Talk:HIV/AIDS/Archive 24

Archive 20

←

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Proposed Merge with Gay-related immune deficiency

I would have just merged the GRID page into this one under the claim that it is a category 1 situation under Wikipedia:Proposed mergers#How to propose a merger, but then I saw that the GRID page had been rated of very high importance, so I thought had better propose it officially and see if there's a good reason to keep a GRID page separately from the AIDS page. - Astrophobe (talk) 08:09, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Never mind, I can't read apparently. This conversation has already happened - Astrophobe (talk) 08:16, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 January 2019

AIDS occurs when CD4+ count is lower than 200 cells/ml, *NOT* cells/microlitre. This needs to be changed across the whole article. This is very incorrect. 147.188.254.241 (talk) 14:41, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

The article is correct, the count is per microlitre. No changes were made. Graham Beards (talk) 15:10, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Transmission from Oral

It's noted that HIV is transmitted though vaginal, anal and oral sex. Simply not true. No cases of HIV transmission have been reported among female partners giving condomless oral sex. And there hasn’t been a single documented case of transmission to a partner getting condomless oral sex, either among MSM or heterosexuals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.220.74.134 (talk • contribs)

Hi, can you please cite a reliable source that supports your claim? This source clearly states that oral HIV transmission does occur. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 02:39, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Hello, a third observer here. It is possible, but rare. The risk is negligible if you are receiving oral but do not take chances! There is always a first. 108.173.19.227 (talk) 03:04, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Viruses portal

Hello. I note that the link to the Viruses portal was removed some time ago, and wondered if it was ok to restore it? This is one of the selected articles there, and there is a fair amount of other HIV/AIDS related content, including news, events, images, biographies, drugs and DYKs. I must stress this is an old hand-curated portal that has no automated content. Espresso Addict (talk) 13:09, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Video summary

Video summary (script)

Not sure why this was removed? It is a video formatted review of the lead with inline references. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:02, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Possibly because the picture is distorted. It is stretched horizontally. 86.130.28.61 (talk) 13:29, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Circumcision is useless

Here is a new study:

"In a multivariate analysis, based on the 2013 DHS survey, circumcised men were found to have the same level of infection as uncircumcised men, after controlling for age, sexual behaviour and socioeconomic status. Lastly, circumcised men tended to have somewhat riskier sexual behaviour than uncircumcised men.

So there you have it: circumcision is useless against AIDS. Who's pushing for this farce anyway? --177.135.49.221 (talk) 09:45, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

That's a primary source, not a secondary source; our standards and policies like neutral point of view require adherence to the point of view represented in high-quality secondary sources. Let's wait and see whether the secondary sources shift in consensus. — soupvector (talk) 05:26, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Have a study by the US Navy:

"After adjustment for demographic and behavioral risk factors, lack of circumcision was not found to be a risk factor for HIV or STI."

--179.182.143.17 (talk) 20:11, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Mother-to-child content

TamaraStaples, regarding this, will you explain why you removed "This is the third-most common way in which HIV is transmitted globally.", "many of these measures are not available in the developing world.", and "Infection with HIV during pregnancy is also associated with miscarriage."?

Material supported by old sources doesn't mean that the material is outdated. The "Mother-to-child" section should adequately summarize the HIV and pregnancy and HIV and breastfeeding articles per WP:Summary style.

Also keep in mind that you shouldn't mark non-minor edits as minor; see WP:Minor.

No need to ping me if you reply. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:34, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

I don't understand what it means to "ping" you.

Mother to child transmission is no longer definitely the third most common way in which HIV is transmitted. Mother to child transmission has reduced considerably in the last few years. I couldn't easily find a more up todate reference but I will look again. Few figures are available globally for transmission through drug use. If the statement can't be substantiated then it needs to be removed. Or it could be put in that at a certain date mother to child transmission was the third more common transmission route. but I am not sure that this would add much to the article. Maybe it should go in the history page?

Many measures, such as treatment with ARVs are now available in developing countries.

Except for one old reference there is no evidence that infection with HIV during pregnancy causes miscarriage.

I am sorry if I incorrectly marked them as minor edits.

