Talk:HIV/AIDS in the United States

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 29 August 2019 and 20 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Tbeglarian. Peer reviewers: Vap2020, 1Mehayla.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:04, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 4 September 2019 and 18 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): RyanMcGeo. Peer reviewers: SCHILLGM9363, Chrisjnov.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:04, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 27 January 2021 and 19 May 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Yaneth.R.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:04, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 31 August 2021 and 16 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Megfromhercules.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:04, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Almajacinto. Peer reviewers: Fungjennifer1.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:56, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

"AIDS continues to be a problem with illegal sex workers"
..you can email him now for your own healing too on his email:  He is always able to help you get your heart desire granted................ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tubyd21 (talk • contribs) 00:16, 29 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Although I have sympathy towards those suffering from AIDS, the above infomercial  is misplaced here, which is supposed to be about improving the article. I thus  deleted it save for a small portion as a reference of what I am referring to.Grace and peace thru the Lord Jesus (talk) 13:02, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

If this is the case, then it may very well be suggested that their illicit status contributes to transmission of the disease - when shunned by a society who considers their occupation to be "illegal", they do not receive the education, services, contraceptives or other things necessary to stop HIV transmission. Thus, making sex workers illegal actually creates the problem, rather than the actual problem being with sex workers themselves, as the article tends to suggest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.240.69.86 (talk) 02:20, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Clarification Needed
The article says that black women are 19 times as likely as white women to become infected with HIV. I think that it should read "HIV infection is 19 times as prevalent among black women than among white women." The way it is currently written makes it sound as though a black woman who has sex with Mr. A, an HIV positive man, is 19 times as likely to become HIV positive than her white friend would be if she had sex with Mr. A. Although I am not a medical professional, my gut feeling is that skin pigmentation doesn't affect one's HIV vulnerability.

Now, to the extent that most people who engage in high-risk behavior tend to do so with members of their own ethnic group - that would be the reason why different ethnic groups have different HIV infection rates. Blood transfusions would be an obvious exception, and a great example of where race doesn't affect one's chances of becoming infected with the virus. (Most people don't choose sexual partners completely at random with regards to ethnicity, whereas race is irrelevant in blood transfusions. (Only blood type / rh compatibility matters, not ethnicity or gender or whatever.)) 208.105.23.214 (talk) 15:16, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * "my gut feeling is that skin pigmentation doesn't affect one's HIV vulnerability." I am certainly not in a position to judge, but this may not be the case. See African-Americans Genetically Prone to HIV, AIDS. Mateat (talk) 04:33, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I think "19 times as likely as white women" vs. "19 times as prevalent among black women than among white women" is basically a difference without a distinction. Adding "due to perceived differences in culture" might do what you want to fix, if properly referenced.Grace and peace thru the Lord Jesus (talk) 13:10, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Its not skin pigmentation per se that has the effect- rather it is the cultural differences among the black community in the United States. Black men are more likely to be "on the down low" (i.e. in the closet) than any other race, due to their cultural views on masculinity, among other things. Therefore, they tend not to get tested regularly as a component of the cultural phenomenon, which tends to promote the infection vector. In any event, the CDC statistics support the fact that black and Latino people have higher infection rates than other races. 66.90.153.184 (talk) 04:33, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

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)

You still should have left the full acronym and the year of change in the text. I replaced them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.150.28.34 (talk) 07:56, 31 August 2017 (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)

I think it belongs in the category due to the fact that the higher infection rates are promoted by lack of testing, which in turn is most likely promoted by cultural aspects inherent to African Americans, if we are to take the CDC's statistics. You can read more about that here: https://www.hiv.gov/federal-response/ending-the-hiv-epidemic/hiv-in-america 66.90.153.184 (talk) 04:37, 10 October 2019 (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)

The broad brush charge of "homophobia" towards  anyone who objects to homosexual relations or or fails to support  efforts of the homosexual movement is   basically a political  psychological tactic   and is often economically (at least)  harmful to those who are labeled such,  and should have no place in a encyclopedia except as describing the opinion certain persons. But to suggest that a segment of society  actually believes that any who oppose them are fearful of them, or of being one of them is to suggest  a irrational  psychological condition on the part of those who believe this.Grace and peace thru the Lord Jesus (talk) 13:31, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

I would also tend to support that. It is a fundamental misuse of the word root "-Phobia" at the core and brux of the issue, which tends to display scientific ignorance, if nothing else. 66.90.153.184 (talk) 04:39, 10 October 2019 (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.

