Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former featured articleHIV/AIDS is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Good articleHIV/AIDS has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on June 15, 2006.
On this day... Article milestones
March 12, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
April 8, 2006Featured article candidatePromoted
May 18, 2008Featured article reviewDemoted
August 6, 2012Good article nomineeListed
On this day... Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on June 5, 2012, June 5, 2014, June 5, 2019, and June 5, 2021.
Current status: Former featured article, current good article

Semi-protected edit request on 12 April 2023[edit]

Hi, there's a mistake in the page. It says Kaposi's Sarcoma and Burkitt lymphoma are both associated with HHV-8 (human herpes virus 8), but this isn't true. Kaposi's Sarcoma is, but Burkitt lymphoma is actually associated with EBV (Epstein-Barr virus). Medical fanatic (talk) 08:15, 12 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Medical fanatic: Thanks. However, WP:MEDRS does require a source for that. Kleuske (talk) 10:11, 12 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. M.Bitton (talk) 11:15, 12 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Almost certainly the editors who replied here cannot easily WP:V the article's claim that is being disputed by the person they've replied to, because the ref used is a chapter of a book (Principles and Practice of Infectious Diseases) that costs - probably a lot of - money. Now that someone has disputed the claim, my opinion is that the existing ref could be tagged with {{Request quotation}}, or something similar. The book is used as a ref a whopping thirty times in this article, so likely one or more editors have access to it, and can add a relevant quote. This would allow the person replied to, and the rest of us, to at least get a better idea of the validity of the article's claim. --2001:1C06:19CA:D600:E8FE:CF10:D669:77BC (talk) 06:32, 6 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


In § Stigma, you could internally link Rent to Rent (musical). --2001:1C06:19CA:D600:DFCE:FF65:E3F7:5139 (talk) 20:30, 5 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 10 May 2023[edit]

From § Stigma: "To get a better understanding of the anti-homosexual attitudes around AIDs the musical Rent explores this."

This sentence has a typo ('AIDs'), is generally poorly constructed/unclear, and likely out of place (better suited for HIV/AIDS#Media portrayal?). Recommend deletion, but open to alternatives GlobalHyperstition (talk) 00:08, 11 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is it a pandemic or is it not a pandemic?[edit]

The opening summary states that "HIV/AIDS is considered a pandemic—a disease outbreak which is present over a large area and is actively spreading." with a citation from 2008. It should be noted that 15 years is a very long time with regards to the notion of a "pandemic", nor does this text identify who exactly has decided that it is a "pandemic". Are they an acknowledged public authority on the subject?

Later in the "Epidemiology" section it curtly states that "Some authors consider HIV/AIDS a global pandemic." First of all, "Some authors" are not a credible and authoritative source of information of whether something is or isn't a pandemic, global or otherwise. "Some authors" could be anyone. Second, this citation is yet another 15 year old article.

Is it a "Global Pandemic", a "Pandemic" or is it not "Pandemic" at all? Is it just something "Some authors" think or is it a widespread scientific consensus about this determination? Shouldn't this be determined by actual up to date information rather than what the situation looked like 15 years age? Again it should be stressed that 15 years is a very, very long time with regards to "Pandemics". Arcade222 (talk) 04:08, 15 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's not necessarily a "very, very long time". The page for the first plague pandemic says that "it began ... in 541 and continued 750 or 767". The dates for the third plague pandemic are 1855-1960. Some cholera pandemics are described as spanning several decades. In all those cases the definition can be attributed to the fact that the disease kept spreading to new areas of the globe, at the pace of contemporary means of transportation.
I don't know if that's also the case with HIV or if by now it can be considered endemic - circulating at some baseline level through affected countries and no longer seen as an emergency through health systems. The WHO and UN-related websites still mention that it is "epidemic" (even in contexts like 'Ending the HIV/AIDS epidemic by 2030'), so I don't feel the case for it being a pandemic is as hard to make as you imply, even if references could use an update. If references to pandemic status are removed there should be citations supporting that view. Daydreamers (talk) 14:29, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Semi-Protected Edit Request: Oct. 6, 2023[edit]

(1) HAART is considered an out-of-date statement. Treatment of HIV is referred to as ART(antiretroviral therapy) in current citations by both the WHO and CDC [1] Additionally, it is how treatment is referred to by the current treatment clinical guidelines [2], at least in the United States.

(2) Requested edits for "As of 2010, more than 6.6 million people were receiving HAART in low- and middle-income countries." to " As of 2022, 39 million people globally were living with HIV, and 29.8 million people were accessing ART." The citation for this statement is the 2023 UNAIDS Fact Sheet: [3]

(3) Following the statement "combinations (or "cocktails") consisting of at least three medications belonging to at least two types, or "classes", of antiretroviral agents."

Please add the following sentence: "There are eight classes of antiretroviral agents (ARVs), and over 30 individual drugs: nucleoside/nucleotide reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTIs), non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase, inhibitors (NNRTIs), protease inhibitors (PIs), integrase strand transfer inhibitors (INSTIs), a fusion inhibitor, a CCR5 antagonist, a CD4 T lymphocyte (CD4) post-attachment inhibitor, and a gp120 attachment inhibitor. There are also two drugs, ritonavir (RTV) and cobicistat (COBI) which can be used as pharmacokinetic (PK) enhancers (or boosters) to improve the PK profiles of PIs and the INSTI elvitegravir (EVG)."

The citation for this inclusion is: [4]

(4) This statement references outdated (2013) guidelines: "Initially, treatment is typically a non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NNRTI) plus two nucleoside analog reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTIs)."

Recommended revision is "Depending on the guidelines being followed, initial treatment generally consists of two nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors along with a third ARV, either an integrase strand transfer inhibitor (INSTI), a non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NNRTI), or a protease inhibitor with a pharmacokinetic enhancer (also known as a booster)."

The citation for this revision is [5] Blossiraptor (talk) 20:20, 6 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Awkward first sentence in lede --[edit]

Infection with HIV (Human Immunodeficiency Virus), a retrovirus, can be managed with treatment but without treatment can lead to a spectrum of conditions including AIDS (Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome).

How about defining what AIDS is before HIV (and how to treat it) in the AIDS article. Maybe something like this and without the excessive commas --

AIDS (Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome) is a spectrum of conditions caused by HIV (Human Immunodeficiency Virus). HIV is a retrovirus that can be managed with treatment. Left untreated HIV can lead to AIDS. (talk) 04:35, 20 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 6 November 2023[edit]

In the information box at the beginning is listed:

Prevention: Safe sex, needle exchange, male circumcision, pre-exposure prophylaxis, post-exposure prophylaxis[4]

I think male circumcision should be removed from the list. I think the list creates an image that circumcision is as effective in prevention as the other listed methods, which is not the case. Epidemiologyclly speaking it might be a risk reducting method but the other listed methods reduce individual’s risk to ~0%. No one should believe they are safe with circumcition and neglect safe sex and then get infected. 2001:14BB:A5:CDF8:C04E:1030:73F:FA7 (talk) 20:48, 6 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Seawolf35 (talk - email) 21:30, 6 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Co-operation and conflict on the Frontier of the Cape in the early 19th centuries[edit]

How to stop the fight between the countries? (talk) 16:08, 21 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

HIV/Aids (talk) 03:43, 26 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]