With regard to exclusive breastfeeding WHO (which is an out of date reference) certainly does not now suggest that HIV infected mothers practice exclusive breastfeeding only. If safe formula is available that should be used. It is no longer recommended that the "acceptable, feasible etc." wording is used. It needs to be mentioned that both mother and babies should be taking ARVs.

I think that the whole of the second paragraph starting "Despite these positive indicators" needs to be removed. There are now in my view good guidelines for HIV infected women in developing countries which is partly why several more countries have now eliminated mother to child transmission of HIV.

The practice of breastfeeding for HIV positive mothers seems no longer to be a highly contested public health concern. Counselling is no longer recommended at the level of individual women. Policy is now set at a national level. What is still unclear is how long women with HIV should exclusively breastfeed for.

I don't think that the second paragraph under PMTCT policy challenges is very accurate. A major issue seems to be that women, whether breastfeeding or not, loose contact with services and no longer adhere to taking arvs.

The phrase "third world countries" has now generally been replaced with "developing" countries. Also, a lot of developments have taken place since the WHO convention in 2006.

There is information about exclusive breastfeeding generally, which can't go on any of the HIV pages. Where should it go? It probably needs to go on the breastfeeding page but this is very long anyway.

TamaraStaples (talk) 10:52, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

TamaraStaples, thanks for commenting. I removed the previous above heading you added since there was no need for a separate section for your reply. I also WP:Indented your post. As for "ping"? See WP:Ping. It's how you got my alert above.

Doc James, any thoughts on what TamaraStaples stated above? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:15, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

TamaraStaples, regarding the things you stated, we need to go by WP:MEDRS-compliant sources. We can't go by our own thoughts, such as "there are now in my view" and "seems no longer to be a highly contested public health concern." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:19, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

I was just trying to be polite on a talk page. I was not suggesting wording for puting in the page. An alternative way of expressing myself would be to say that There are guidelines for HIV infected women in developing countries. Also, I would just take out the statement about highly contested public health concern which I don't think was referenced. TamaraStaples (talk) 10:30, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Vertical transmission is still fairly common.[1]

What are currently the most common methods of spread I am not sure. Would need to look further. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:03, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

U=U

There’s no mention of this in the article. Shouldn’t there be? U=U is undetectable=untransmissible. Boscaswell talk 00:46, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

"No cure"

Currently the article makes no mention of Timothy Ray Brown, and states outright that "there is no cure" for HIV.

Obviously, Brown's case is not an especially useful cure, but nonetheless he was cured by a known mechanism (i.e. not a freak accident; we know what did it). I don't think something that's not literally true ought to be stated outright in Wikipedia mainspace. I'm just not sure what to put in its place.

Does anybody have some suggestions on what we can say to concisely convey both that a) there isn't a usable, safe cure, b) there technically have been real cases of people who did have HIV and don't anymore? Magic9mushroom (talk) 15:22, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Two persons cured - https://www.theguardian.com/science/2020/mar/09/second-person-cleared-hiv-adam-castillejo-reveals-identity

I'm not sure how to rewrite the sentence about "no cure", but two cases mean that the first one is not a fluke, even if the circumstances are not applicable to all. Hzh (talk) 23:54, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

About a part

'prevention: male circumcision', really?!

someone should erase that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.154.20.252 (talk) 11:52, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

How? Cynegugu (talk) 18:54, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

This should really be deleted... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.240.52.17 (talk) 14:33, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

I took it out of the intro. I left in the content under the prevention section, which mentions the uncertainty surrounding the relationship between HIV and male circumcision. since it's contested, I don't think it should be mentioned as a primary prevention mechanism in the intro. also, a relevant article: [2]. Xcalibur (talk) 04:47, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

RfC how much blame to assign to Ronald Reagan due to his handling of the AIDS crisis in the lead section of his bio

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Ronald Reagan#RfC. Sdkb (talk) 05:45, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

"also known as Gay-related immune deficiency (GRID)"

This is a bit of obscure history localized to the USA. Does not belong in the first sentence per WP:UNDUE. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:42, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

UK deaths are wrong

The article says there was 594 deaths in uk up to 2015, not in 2015 as the source the article use states. This is especially confusing because the 594 death figure is combined with the figure of 101,200 cases while in 2015 there was 6095 cases according to the source the article uses. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.14.68.243 (talk) 07:55, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

"Gay Pneumonia" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Gay Pneumonia. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 May 6#Gay Pneumonia until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Hog Farm (talk) 20:07, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 May 2020

In the transmission section on HIV/AIDs (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HIV/AIDS#Transmission), there is a table labeled "Average per act risk of getting HIV by exposure route to an infected source." I have located a journal article that supports the 90% figure for Blood Transfusion more clearly than the current citation. From the abstract of the article: "Conclusions: Transfusion of anti-HIV-1-positive blood infected 90% of recipients."