That is true, though it is fundamentally misleading as well as intellectually dishonest. but it is indisuptable that the highest rates of infection occur among homosexual men- therefore homosexuality IS an influential infection vector for HIV, if we're to give the CDC's data credence. I would tend to give the CDC preferential treatment as an authority on the subject matter, due to their extensive medical qualifications which surpass that of the citation example you referenced there. 66.90.153.184 (talk) 04:53, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

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)

That would be correct- when you make changes to other user's edits without explaining why in the edit summary, it can be viewed as vandalism, as one should be able to explain why they reverted an edit. 66.90.153.184 (talk) 04:55, 10 October 2019 (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)

Conspiracy theories
This- "The pattern of the AIDS outbreak itself, has been gravely affected, and even strongly determined, by the outcomes of a program of 'planned shrinkage' directed in African-American and Hispanic communities, and implemented through systematic and continuing denial of municipal services--particularly fire extinguishment resources--essential for maintaining urban levels of population density and ensuring community stability.[2]" is an implausible conspiracy theory. As the article on Planned Shrinkage itself points out, planned shrinkage was never implemented in any urban area. It's hard to see how an unimplemented proposal could affect the epidemiology of a disease. The source cited simply provides an abstract, i.e., conclusions and no evidence. This passage should be deleted unless positive evidence of the actual implementation of planned shrinkage can be found. The following statement- "Institutionalized racism affects general health care as well as acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS) health intervention and services in minority communities. The national response to the AIDS epidemic in minority communities has been slow, showing an insensitivity to ethnic diversity in prevention efforts and AIDS health services-" is another bald assertion quoted verbatim from a scholarly abstract without reference to evidence. These two assertions are extreme and controversial, and more evidence for them should be shown if they are to be included. Spccarp 05:10, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Immigration and Visitor Policy
I was under the impression that the US has a complete ban on immigrants and visitors who have HIV/AIDS; however, this article seems to imply that it is a strong restriction and that infected people can still get in. Does anyone know anything about this?--World&#39;s Vortex (talk) 11:56, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The immigration/travel policy is worthy of much expansion. I'm considering attempting a major reorganization/rewrite of this page.  The legislative ban on travel/immigration was in effect since 1987 with changing qualifications for waivers until July 2008.  The PEPFAR reauthorization signed in 2008 lifted the legislative ban, and reverted full authority for determining "excludable diseases" to the dept of HHS.  I don't know if they have revised the list of "excludable diseases" since then.173.8.220.209 (talk) 18:23, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Charts out of date
We need new charts, these are out of date. 61.7.185.172 (talk) 00:55, 21 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The data in general is out of date in the article. The CDC has much more current statistics available online. Surv1v4l1st (Talk 03:15, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

The latest infographics have now been put in place. 66.90.153.184 (talk) 23:23, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Blacks sexually egregious
In this edit, an IP editor added "... blacks are more sexually egregious than other races." I'm not seeing "egregious" in either the summary source URL, or the Times story. I've tagged it as POV for the time being, and will have a full read through of the two sources and do some cleanup, but I'm planning to remove it again. -Optigan13 (talk) 06:01, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that the CDC statistics from 2017 onward tend to support the notion, and rather strongly allude to the point. 66.90.153.184 (talk) 04:42, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

