 | Below are answers to frequently asked questions about the corresponding page HIV. They address concerns, questions, and misconceptions which have repeatedly arisen on the talk page. Please feel free to change this material in light of new discussion. |
To view the response to a question, click the [show] link to the right of the question.
Q1: Why is the connection between HIV and AIDS written as a scientific fact?
A1: This is required by Wikipedia's official Neutral point of view policy, especially the sections Undue weight and Equal validity. This policy requires that articles treat views on various subjects proportionally to the level of these views among experts on the topic. The fact that infection with HIV causes AIDS is uncontentious in the scientific and medical literature. The beliefs of the people who continue to dispute the link between HIV and AIDS, and the consequences of their promotion of these ideas, are discussed in the article on AIDS denialism.
Q2: Some sources say that the AIDS epidemic is a result of behaviours such as receptive anal sex and drug use. Why does our article not emphasize this?
A2: HIV can be contracted by many routes, including vaginal intercourse[1] or from mother to infant.[2] Many HIV and AIDS misconceptions exist; please check that article and references therein before raising a point here.
Q3: Why does the article not cite any of the websites that dispute the role of HIV in AIDS, or promote alternative therapies for AIDS?
A3: Wikipedia relies on reliable sources that have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. In medical articles the Reliable sources (medicine-related articles) guideline states that the best sources include general or systematic reviews in reputable medical journals, widely recognised standard textbooks written by experts in a field, or medical guidelines and position statements from nationally or internationally reputable expert bodies. The information provided by other sources such as websites, blogs, newsletters, advocacy publications, and the vendors of unproven remedies range from factual to fraudulent, with many containing misinformation and unfounded claims.[3][4] These types of sources are therefore not appropriate for Wikipedia articles.
Q4: Why was my post to this page deleted?
A4: Did you read and abide by the Talk page guidelines? Most likely, someone decided that you appeared to be using the page as a forum for discussion of the topic itself rather than as a place to suggest concrete improvements to the article on HIV. There should be an explanatory edit summary if you look at the history. Try rephrasing your post as What about this source? or, better This sentence is misleading/erroneous, as indicated by this source. It should read as ... The sources in question should be current, abide by the Reliable sources guideline, and not be used to give undue weight to any particular view.
References
- ^ Smith DK, Grohskopf LA, Black RJ, et al. (January 2005). "Antiretroviral postexposure prophylaxis after sexual, injection-drug use, or other nonoccupational exposure to HIV in the United States: recommendations from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services". MMWR Recomm Rep. 54 (RR-2): 1–20. PMID 15660015. Retrieved 2009-03-31.
- ^ Coovadia H (2004). "Antiretroviral agents—how best to protect infants from HIV and save their mothers from AIDS". N. Engl. J. Med. 351 (3): 289–292. doi:10.1056/NEJMe048128. PMID 15247337.
- ^ Kalichman SC, Cherry C, Cain D, et al. (March 2006). "Health information on the Internet and people living with HIV/AIDS: information evaluation and coping styles". Health Psychol. 25 (2): 205–10. doi:10.1037/0278-6133.25.2.205. PMID 16569112.
- ^ Benotsch EG, Kalichman S, Weinhardt LS (December 2004). "HIV-AIDS patients' evaluation of health information on the internet: the digital divide and vulnerability to fraudulent claims". J Consult Clin Psychol. 72 (6): 1004–11. doi:10.1037/0022-006X.72.6.1004. PMID 15612847.