The article is: Donegan E, Stuart M, Niland JC, et al, Transfusion Safety Group*. Infection with Human Immunodeficiency Virus Type 1 (HIV-1) among Recipients of Antibody-Positive Blood Donations. Ann Intern Med. 1990;113:733–739. doi: https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-113-10-733

I recommend changing the currently cited source to this one. 99.10.226.189 (talk) 18:36, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

 Done: Great find! That entry was tagged as needing a better source. I changed the reference in the table at Template: Risk of acquiring HIV and in the Body fluids section of the article. — Tartan357  ^(Talk) 08:04, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

the 'Percentage of people with HIV/AIDS.[215]' graph

the subtitle on that graph is completely inaccurate. it isnt 'the percentage of people' with a marker showing '100%' it should be 'growth of the percentage' or something.. or maybe the entire thing removed until it can be made accurate — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.193.216.180 (talk) 00:09, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Pandemic?

"HIV/AIDS is considered a pandemic—a disease outbreak which is present over a large area and is actively spreading.[17]"

"A widespread endemic disease with a stable number of infected people is not a pandemic. Widespread endemic diseases with a stable number of infected people such as recurrences of seasonal influenza are generally excluded as they occur simultaneously in large regions of the globe rather than being spread worldwide." Pandemic Darsie42 (talk) 11:30, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Source clearly states that it is a pandemic. CDC have also referred to it as a pandemic 1. If the spread is now considered contained then you should be able to find a reference stating the end date of the pandemic. While number of infections may be stable in many countries, it may still be rapidly out of control in a number of others. Amousey (talk) 13:48, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

"The dwindles" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect The dwindles. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 September 20#The dwindles until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:39, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 January 2021

Under "Risk Factors" in the sidebar, change

Exposure to blood, breast milk, sex, men who have sex with men, drug users, prisoners, sex workers and their clients

to

Having unprotected anal or vaginal sex, having another sexually transmitted infection, sharing contaminated needles, syringes and other injecting equipment and drug solutions, medical procedures that involve unsterile cutting or piercing, and experiencing accidental needle stick injuries.

This reflects the actual "Risk Factors" section in the cited WHO report (archived at https://web.archive.org/web/20160220011817/http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs360/en). As currently written, it appears to be entirely made up. Kaphela (talk) 04:56, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

 Question: The risk factors listed in the sidebar seem to be an almost verbatim recollection of the risk factors listed in the 12th dotpoint in the WHO factsheet referenced in the article. if you want to change them, you probably need to establish a consensus to do so on this talkpage. I have left this request open to allow another editor to chime in. Jack Frost (talk) 09:53, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Apologies, I had been looking at the 2016 version, which did not include the "key populations" dotpoint in its "key facts" section. Despite this, there is still a "Risk Factors" section of the report separate and distinct from the "key populations" dotpoint. I feel that the the segment on this page's sidebar labeled "risk factors" should contain the content from the identically labelled section of the report, and that the "key populations" information would be more appropriate elsewhere in the page. Kaphela (talk) 18:01, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

 Done Risk factors updated to reflect source material. Minor copyediting done enroute. Jack Frost (talk) 07:44, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 February 2021

Under the Origins section: an Old World monkey living in coastal West Africa (from southern Senegal to western Ivory Coast). New World monkeys such as the owl monkey are resistant

link Old World monkey to Old World monkey.

