User talk:Haytham2

Talk page usage

Please do not use talk pages such as Talk:AIDS denialism for general discussion of the topic. They are for discussion related to improving the article. They are not to be used as a forum or chat room. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. See here for more information. Thank you. MastCell ^Talk 05:21, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I wish I knew how to respond on your page, as I am a new Wikian, and apologize for any mistakes I have made regarding the rules. I guess I'll comment here. I am well-aware that this is not a forum for general discussion, which is why I confined my discussion to why "denialism," despite wide use in AIDS orthodoxy propaganda, is still a term invented to evoke holocaust deniers, rather than be a descriptor, where it fails miserably since literally no one "denies" AIDS (another intentional muddying of the waters by HIV proponents). I have trouble with "common usage" being evoked where obvious "lack of faith" exists where this term "AIDS denialists" is concerned. Ah, if only the internet were around a couple centuries ago, where Wiki would (apparently) have a heading called "[The N word]" and "common usage" would be invoked and all would shrug. Intentional demonization of one side of a debate is antiscientific, to say the least, and certainly not consistent with any kind of respect for knowledge. Anyway, every word I posted was on-topic, or responding to another poster on this same topic. The debate is still alive, AIDS dissent is stronger than it ever has been, thanks to more and more information becoming available and the failures of the HIV hypothesis' proponents to explain the logical inconsistencies of their beliefs. The burial of Wikian's head in the sand, to pronounce any debate as decided and over, is not reflective of reality. I know you probably get a lot of flak from people you consider insanely wrong-headed, but I'd love it when two or three decades down the road and the paradigm finally shifts and the former establishment admits it was mistaken, you don't look back in anger. <smiley face> Haytham2 (talk) 08:27, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Once upon a time I might have taken this bait, but I've found that logical argument is ineffective in dissuading someone from a deeply irrational belief. Find some reliable sources on the supposedly thriving "dissident" movement, and bring them to the article talk page. Stop using Wikipedia like one of your AIDS-denialist blogs. MastCell ^Talk 07:44, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm back! And why? All because of Wikipedia: WikiProject Alternative Views! A good idea! If it was around in Aristarchus' day, there certainly would be more progress toward the idea that the earth goes around the sun, and not vice versa. I find the policy of simply defending whatever the dominant paradigm is to be both intellectually lazy, and a bit too wishy-washy relativist for my personal liking, but then some might say I am overly devoted to the scientific method, rather than guy-on-TV-said-so-ism. Sometimes common sense must come into play, instead of whatever our scientist-priests tell us, don't you think? I could go on and on about how all the reactionary defenders of AIDS orthodoxy here on Wiki would have just as insultingly attacked anyone like Aristarchus, who dared question the scientific consensus of his day, and kept science on the wrong paradigm for 1700 years, but that would be petty. In fact, the sole reason I came to Wiki was to cast legitimate doubt on the intentionally insulting and invalidating term "denialist." The discussions on Wiki are so willfully and proudly ignorant of AIDS dissidents and their work, that some people even drew laughable divisions between "denialists" and dissidents, as if there was any difference besides one is an inaccurate pejorative term used only to attack/discredit. All I wanted is to get rid of this insipid and inaccurate term "denialist" so that some semblance of a respectful discussion might exist. I didn't even change anything in a single article. Posting on the discussion page was enough for people to start saying I was on a soapbox, but my intent was merely to point out that rethinking AIDS is a legitimate scientific position, held by legitimate scientists, on a legitimate scientific basis, not pseudoscience, not sociopolitics, but on a scientific basis. So it is a science-versus-science debate, not science vs. pseudoscience, as the AIDS industry likes to portray it as. Every word of mine was to point out that the term denialist is NOT the right word to use, since it is both innacurate and intentionally invalidating and obfuscating. It's not using Wiki like an "AIDS-denialist blog" to point all this out. In fact, it's an important first step in Wikipedia: WikiProject Alternative Views, to cover these views "without bias." Using the term "denialist" is HEAVILY biased. It is also wildly "misrepresenting" rethinkers. Am I correct in assuming nothing has changed here? This new movement is far more PR than anything else? Tell me now so I don't waste anyone's time. Haytham2 (talk) 10:23, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