HIV Final Rule by HHS/CDC
Does anyone have an idea where this should go in the article? I tried to put it in the text with supporting footnote but it was taken out by an editor who thought it "implies that HIV is not communicable". See History. BruceSwanson (talk) 23:12, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Bruce Swanson's text that he added was this: "As of January 4, 2010, the Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention made effective a Final Rule in the Federal Register removing HIV infection from the list of communicable diseases of public health significance and removing references to HIV from the scope of medical examinations for aliens. "
 * I suggest a version of this that is slightly less technical, does not plagiarise the source, and may address the concerns of a deleting editor: "As of January 4, 2010, the Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention removed HIV infection from the list of communicable diseases of public health significance, indicating that, while HIV is a serious infection, 'it is not a communicable disease that is a significant public health risk for introduction, transmission, and spread through casual contact'. From the same date, HIV status ceased to be a factor considered in the granting of visas to travel to the United States."
 * —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hamiltonstone (talk • contribs) 20:11, April 29, 2010
 * I would suggest removing the "...it is not a communicable disease that..." part, leaving "[HIV] is not a significant public health risk for introduction, transmission and spread through casual contact." Though it is a communicable disease, the essence, the important part, is the fact that it is not a signfificant public health risk.  Or, for a complete rewrite, may I suggest:

On January 4, 2010, the United States Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention removed HIV status as a factor to be considered in the granting of travel visas, and also removed it from their list of diseases that are significant for public health reasons based on its low risk of being spread through casual contact.
 * All diseases are communicable, and there is no question that HIV is a serious infection. The important thing is that HIV is not a consideration for visas, and not a public health concern for reasons of casual infection.  I believe it is relevant and should be included, but in no way should the seriousness of the infection be downplayed.  I also don't think this particular bit of information is worth repeating on any of the pages that aren't US-specific (per WP:CSB this tidbit of information is only relevant to the US, not to HIV pages in general).  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 12:25, 30 April 2010 (UTC)


 * It's important and desirable to mention that the US has lifted the (in my opinion unfairly discriminatory) travel ban on HIV-positive people. Incidentally, the previous version already did that. To state that the US no longer considers HIV a communicable disease is ridiculous without explaining the technical context in which that language is meant...and we shouldn't have to do that in a general encyclopaedia article. I'm concerned that the editor placing this quote has cherry-picked a sentence that seems support an AIDS denialist viewpoint. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 14:34, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * A concern, yes. The CDC statement doesn't say HIV is not a communicable disease, it says it is a communicable disease that is not of public health significance (bad wording, what I'm trying to get at is that HIV is a serious disease of public health concern, but because the risk of infection through casual contact is low, because treatment regimens, awareness and prevention has been effective, and because we thoroughly understand what HIV is and how it causes AIDS, its significance for public health has dropped from it's original status in the 80s to somewhere around the level of other sexually transmitted diseases rather than a terrifying epidemic).  That's what I'm trying to get at - that it's no longer a public health concern for purposes of travel.  I think it's worth including that the visa ban has been removed, but it'd be nice if we could get some background on exactly why it has been removed - and pick a wording that doesn't portray it as illusory.  What do you think of the above suggestions?  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 15:03, 30 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I think they're fine, and I encourage you to add whatever language you feel is necessary to explain the reasons. I'll drop in again soon to check up on this. Thanks, WLU. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 15:12, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Here is the exact language of the first two sentences of the Final Rule from the CDC website:

''1. SUMMARY: On November 2, the Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (HHS/CDC), published a Final Rule in the Federal Register that will remove HIV infection from the list of communicable diseases of public health significance and remove references to HIV from the scope of medical examinations for aliens. The final rule will go into effect on January 4, 2010.''

And here's what I added to the article:

As of January 4, 2010, the Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention made effective a Final Rule in the Federal Register removing HIV infection from the list of communicable diseases of public health significance and removing references to HIV from the scope of medical examinations for aliens.