I had to click through New World monkey to get to the Old World monkey article to understand the differences. WeakyPaedia (talk) 06:28, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

 Done - see Special:Diff/1007457499. Best, DanCherek (talk) 06:32, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Elite controllers timeframe not inicated

Under Signs and Symptoms: Clinical latency the topic of Elite controllers is mentioned. There is no distinctive difference in the description of elite and non-elite controllers, since the time Elite controllers suppress the virus is not mentioned. The addition of the word "indefinite" to the sentence on them appears to be a clarification in line with the original source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.82.120.48 (talk) 17:09, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Conflicting statements about earliest presence of HIS in the US

Unless I'm misreading it, the section "Origins" contains conflicting statements about when the earliest cases in the US might have been. "The virus may have been present in the United States as early as the mid-to-late 1950s", says one paragraph. The next says "the virus may have been present in the United States as early as 1966". I have no idea which statement is more accurate, but it looks like a contradiction to me. --MQDuck (talk) 10:49, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

The statement about 1966 was inaccurate: 1966 was when the patient, a 12 or 13 year old boy from St Louis, first presented with symptoms of what would, nearly two decades after his death in 1969, be confirmed to have been AIDS. Therefore, the virus "may have been present in the US in the mid-to-late 1950s" because that is when and where he presumably would have become infected. But there is no "may have been" regarding 1966: he had AIDS in 1966. I've corrected the article text accordingly. Firejuggler86 (talk) 01:17, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Covid Vaccine can't cause AIDS

I know this is obvious, but conspiracy theorists are spreading misinformation claiming that the Covid Jab skips HIV directly into AIDS, which is impossible because you can't develop AIDS without an HIV infection. I suggest adding this basic medical fact.

A person can have HIV without developing AIDS, but it is not possible to have AIDS without first having HIV PeterMcCormac (talk) 16:33, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

References

Gay men and misconceptions

SassyGamer483, are you unfamiliar with the history of this? Why would you change it to "gay people" instead of "gay men"? Gender-neutral language is great for many things, but not for this. Maybe you need to review the sources? Or I should provide a few here for enlightenment? Enlightenedstranger0 (talk) 23:45, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

"Gay men are the primary focus of these beliefs". We can't rely on anyone's beliefs. Why does it matter that "most of the initial cases of HIV were gay men"? How can we be so sure that all gay people who got infected after the discovery of HIV had male gonads? Some people may have been mistakenly forgotten? If you didn't already know, gender is not binary. Why do we really need to relate transmission of diseases with genders when there are so many genders?

As a matter of fact, HIV-AIDS can happen to anyone, including non-binary people and people belonging to LGBTQ+ communities. I thought this was easy to understand [User:SassyGamer483|SassyGamer483]] (talk) 07:50, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

SassyGamer483, sadly, many do not understand HIV-AIDS and there are many misconceptions about the disease. The sentence under dispute here is about one of them, and it's focused on gay men specifically. Enlightenedstranger0, if you know of any good sources that discuss the misconception (and also the one about drug users), it is a little strange that the clause at the end of the sentence is unsourced. Firefangledfeathers 13:26, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

I know, but the term "gay" becomes irrelevant in context of non-binary people. There is no need to specify that a certain misconception about a widespread disease was "focused only on gay men" when this misconception could have affected any gender. It's just a endless loop of discrimination which can be stopped by unity and teamwork. SassyGamer483 (talk) 16:05, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

I am not sure there's a term besides 'gay men' that is (a) supported by the sources and (b) precisely describes those targeted by the misconception. "Gay people" would include many groups of people that have been unaffected by this specific misconception. "Gay and bisexual men" might work, as could "men who have sex with men" (though a bit clinical). "Men" might be the issue here; maybe "males"? Firefangledfeathers 16:09, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

And have any damages done by this misconception to concerned people been compensated? If you don't know about LGBTQ+ terms then please see here, here and here. Why exactly is there a need to specify which group(s) of people was/were affected? Why does this specification matter? Would it matter in the future too? SassyGamer483 (talk) 16:34, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

As far as I know, no one has been compensated for the damage done by the misconception. I don't claim to be an expert on LGBTQ+ terms, but I'm familiar with what's present at those links already. To be clear, I am fine with the status quo, and was tossing out some alternatives to try and reach a new consensus. Perhaps you have another that you'd support? Firefangledfeathers 17:00, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

We should try to make every article gender-neutral and inclusive of all genders, starting with this article. I have settled on changing "gay men" to "gay people". If any help is needed in gathering references for the concerned sentence, I will available some 14 hours later from now (UTC 07:30). Have a good day SassyGamer483 (talk) 17:36, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

