^Talk 21:42, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality

Article needs some on neutrality it contains some implications of value and unqualified opinions. I have removed some. --neon white talk 23:08, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not an "implication of value" or "unqualified opinion" to say that HIV causes AIDS, just as it's not an opinion or value judgment to say that the Earth is round(ish), humans landed on the moon, or the Holocaust actually happened. I'm not sure you're grasping the difference between "bias" and "neutrality" as defined by WP:NPOV. It would actually be biased and non-neutral to pretend that AIDS denialism is anything but wholly discredited. Whether the wording can be improved is certainly debatable, but casting this, as you have, as a matter of "neutrality" is mistaken. MastCell ^Talk 23:44, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe not but it certianly doesnt belong in this particular sectionit has nothing to do with the section in question and is badly sourced (one broken link and another is unclear what it is citing) and incredibly weaselly. It is clearly there as a discreditation which is not appropriate for an encyclopedia. The use of the phrase 'In spite of' is particularly telling here. It's essentialy starting the section with 'They are wrong but this is what they believe'. It is certainly a neutrality issue as it is implying wrongness. It needs to go in a seperate 'criticism' section rather than being used to discredit a particular viewpoint as it is now and needs to be attributed and qualified. We should be simply stating differing views in a neutral manner. This is how articles should be written according to policy. We need to be asking questions like. Who refutes this orgs beliefs? What evidence do they use to do so? Rather than just a 'science says they are wrong' as if 'science' was a magical reliable source. --neon white talk 07:46, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Folks they're not denying aids — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.12.89.71 (talk) 08:37, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Either the site is internally contradictory, or from what it seems on this article, they aren't denying AIDS and they say AIDS is a major problem in Africa --Atheist723 (talk) 10:47, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Alive & Well AIDS Alternatives. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:37, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]