Talk:HIV/AIDS in the United States

Nobody's talking any more
I see that the last comment in talk on this page is almost a year ago. Nobody is talking any more. This article is abandoned, not in conflict, ignored, or what? The comcepts here cry out for discussion, as in the main AIDS article, but it seems to be ignored. --Dumarest 21:40, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

GRID
Replaced this assertion"Gay activists opposed the GRID name from the outset, as having homosexuals identified as being disease carriers was at odds with the political goals of gaining acceptance for homosexuality. Their protests, combined with early evidence that the disease was not specific to gay men, resulting in the CDC renaming the syndrome AIDS, for Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome, in 1982." I don't know of any evidence that "gay activists" had anything to do with the name change (and it certainly does not square with my recollection of that history): in fact, the name was changed when it became apparent it was incorrect, and that the disease was not restricted to gay men. (And how logical would it have been to object to replacing "Gay Cancer" with "GRID" in the first place?) -- Someone else 07:28 21 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Category:LGBT history
I added this page to Category:LGBT history as it is currently mostly about, after all, a major part of gay history in America (that is, not a history exclusively belonging to gay people but a history that points toward modern attitudes regarding gay people and modern gay identity). I'm totally open to debate on the matter though. -Seth Mahoney 19:32, Aug 23, 2004 (UTC)

Last two decades
Fro some reason this article ends with Magic Johnson catching AIDS and the Ryan White foundation. Is there nothing to add about the last ten or twenty years? Did part of the article get cut off by accident? -Willmcw 08:48, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Category:African-American history
I don't see any reason to have this article in that category so I'm removing it. 80.203.115.12 05:00, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Sure. I believe it belongs for the following reasons, but I am open to input.


 * 1) Many notable African-Americans have contracted it. I.e. Magic Johnson
 * 2) HIV rates are highest among the African-American community today (2/3 of all new teenage cases). See AIDS in America
 * 3) The CDC indicates the reason for this lies behind genetics. See AIDS
 * 4) Many African-American leaders as of late have spoken out against HIV and the need for more testing among their community, including Al Sharpton who participated in New York City’s gay pride events in order to build bridges between the two communities because he believes the gay population’s experience in dealing with it would be an invaluable resource to African-Americans.

What do you think? 70.57.82.114 21:05, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

LaRouche and "PANIC"
Google give 24 hits for 'LaRouche "Prevent AIDS Now Initiative Committee"', doesn't seem to be notable at all. 80.203.115.12 05:07, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

"Homophobia"
Cut from the article:


 * This had an effect of boosting homophobia and adding stigma to homosexuality in the general public, particulaly since it seemed that unprotected anal intercourse seemed to be the prevalent way of spreading the disease.

The term homophobia implies irrational fear. I'm not sure Wikipedia is in a position to say that it is "irrational" to fear the transmission of a usually fatal disease. Whether we can assert that it is normal or rational to fear anything may also be up for grabs.

Better to say that certain advocates objected to the linking of AIDS with homosexuality, and to described their objections. (If all they ever said was Associating AIDS with homoxuality boosts homophobia then we can quote them as saying just that, but I'm fairly sure that a quick googling session will uncover their actual reasoning.)

I'd like to put back part of this passage right away, though, because it's a relatively unchallenged fact that anal intercourse is a major factor in transmitting AIDS. There is the directly related question about "unprotected" anal sex: i.e., how useful are condoms? Do they break, slip off, contain tiny holes? Do men forget to use them? (And if so, what does this say for the effectiveness of condom use as a disease-prevention strategy? (like seatbelts vs. airbags) There is also the related furor over whether HIV really does cause AIDS or not. Uncle Ed 22:51, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

Myth and fact
Here is MenStuff.org's point of view on the subject:


 * Myth: AIDS is a gay disease. Fact: Although the majority of people infected with HIV in the United States are gay, AIDS affects everyone. In other countries, it effects equal numbers of males and females, most presumably heterosexual, and their children. The highest increase in recent years in this country has been among infecting drug users, many of whom are heterosexual.

Unexplained revert - call for discussion / Unexplained cuts - call for discussion
AlexR reverted all my changes yesterday, with only the following comment:


 * just because it is not quite a "homosexual disease" does not mean it wasn't percieved as one

Sorry, Alex, but I don't understand your point here. Please explain why you reverted all my changes. In particular, was there some way in which one or more of my changes failed to acknowledge the perception (by some) that AIDs was perceived as a "homosexual disease"? And if so, what is the best way to discuss the "gay disease" perception?

If not in AIDS in the United States, perhaps in Gay disease or other related articles? Uncle Ed 14:49, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

Ed, we know you think you have something to add to any page touching on the subject of your bete noir, homosexuality, but the sad truth is your changes rarely improve any of the articles. On this talk page alone you confuse etymology with meaning, demonstrate that you are uninformed about measures which have been proven to decrease HIV transmission, and demonstrate that you are confused about whether there is a "furor" about what causes AIDS. I in my turn am perplexed by something you've added to the article: "Many people have strong feelings about AIDS and its causes". The cause of AIDS is well-known, and it is facts, not feelings that are important. You also seem to be forking articles, creating a mess that others will have to clean up. Rather than demanding that someone justifies returning the article to its "pre-Ed" state, you should be discussing such bold changes before making them. As none of your suggested changes and cuts seem to improve the article, I'm returning it to its "pre-Ed" state. - Outerlimits 17:32, 22 August 2005 (UTC)


 * 100% ACK - Uncle Ed may have his merrits outside a certain scope of articles, but this one is clearly within said scope.
 * Persons aside, though, if somebody wants to "improve" an article by removing large parts of it that were uncontested for quite a while, it is usually a good idea to explain exactly why what was removed on the talk page. And if this explanation contains "little holes in condoms" and similar ... errr ... phrases, then the remover should not really be surprised that his improvement goes the way of all bad edits. -- AlexR 19:36, 22 August 2005 (UTC)


 * None of this is too the point. Absent an explanation of your reversions, I still think they should be un-done. Uncle Ed 20:22, August 22, 2005 (UTC)


 * I think you have something wrong here - unless you can explain why you keep removing parts of the article, it is not those restoring the content you deleted that have to explain anything. -- AlexR 21:23, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

AIDS in 1969
The reference to the boy who was retroactively diagnosed with AIDS in 1969 is from a government website. There is a sentence, un-cited, directly after it saying that it was later confirmed that he did not have AIDS. the NIH website (which has the original reference) has more than one citation for people believed to have AIDS or a similar disease prior to 1970. Should we remove the following, contradictory statement? 66.65.55.108 04:43, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


 * This claim was also simultaneously inserted into Timeline of AIDS on 18 January 2007. On the talk page of that article, source was asked, none was provided. The claim was subsequently removed. Its occurrence in this article was apparently overlooked. Accordingly, I have removed the unsourced claim from here as well. 84.42.138.246 09:55, 19 July 2007 (UTC)