SassyGamer483, when a misconception is about a specific gender, you/we can't make that about every gender. You asked, "Why exactly is there a need to specify which group(s) of people was/were affected? Why does this specification matter?" It matters because the group is gay men (or MSM, depending on the source's terminology) and this is important historical information. I have to say that your question is like asking, "What does it matter that a certain misconception or stereotype is about bisexual people? Why don't we just say 'people' instead of 'bisexual people'?" Well, in all obviousness, we say "bisexual people" because it's about them. And we say "gay men" or "MSM" because it's about them. Attempts to make it about all people just isn't accurate. MOS:GNL says to use gender-neutral language when this can be done with clarity and precision, and the text should not be altered when about one-gender contexts. Enlightenedstranger0 (talk) 00:27, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Back when the misconceptions about HIV/AIDS were most prominent, gay (and bisexual) men were at the forefront. Certainly, some thought that only gay (or bisexual) men or lesbians, drug users, and sex workers could get AIDS, but the focus was on the men because of the prevalence data. In that atmosphere, no one said, "Non-binary people [are this and that]." You have to know that identifying as non-binary was not close to as widespread back then as it is now. And even if some of these people who were labeled "gay or bisexual men" had a non-binary identity, we don't know that. What we know is what gender label was used for these people, what happened partly based on that (as they were having sex with men), and what the sources say. Firefangledfeathers, I wonder if any of the pre-existing sources in that sentence support "that HIV can infect only gay men and drug users." I've added sources, using more recent ones instead of ones from the late 1990s, 2000s, or early 2010s. I'm unsure about the publisher "Critical Publishing", as I haven't cited them until now. SassyGamer483, please follow the sources and not your own analysis, and allow readers the integrity of historical record. This edit you made is borderline acceptable, in that it may be acceptable to keep it since gay bowel syndrome was always a problematic term. Still, the term was a descriptor focused on gay men and the HIV/AIDS article shouldn't lose context like this. Enlightenedstranger0 (talk) 00:47, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. And it's odd that just as there is more recognition nowadays that being "colorblind" in matters of race can be harmful - e.g. the very different meanings of Black Lives Matter and All Lives Matter - we have people thinking that the progressive thing to do with sex and gender is to remove all specificity in such topics. That is not truly progressive or helpful, and in any case is against our policies of WP:NOTADVOCACY and WP:STICKTOSOURCE. Enlightenedstranger0, feel free to ping me in any case where an editor is pushing to inappropriately impose sex/gender neutrality onto an article. Crossroads ^-talk- 03:37, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Please elaborate what you think is progressive then. We have yet to find out which and how many groups of people were affected by this misconception and whether they have been compensated for any damages done. Being inclusive of all genders, gender-neutrality is always progressive. Ultimately whether heterosexual or homosexual or bisexual or pansexual, men = normal people, women = normal people, non-binary people = also normal people and genderqueer people = also normal people. Hence, besides this misconception about gay people, many other misconceptions about less recognized genders also have to be mentioned as needed. According to sociological jargon such as intersectionality coined by philosopher Kimberlé Williams Crenshaw, black LGBTQ+ individuals also face racism, and on top of that triple oppression. Be it any pandemic, HIV or COVID, laws made by genuine global organizations such as UNHRC, UNICEF and HRC have more importance than Wikipedia policies. Since all Wikipedia policies still have to be followed, they should be amended accordingly for global inclusion of all genders. Perhaps unreasonable resistance created by uninformed users dissuades trans, non-binary and genderqueer individuals to edit Wikipedia. I wish that they also be given freedom and encouraged to be Wikipedians if they are beginners. SassyGamer483 (talk) 09:18, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

"...even if some of these people who were labeled "gay or bisexual men" had a non-binary identity, we don't know that" We can and we will know that, because it is surely a possibility. Whoever made the sentence which is "focused on gay men specifically" apparently either did not do enough research into groups of people who were infected with HIV between 1970 and 2000, or some groups of people were disregarded and/or unidentified. Don't dismiss the obvious fact that many non-binary people and quite a big number of trans men and trans women coming under the non-binary umbrella, whether gay or not, also get infected with HIV. They are minorities with many misconceptions against them. If you or anyone is/was unaware, being non-binary is not a choice; non-binary people are born like that. "Non-binary people are unreal" is a major misconception which also has to be emphasized everywhere, including this article. SassyGamer483 (talk) 07:51, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