If your goal is to challenge the conventional dogma handed down by scientist-priests, then you're in the wrong place. There are plenty of venues to pursue that sort of activity, but Wikipedia isn't one of them. I understand that Wikipedia's prominence makes it a popular platform to trumpet fringe claims and crankery which have failed to find an audience in more discerning venues. But please resist the urge to use Wikipedia to evangelize for "AIDS realism", or whatever term you'd like to apply. What you're doing directly contradicts this site's goals and policies. Think about whether you have any interest in contributing to an encyclopedia, or whether you're here simply to advocate for a particular discredited tiny-fringe view. MastCell ^Talk 04:05, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I have made it perfectly clear over and over and over again what my goal is: To change the biased, charged, insulting and inaccurate term "denialism" into "dissident" as per Wikipedia: WikiProject Alternative Views. So no, what I am doing is perfectly in sync with Wiki's new project to enhance its own credibility. I am well aware of my goals, and would ask that you also ask yourself whether you are truly dedicated to Wiki, or you are, consciously or not, selectively ignoring certain new WikiProjects in order to do any advocating yourself. I hope that you will be as honest with yourself as I have been with myself. Haytham2 (talk) 06:46, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I've noticed you are not even a member of that wikiproject, so I don't see how you can speak for them. Have you ever used another account (at any time) to edit these or similar topics? Thanks, Verbal chat 09:42, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I do not speak for them, and never claimed to do so. And no, I have only made posts on Wiki on this account, my only account. Haytham2 (talk) 22:46, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

talk page usage, +1

Please stop. If you continue to use talk pages such as Talk:Alternative views for inappropriate discussion, you may be blocked. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 02:52, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I'll elaborate: you seem to be arguing that promoting your personal views on a subject (that "AIDS denialist" is inappropriate and pejorative) is not, well, promoting your personal views. Wikipedia uses reliable sources for its material; reliable sources use the term "AIDS denialist" when referring to proponents of this theory. Whether the term is a misnomer, insulting, unfair, or anything else is truly irrelevant, as is what you or I think of it personally. AIDS denialists should no more be permitted (at least not without adequate reliable sources) to rename themselves "HIV rethinkers" or "retrovirus dissidents" than should Holocaust deniers to change the article about them to "reclaimers of the besmirched German heritage" or "Zionist propaganda dissenters".

To rephrase: it's not what you or I think that's important to Wikipedia. It's what the rest of the world thinks: in this case, with emphasis on the scientific world, the people equipped to evaluate the denialist claims. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 03:02, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I am aware that it's not what I think that's important to Wikipedia. Obviously, I should not have been as candid as all the other posters in the talk page of "AIDS Denialism", since they all make their personal views apparent. Sometimes I can't help being honest about my personal bias: I find it helps people contextualize. Next time I will hide my personal bias and edit from a mask of indifference. But I should correct you on a misconception you hold: AIDS dissidents never "renamed" themselves anything, as they called themselves dissidents BEFORE frightened detractors renamed them "denialists." I was under the impression that Wikipedia: WikiProject Alternative Views is involved in "describing not just the dominant view, but significant alternative views as well, fairly, proportionately, and without bias. Because alternative views lack the widespread acceptance enjoyed by dominant views, fewer editors know or care about them, and this imbalance puts alternative views at risk of neglect, misrepresentation, and a level of coverage not in keeping with their relative notability. This project aims to counter that tendency by facilitating collaboration among interested editors." as it says under its Motivation. The "AIDS Denialism" is a perfect example of a significant alternative view, and in fact now has this WikiProject's heading over it. Calling dissidents "denialists" is an intentional misrepresentation, just as is calling someone named Frank "Jessica" or some other inaccurate pejorative. Do you see my point? Is this WikiProject a mere public relations gimmick trying to enhance Wiki's credibility? Or is it a good faith effort seeking to address one of Wiki's minor shortcomings? I am asking in all seriousness. Haytham2 (talk) 04:02, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm all for fair and balanced accounts of alternative views. The fair and balanced accounts must rely on good sources. The best reliable sources on this topic, such as the articles in peer-reviewed journals, refer to those who deny the evidence for HIV's role in AIDS as AIDS denialists. You disagree with this characterisation. But you won't make any headway on this encyclopaedia with any amount of explanation, however impassioned or logical or compelling. The name will be changed only if and when the reliable sources disavow their use of "denialist" and refer to "dissident" or "dissent"...and without the quotes. When and if this will happen is a matter of pure speculation, and nothing we do here is likely to influence the outcome. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 04:20, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

