This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
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
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
Serious encyclopedias: Serious and respected encyclopedias and reference works are generally expected to provide overviews of scientific topics that are in line with respected scientific thought. Wikipedia aspires to be such a respected work.
Obvious pseudoscience: Theories which, while purporting to be scientific, are obviously bogus, such as Time Cube, may be so labeled and categorized as such without more justification.
Generally considered pseudoscience: Theories which have a following, such as astrology, but which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community may properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience.
Questionable science: Theories which have a substantial following, such as psychoanalysis, but which some critics allege to be pseudoscience, may contain information to that effect, but generally should not be so characterized.
Alternative theoretical formulations: Alternative theoretical formulations which have a following within the scientific community are not pseudoscience, but part of the scientific process.
The Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use require that editors disclose their "employer, client, and affiliation" with respect to any paid contribution; see WP:PAID. For advice about reviewing paid contributions, see WP:COIRESPONSE.
Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
While I have made a couple of edits to give context, this article in it's present state violates policy by presenting a complimentary rather than NPOV version of this woman's furtherance of AIDS denial. As editors, it's not our job to pretend as if absurd views and people forwarding absurd views are somehow plausible, especially when referencing medical content, and especially when RSs are firmly one sided in opposition. I have plenty of specific suggestions for edits here, but I will wait until some more experienced editors show up as my level of experience editing is limited. cheers Supaflyrobby (talk) 19:54, 4 January 2018 (UTC)Reply
I think with the new context it's not violently NNPOV as readers are alerted to the frigeiness of the denialism. That said, the article is a mess - it could realy do with a big prune. As the article only gets 4 views/day, it is however not high on my worry list.Alexbrn (talk) 20:12, 4 January 2018 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 7 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion
"For their part, the medical and scientific community robustly defend the HIV/AIDS hypothesis, citing conclusive scientific evidence."
This is not a neutral statement, this is biased nonsense. The HIV/AIDS link is a scientific theory backed by massive amounts of scientific research. To discount and downplay it as a "hypothesis" is biased and ridiculous. MageCrafted (talk) 03:29, 28 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