This truly, really, truly isn't about which other groups were affected or "compensated for any damages done" (whatever that is supposed to mean). It's about a misconception (a prominent misconception) about gay men. Full stop. You can't argue for inclusivity on something like that. You can try, but it doesn't work. And it's so peculiar to me that you're trying to do it. You can't take a misconception about one group and "share" it with another group in an attempt to make the misconception also about that other group. You truly don't understand that? Do you do this same thing when the subject is misconceptions about women? Derogatory terms specifically meant to describe and shame or oppress women? Your goal is to then say, "It's misconceptions and derogatory terms about everybody."? Crossroads mentioned Black Lives Matter. What about when the subject concerns racism and misconceptions and derogatory terms about black people? I also think you're overstepping by speaking for all non-binary people, as they have varied views, including on whether they view their non-binary identity as a choice. Enlightenedstranger0 (talk) 23:18, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

@Enlightenedstranger0: Alright, I agree with you on the decision that this misconception "focused on gay men specifically" should be retained for historical reasons. Of course it is another obvious fact that being non-binary is not a choice and non-binary people are born outside the binary spectrum of genders; let me provide scientific evidences from here, here and here. I request for misconceptions concerning trans people and non-binary people about HIV infection to be mentioned as well. Can we collaborate for that? SassyGamer483 (talk) 06:17, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

The sources you've given us here for "not a choice" regarding non-binary identity don't exactly support what you've said here or added over there. When I say non-binary people "have varied views, including on whether they view their non-binary identity as a choice," I mean those (and they do exist) who say they chose a non-binary identity to challenge or reject the gender binary, like this person over at Aeon. This is sort of similar to people who identify as queer as a political statement. They may very well be gay or lesbian, but they use queer for a personal reason, such as its perceived provocativeness to some or powerful message of reclamation. The person from Aeon views nonbinary identity as "an unabashedly political identity" and says "nonbinary identity is open to anyone and forced upon no one. It is radically anti-essentialist. It is opt-in only." They say they "and other nonbinary persons question why we categorise people as women and men at all." Queer Theologies: The Basics says "A person may choose to self-identify as 'agender', which means they don't adopt binary gender labels." and "There are other terms used by people to reject gender labels and gender identities, including 'non-binary', 'genderqueer', 'genderfluid', 'gendervariant'." Do you see how that source says "to reject"? You probably know this, but many non-binary people don't identify as trans. A person who identifies as genderfluid (one of the non-binary identities) may have been assigned male at birth, identify as a man, and use masculine pronouns or masculine and "they" pronouns. There are cisgender gay men and lesbians who sometimes but not always identify as non-binary. Some feel a duality between being cisgender and not cisgender. Enlightenedstranger0 (talk) 23:40, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

If your argument is that people are born agender, bigender, trigender, demigender, or pangender, you've provided no scientific evidence for that. These are also fairly new conceptualizations. If your argument is that they are new conceptualizations for feelings that have always existed, you've also provided no scientific sources or other sources for that. Some sources, like this one by The College Writer, say (or report people saying) that "this is a generation that has emerged with different understandings about gender and sexuality" and refuse to be labeled. When some people say they identify as non-binary to specifically reject the gender binary/as a political statement, or sources say it's partly generational, it's not accurate to say everyone with a non-binary identity feels they were born genderless or with a fluctuating gender. As this discussion isn't about whether people are born (or always born) non-binary, I'm also not asking you to provide such sources. Yes, if you have good sources about HIV/AIDS misconceptions as they pertain to trans gay men or non-binary people, I have not one issue with this information being added to the article. Enlightenedstranger0 (talk) 23:51, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

I need help with providing reliable sources. This article needs more experts in biology, anthropology and genetics. It would be better if we do teamwork SassyGamer483 (talk) 14:16, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