How about The Guardian? I noticed it is a paper often used as a reliable source for references in Wiki entries. Here is a brief list of articles in which dissidents are referred to as dissidents rather than "dissidents" or denialists. This search took all of two minutes:

This one used denialist (w/o quotes) in the headline as well as throughout the body of the story as the sole descriptor:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/nov/06/southafrica.aids

This one uses dissident without quotes as the sole descriptor in the body of the article, and "denialist" is used only within one quoted statement:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/sep/15/matthiasrath.aids

Dissident without quotes is the sole descriptor:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/dec/21/southafrica.aids

Dissident without quotes is the sole descriptor:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2000/may/07/davidberesford.robinmckie

Dissident without quotes is the sole descriptor:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2000/mar/18/chrismcgreal

Dissident without quotes is the sole descriptor:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2000/jul/02/robinmckie.theobserver

All these articles are dated in the 2000s and the Guardian sees them as worthy of keeping them online. In fact, searching the Guardian online, "AIDS dissident" comes up with 433 articles, while searching "AIDS denialist" came up with only 30 articles. The articles I link to here are all from only the first page of the 433 articles. There were a couple articles who used dissident in quotes, and one that even appended the prefix "so-called" before dissident, but the most common descriptor was, in fact, dissident. I urge you to look for yourself, even checking out some of the 433 articles that don't come up on the first page of the search results. I hope you will take all this under serious consideration. Thank you. Haytham2 (talk) 09:37, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

The Guardian: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jan/03/aids-hiv-deniers-christine-maggiore

• Christine Maggiore, an HIV/Aids-denialist
• Peter Duesberg, a well-known Aids denier
• Duesberg went on to great things, including South Africa's president Thabo Mbeki's disastrous presidential advisory panel on Aids. It was here that the country's Aids-denialist policies were set into play, with tragic consequences.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jan/02/southafrica-race

• Her friendship with Mandela initially made her very unwilling to criticise the ANC government but she became increasingly disillusioned, vocally so once Mbeki succeeded Mandela and proceeded to support Mugabe and become an Aids denialist.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/sep/22/southafrica.mbeki

• there will be much relief that at last Aids policy will be based on medicine and science, for Zuma is no Aids denialist.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2007/dec/01/aids

• Thabo Mbeki, a man who remains an HIV denialist

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2007/oct/23/2

• it also acknowledged that the film was biased towards the views of HIV "denialists".
• examine our charges that this independent video is HIV-denialist propaganda with no basis in science or fact

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/aug/20/southafrica.chrismcgreal

• the sacking of her deputy is evidence that he remains an "Aids denialist" who questions the link between HIV and the disease.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2007/mar/18/theappealstosouthafrica

• There is Aids, of course: Mbeki's determined espousal of the denialist cause is something of a touchstone to the man and his presidency.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/jan/20/southafrica.aids

• Thabo Mbeki has a long history of siding with the HIV denialists
• long battle against the vitamin-loving Aids denialists of Mbeki's government
• Meanwhile this vicious and unhinged hatred, this surrealist charge of genocide, comes from a colleague of the vitamin peddler Rath: from Anthony Brink, from the man who is credited with introducing Mbeki to HIV denialism, who has helped cost the lives of tens of thousands of people needlessly deprived of effective treatments.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/may/14/southafrica.internationalaidanddevelopment

• "The problem is that in South Africa he has found fertile ground both because of the denialism that exists within our government with relation to the management and treatment of HIV but also because of Aids denialist groups, which he is pumping lots of money into."

The book: Kalichman, Seth (2009). Denying Aids. Berlin: Springer. ISBN 9780387794754. - Nunh-huh 14:08, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Is that how it is done? Simply look up and cite where who is called what? Because if it is, then dissidents shall surely be called dissidents on Wiki, since the Guardian uses the term dissident FAR more than they do denialist. Yes, both terms are used, but dissident is used far more often. Search for both words in the Guardian as I have done. Add it up, compare. The Guardian uses dissident more; it is that simple. They use different writers, but they tend to employ writers who avoid propaganda words made up for a single issue (such as "denialism" - there is a reason it is marked as misspelled on Wiki and other spellcheckers). And try Amazon.com as well: AIDS dissident comes up with 264 entries, AIDS denialist comes up with only 42. There is a reason for that. By the way, it is obvious that you have not read the Kalichmann book you have cited, because if you did, you would have noticed that he uses the word dissident, without quotes, to refer to the dissidents, because he has the journalistic integrity to refer to the scientific minority by its proper name. As a matter of fact, when he DOES use the word denialist, he only uses it in quotes, as in "denialist"! I urge you to be mroe thorough. I am starting to suspect that most such research here is done in such a shoddy, biased way. If you don't believe me, look that book up on Amazon.com. It has excerpts. Thank you. Haytham2 (talk) 03:07, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Yep, that's how it's done. When someone selectively quotes the Guardian, you selectively quote the Guardian right back at him. - Nunh-huh 07:08, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

