Talk:HIV/AIDS in China

GA review
This article falls short of the GA criteria. In particular: Narayanese (talk) 00:59, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The lede is too short for such a long article
 * The criticism section would be better off if it were integrated into the rest of the text—the split into pro-government and anti-government makes some parts non-neutral.
 * A lot of the text is unreferenced, even many statistics in the text.

Predictions
Hi, this chapter contradicted five studies from expert bodies without any evidence: „Predictions of the size of the HIV/AIDS epidemic in China have been substantially overestimated by several expert bodies. Notable examples include:“ Therefore, I changed it into: „Predictions of the size of the HIV/AIDS epidemic in China have been made by several expert bodies. Notable examples include:“

Furthermore, it quoted Hesketh et al. for saying: „These estimates assumed substantial spread of the virus from high-risk groups to the general population, yet the few population studies, and, in particular, trends from sentinel surveillance of pregnant women in high-risk areas show that such spread has not occurred.“ I found this reference in the internet and added the corresponding link. But the quotation was wrong as the tests quoted in the paper found 43 % of HIV infections in low-risk groups.

I did not find the full text of the other two references for the above sentence. Thus, I changed the Notes so that the whole chapter becomes a bit more neutral. Anyway, please check these two references if you have access to the full text as I am not quite sure whether they are correctly quoted.

Furthermore, the rest of the original notes did not seem to have sufficient evidence either: “Therefore, these predictions were made on unfounded assumptions. Some have argued that the effect of these high and inaccurate predictions have drawn attention and resources away from areas of greater need. For example, China's burden of disease from tobacco use is enormous.” I added the link to the summary of the reference. But it only states that there are “300 million men smoke cigarettes and 160 million adults are hypertensive” and that “Much remains to be done, and resources and sustainability are major issues.” There is no evidence, though, that this article asks to take the money from Aids tests. I left it in but neutralized it a bit by adding another (correct) reference to Hesketh et al. The paragraph would still need a proof that somebody argued to take away money from Aids test to areas of greater need. Greetings --Gilbert04 (talk) 18:08, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

New Legislation: Linux users?
From "New Legislation" section, "The new legislation resulted from communication and coordination among many agencies, including administrators, service providers, lobbyists, politicians, Linux users, and policymakers."

Is this a joke? Or are they serious, that linux users really did help in some way? Reference or Delete? Xphill64x (talk) 18:24, 21 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The edit that added that bit of information was, which seems to be totally vandalism. SultrySuzie (talk) 03:34, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Bias
The article doesn't make it clear enough that all of the UN and US's predictions have been proven false and the Chinese ones have emerged as far more accurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.144.196.243 (talk) 10:32, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Out of Date Information and Language
Nearly all sections of the article seem to have been written around 2005 +/- a couple years. This leads to an outdated "Predictions" section, and references to events inappropriately using the word "recent" or "recently". It would be great if someone with sufficient knowledge could review the article and update the statistics, predictions, etc. Cheddar3210 (talk) 18:18, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on HIV/AIDS in China. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927210305/http://www.kaisernetwork.org/health_cast/hcast_index.cfm?display=detail&hc=722 to http://www.kaisernetwork.org/health_cast/hcast_index.cfm?display=detail&hc=722
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070614161359/http://www.chinacdc.net.cn/ to http://www.chinacdc.net.cn/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061205183444/http://www.aizhi.org/ to http://www.aizhi.org/
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.usembassy-china.org.cn/english/sandt/hivartic.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:26, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

External links cleanup
I removed the majority of the external links, which had been flagged for being… overboard earlier. I left only those linking to websites of organizations covering HIV/AIDS in China currently. Over one dozen links were dead or linked to groups that have since disbanded, and one linked to a domain now owned by a porn site. I also removed links to specific fact sheets, most of which only focused on 2006 or 2007, and the contents of which were already covered, it seems, in the article. The person who added them seems to have just wanted to include every random report written on AIDS in China for those few years. I intend to potentially add some of these links back as proper references in the near future, but in the mean time, there’s not a compelling reason to have them there. WhinyTheYounger (talk) 19:35, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Early 2020 overhaul details and next steps
Beginning in February, I took this page as a pet project, intending to update it with information that was more recent. It soon became clear that the the vast majority (upwards of 75%, I'd say) of the article had been wholly plagiarized from copyrighted material by User:Maork, who has since been banned, in 2007. I initially requested a rollback and wrote about the problem on the talk page, but eventually decided to just rewrite the article. Sources of plagiarism I was able to identify included:
 * Zunyou Wu et al. 2007 "Evolution of China's response to HIV/AIDS" in Lancet;
 * This article
 * Bin Xue 2005, "HIV/AIDS policy and policy evolution in China, 2005" in Int. J. of STD & AIDS
 * 2007 Lancet editorial "Newer approaches to HIV prevention"

As the scale of plagiarism became apparent, I more or less defaulted to deleting any/all additions by Maork, which formed the vast majority of the base text of the article. I have since rewritten the majority of it, although have not really touched the TCM, Activism, or Media sections (not sure the TCM section is even warranted as it stands currently).

Future expansions for any interested soul could center around a "Criticisms" section--the CCP massively dropped the ball on HIV/AIDS management, which was compounded by suppression of activists who sounded alarms in the 1990s. Plasma Economy victims have had to fight hard to receive any sort of compensation and care for the diseases given to them as a direct result of provincial government negligence and complacence. Care continues to be uneven, and despite formal legal protections, discrimination widespread. There is a wealth of literature on this, but I focused on a more bread and butter "how did the disease spread, and what did the government do."

If anyone takes up the mantle, feel free to ping me with thoughts or suggestions at any time; I still have the notes I took. Happy editing! WhinyTheYounger (talk) 16:22, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Update 3/26: More information on the plagiarism: The last edit I made deleting plagiarized content was this one, the historical timeline. Several lines were taken from Xinhua without sourcing, and other lines were mixed in as well of indeterminate origin. Because the lines appeared to be added by the user responsible for all the previous plagiarism I identified (manually, I was unaware there was any tool I could use at the time), and because the timeline would make little sense with the handful of apparently un-plagiarized bullets, I opted to get rid of it altogether. In all, I made a dozen or so edits specifically to delete content I identified. In each edit summary, I tried to provide a reference to the work being plagiarized (I had access to some of the non-public PDFs, etc., through work or the library), all of which remain listed in the references as I reworked them legitimately into the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WhinyTheYounger (talk • contribs) 21:25, 26 March 2020 (UTC)