Just for the record. BruceSwanson (talk) 16:00, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Given the context of the paragraph, that HIV was removed from the list is somewhat irrelevant and unnecessary. I put in the part about visas, but no about being removed from the list.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 19:22, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Simply mentioning travel visas, and not the context which provided the reason why, is not an improvement. And the link itself was dead. I thus provided a current CDC page as the ref and added the context of this ruling, and made it clear what   was being rescinded and why.Grace and peace thru the Lord Jesus (talk) 14:28, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on HIV/AIDS in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20100821072159/http://www.blackaids.org:80/image_uploads/article_575/08_left_behind.pdf to http://www.blackaids.org/image_uploads/article_575/08_left_behind.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 21:05, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Order of article sections misplaced
On an article on a deadly disease why would Public perception (first section) be the primary focus? Is this the norm for other diseases? And why is By Race/Ethnicity a subsection of it? It makes this article look like it has a political agenda, and in any case it is misplaced, and should be under Current status. These two topics are followed by Containment with its subs Travel restrictions and Medicine disbursement, then finally Mortality and morbidity and  Current status.

I think most readers want to know what the status of the disease itself  is in the US, and that  it would make more sense if a basic history of the disease itself was first, followed by Current status section,  and  a Mortality and morbidity subsection,  with a historical trajectory. Then a history of the response by the government and country overall, including Containment with its subs Travel restrictions and Medicine disbursement could follow.&#32; Grace and peace thru the Lord Jesus (talk) 02:55, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

I would ordinarily tend to agree that the political aspirations need to be removed from the article insofar as possible. However, Race and Ethnicity is a distinguished and notable variable in the CDC's infection-rate data that simply cannot be glossed over if we're to give the subject matter any serious treatment. Also, in the United States there has been a sort of melding of the government's efforts to deal with the disease, and the political climate concerning the whole thing that is so intertwined that I don't think the two can be completely seperated at this point if we're to give the article a thoroughness that isn't so profoundly intellectually dishonest that it fails under its own ponderosity. 66.90.153.184 (talk) 04:49, 10 October 2019 (UTC)


 * I was not arguing for the political aspects or response aspects to be removed, but for a restructuring seeing as the main reasons for the response are directly related to the medical effects of HIV/AIDs, but which is placed in different sections after those on the responses. To wit, after the intro, you have a 3 sentence section, "Mortality and morbidity," which does not provide much of anything in detail. That is followed by "Containment and Medical treatment", "Medical treatment," "Travel restrictions", "Public health policies', "Public perception,' 'Perspective of doctors," which should be together under a historical section, but most  which begs for more data as to why these responses are needed or were met with such.


 * Then we have "By race/ethnicity" and "Down-Low culture among black MSM,"  and  " Risk factors contributing to the black HIV rate" which should go together in a section dealing with medical effects.  Next there is "Activism and response" which should belong in the  historical section, like the next section "Catholic Church"  where "Public perception," and  "Perspective of doctors" are found, likewise "Present day activism" which follows it.  Finally, almost as if an afterthought there is "Current status" which actually provides detailed substantiation  as to the lethality of HIV/AIDs, and which is what mainly drives the medical response, apart from political employments of the crisis.     This section could follow (as a subsection)   "Mortality and morbidity," which would then be followed by "By race/ethnicity" and "Down-Low  culture among black MSM,"  and  " Risk factors contributing to the black HIV rate." Before or after this the historical response sections should follow, but at least they should all be placed together, after expanding  "Mortality and morbidity," to include some of the Current status data.  And perhaps a separate page on Medical effects of  HIV/AIDs should be considered for this article to link to. &#32; Grace and peace thru the Lord Jesus (talk) 13:17, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Containment
In the "Containment" section, I added a subsection on public health policies that have been brought up as a result of the HIV/AIDS epidemic. This includes President Reagan's Commission on the HIV Epidemic, President Clinton's National AIDS Strategy, and President Obama's National HIV/AIDS Strategy for the United States. Tbeglarian (talk) 17:45, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

RfC on whether to mention Ronald Reagan's handling of the AIDS crisis in the lead section of his bio
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Ronald Reagan. Sdkb (talk) 18:08, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

"AIDS crisis" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect AIDS crisis and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. &#8209;&#8209;Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 07:42, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: The History of Sexuality
— Assignment last updated by MeganTheeStallion123 (talk) 04:40, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Population Health Capstone
— Assignment last updated by AnndySerr12 (talk) 04:19, 25 April 2024 (UTC)