How is there any other way besides "selectively" quoting? Indeed, that is the only way one can ever quote anything. I would have quoted the entire newspaper from its inception but that would have wasted bandwidth, so instead I provided the links to articles in which Guardian reporters solely used dissident (without quotes) and never denialist. Advice: it doesn't help your case to include articles which either use "denialist" (with quotes) or books where the word "Denying" is in the title, but the author chooses to solely use dissident and never denialist. For example, you have excerpted two quotes for your http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2007/oct/23/2 link, and in the first excerpt you commendably included the quotations around "denialist" as it appears in the article, yet you too-conveniently chose to leave out the quotation marks that surround the second quote. This is a very basic journalistic and academic rule. I suggest you follow it in the future because it is an important one. In this case your selectivity is wanting. Be more careful in th efuture. When I have the time I will excerpt the 400+ articles in The Guardian that use dissident exclusively.

Haytham2, I would encourage you to read the talk archives for this and other pages, since the naming issue has been the subject of past debate. There, you will find many additional uses of the term denialist in reliable sources, such as those Nunh-huh provides above. The conclusion of the various debates on Wikipedia, supported by comments from uninvolved editors in several Requests for Comment, was that "AIDS denialist" is the correct term to use.

A different way to look at it: who are the experts on the movement? Certainly, we wouldn't look to Adolf Eichmann's writings for an unbiased description of Nazi Germany and the Holocaust. Instead, we would give the most weight to the conclusions of academic experts who studied the event. There are very few academic experts on AIDS denialism, in keeping with the movement's extreme fringe positions and, at least outside of South Africa, non-existent influence on policy. But the few academics who have examined the movement rigorously, such as the Seth Kalichmann mentioned by Nunh-huh above, consistently call it "AIDS denialism". Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 23:57, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Keepcalm, I am dismayed that you actually believe Kalichmann uses the term denialism in anything but quotes. Please see my reply to Nunh-huh above. Kalichmann only uses dissident (without quotes) in the book Nunh-huh cited (and obviously did not read). I hope to raise the level of rigor here, and apparently I am needed. Also, I doubt there is a historian alive that is naive enough to consider any historic document, report, or account "unbiased" at all, ever. In history, all that exists is biased information, which must be weighed in proper context. Indeed, there are aspects of Nazi Germany that only Eichmann and few others were privy to. It is a difficult task to weigh Eichmann's biased accounts with all other biased accounts from a variety of sources to synthesize the likely events of that time as they actually happened, since various parties have the inclination and ability to be less than truthful in their accounts, from either ignorance or design. But an unbiased source, from anyone? That is fantasy. Indeed, you have accused others (leuce) of actually being (gasp!) AIDS dissidents (you used a different term), which might suggest that you believe holding particular beliefs is a pre-requirement for editing this page. I am trying to have good faith in your intentions, but the singular direction of your edits, combined with such accusation make that difficult for me. I'm sure you can put my mind to rest about that, though, in all seriousness. Thank you. :) Haytham2 (talk) 03:52, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

The title of the book is "Denying AIDS". Your familiarity with academic coverage of AIDS denialism shows you are well aware this is the accepted term in the reliable sources, but wish to change it for the reasons you state. Again, Wikipedia isn't the place. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 11:17, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Do not misrepresent my understanding of reliable sources. I am very aware of reliable sources, and I am very aware of the preference in reliable sources for the term dissident over denialist, which is why I am more and more feeling that this evidence-free approach of dubbing dissidents as "denialists" reeks more of advocacy than of following Wiki guidelines. "Denying AIDS" uses the word dissident instead of denialist, throughout the entire body of the book. Most reliable sources do this. Such as most every Scientific Consensus External Link provided in this very entry. The reasons I have stated for changing "AIDS Denialism" to "AIDS dissidence" include usage of the word dissident over denialist in reliable sources. Which means that either the lead of these scientific consensus external links should be followed, terminology-wise, or they should be excised as unreliable, one or the other. They seem reliable to me, so I believe we should follow their lead, as per the reliable source guideline. Wiki is the perfect place to follow Wiki guidelines. Don't take my word for it. Look for yourself...