If there are sources that say "cisgender gay men" for "HIV can infect only gay men", we can try that to acknowledge trans gay men, and non-binary people to an extent, in that way. But, and this can't be said enough, the misconception we're talking about here is not about trans gay men. Trans visibility wasn't what it is now at that point in time. Neither was the incidence of out trans gay men, or other people identifying as trans. I've provided a couple sources here. You have the chance to try and provide sources to support what you've said about about HIV/AIDS as it pertains to misconceptions about trans men and non-binary people. But even if we add something about these populations to the article regarding misconceptions, it doesn't follow that the information about cisgender gay men should then be removed. Since the way HIV/AIDS affected gay men (the sheer extent of it), and the way they were highlighted and treated forms a huge chunk of the HIV/AIDS topic and is of great historical importance, it's very pertinent that it's covered in this article. Enlightenedstranger0 (talk) 23:23, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not seeing any reason to change existing article text. And I will say it is rather unusual to say the least for someone who sincerely holds the sociopolitical viewpoint that SassyGamer ostensibly holds to go so far as to say a misconception "has to be emphasized everywhere", and especially to refer to intersectionality and triple oppression as "jargon". If this person is sincere, they need to read WP:NOTADVOCACY and WP:Right great wrongs. Wikipedia follows the sources that are specifically about the topic being discussed, and with WP:Due weight. Crossroads ^-talk- 03:39, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Are you sure that any private organizations don't advocate themselves on Wikipedia? Are they really kept in check? That's unconfirmed and questionable. Should LGBTQ+ Non-Profit Organizations and concerned charities not be mentioned on Wikipedia to reach out to poor strata of society who are suffering from diseases like HIV and COVID-19? And please let me ask you, do trans people and non-binary people seem any sort of "organizations" to you? I think you mistook the word for "organisms" or, here, individual human beings. What you want to convey is unbelievable SassyGamer483 (talk) 06:43, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Sure, retain all text in the history and misconceptions sections as it is. Exactly, trans visibility and non-binary visibility are more important now, so can you please give valid reasons as to not including misconceptions about trans people and non-binary people? Their experiences with HIV also matter. I also find it strange that majority of editors who created and expanded this article (and many other articles) are cisgender male-dominant. It's questionable as to how this article has been rated as a GA-Class article when it does not acknowledge all genders and is barely gender-neutral except the misconceptions section. We rarely come across female editors, trans editors and non-binary editors and that's disappointing. Has been for a long time SassyGamer483 (talk) 06:31, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes, if you have good sources about HIV/AIDS misconceptions as they pertain to trans gay men or non-binary people, I have not one issue with this information being added to the article. Enlightenedstranger0 (talk) 23:51, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

I can try adding sources, but any help would be very appreciated. SassyGamer483 (talk) 04:17, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do. Enlightenedstranger0 (talk) 23:36, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Human Rights Campaign says, "Despite several years of research on HIV/AIDS and the populations it affects, we know very little about transgender people and HIV. In the vast majority of studies, transgender people have only been counted as their sex assigned at birth, which not only discounts their identities, but leaves them relatively invisible to public health officials and advocacy organizations working toward prevention, treatment, and HIV-related health care. The few recent studies that consider transgender women (and even fewer that consider transgender men) as a specific group reveal alarmingly high HIV infection rates."

So because there's little research on these populations, misconception information about them is going to be hard to come by. Enlightenedstranger0 (talk) 23:58, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

So what you can do is add different information about them. It doesn't have to be about misconceptions. Enlightenedstranger0 (talk) 00:14, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

References

Numbers vs. numbers

Article has numbers:

As of 2016 about 675,000 people have died of HIV/AIDS in the US since the beginning of the HIV epidemic.

citing "CDC FACT SHEET Today’s HIV/AIDS Epidemic" (August 2016)

But when I go to today's CDC site the first recent data I find is "HIV in the U.S. by the Numbers – Current Year" (December 2021) saying "HIV-Related Deaths, through 2019" is 551,779.

Clearly there is a disparity in numbers, and people can point to WP again and laugh. (Or would that be the CDC?) Anyway, I can use either number, as 40 years of HIV is less deaths than 2 years of COVID in the USA, but strangely the new stigma is against masking? Both are viruses, but the reactions are completely different? Shenme (talk) 04:47, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

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)

 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)

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)

 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)

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)

Hiv

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

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)

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 [3]. 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 [4] 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)

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)