This reliable source does not ever use "AIDS denial" - it uses "HIV denial" which is accurate and acceptable, since AIDS dissidents do not deny AIDS, they deny either proof of HIV's existence or proof of HIV's causative role in AIDS:

http://medicine.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.pmed.0040256&ct=1

This reliable source exclusively uses dissident, and notes that only "Other dissidents (often called "denialists" by their opponents) include the Perth Group..." so they accurately note that denialist is a partisan term, and it is telling that this reliable source does not use denialist at all besides this quote:

http://www.avert.org/evidence.htm

This reliable source never once uses the term "denialist" but instead chooses to call them skeptics:

http://www.aegis.com/topics/aids_debate.html

This reliable source, a series of Jon Cohen's writing for Science magazine, never uses the denialist pejorative either, and instead chooses to call them dissidents. He calls them that without quotes, though the intro to the articles uses "dissident" once in quotes, then once again without quotes. All 4 articles never say denialist but instead uses dissident:

http://www.sciencemag.org/feature/data/cohen/cohen.dtl

The first link to NIAID does not function (I suggest someone who knows what link was originally there find it to correct this), which leaves ONLY the AIDStruth site as the SOLE Scientific Consensus link to call them AIDS denialists! You seriously call that a scientific consensus? Using a term that only one of these reliable sources uses? That seems to me to be obvious and base advocacy. Maybe they once used the term but eventually realized the effect of standardized pejoratives on scientific intercourse? Please explain how this can be so. The only logical course of action is to change the name of the entry, or these links should be excised. Thank you. Haytham2 (talk) 23:17, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Haytham2, I can conclude only that your copy of Seth Kalichmann's book differs from the version available on Amazon, where according to the "Search Inside" feature, the word "denialist" is used at least once on 127 of the book's 205 pages, including on each of the first 23 pages and in the various promotional blurbs written by other experts. Per WP:HORSEMEAT, I would respectfully suggest that this issue is decided and that you continue your promotion of fringe theory elsewhere. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 15:48, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Previous or other accounts

I'll ask again in a new section for clarity, and give some of my reasoning. Do you now or have you previously had access to other wikipedia accounts? I ask as the first edit you made started with the words "I'm back!". Please see WP:SOCK for our policy, particularly the section on avoiding scrutiny. Verbal chat 09:27, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

To be perfectly clear: I have never before had any other Wiki account, and still don't. This account is my first and only Wiki account. I do not have any access whatsoever to any other Wiki accounts at all, nor have I ever. The "I'm back!" statement was not my first edit (a simple check of my contributions will confirm this), but a reference to the gap in my posts from Feb. 12, 2009 to Mar. 2, 2009. I even said misty farewells on Feb. 12 both on my talkpage (scroll up) and once on the talk page of "AIDS denialism." Does this clear things up for you? I am aware of the rules, and I get what you are driving at, but seriously, beware paranoia. It's not healthy. Thank you. Haytham2 (talk) 09:50, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Apologies, I'd looked at the wrong diff. Verbal chat 11:15, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

AIDS denialism

Hi,

I've seen your recent posts on the discussion page of the AIDS denialism entry, and wondered if you gave up after all the opposition? Did they accept any of you changes? It seems a few people pretend there is a consensus when there is not, and revert any posts that will let in information about this topic. Do you think there is any way to get around this, with a third opinion or complaint, maybe with several people together? I do not have a particular stake in this issue, I just became disturbed when I saw how this page and related pages were being policed and how the language was so biased and misleading. It just seems wrong to me that censorship on this level is happening here. Any ideas? Thank you! Mister Hospodar (talk) 00:35, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

you see the game is all about not stopping to discuss and to not make it easy with the arguments. its more a work on onesself with the surplus of moving something. one can have funny discussions on this topic and excercise in staying in cool mood :) this is the price if you join those discussions...--88.69.238.0 (talk) 17:23, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Active?

Was wondering if you are still active on the Wiki. Let me know? Neuromancer (talk) 04:14, 6 November 2009 (UTC)