Talk:Lynn Margulis/Archive 1

Early life / materialism
What was Lynn Margulis' childhood like? How many siblings did she have?

I think it should be noted that Margulis isn't an anti-materialist, like some seem to think. She even defend the idea that "life" is a too vitalistic word and should be remplaced by "living matters" to put emphasis on the fact that life is organized matters.

Norman
Any relation to Norman Margulis ? (see Cellular Automata Machines book by Tommaso Toffoli and Norman Margulis (1987) )--DavidCary 00:31, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

All over the 'pedia
Is it just me, or does Lynn have references all over the Wikipedia? I respect that she may have some nice ideas, but every little article that she might have something to do with has a paragraph on her. This is exceptional treatment, I've not seen it elsewhere in the Wikipedia. 24.76.141.237 23:47, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I have no idea if there is "too much", inappropriate material about her here and there -- but more likely there is TOO LITTLE information about others! Wikipedia should actually be at least 10-100 times bigger.  Add some information! 69.87.200.157 13:38, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

"Her" theory?
This article implies very strongly the endosymbiotic theory was completely Margulis's idea, that it was novel and revolutionary. The article on endosymbiotic theory seems to disagree. The quote from Dawkins also seems to be intentionally taken out of context to change what it refers to. My reading of the linked quote is that Dawkins admires Margulis for sticking up for an unpopular theory, not for coming up with it. I'll let this sit for a while in hope of some comments, but if I don't see anything soon, I'll go in and do some rewriting. &mdash; HorsePunchKid → &#x9F9C;  04:35, 27 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree with these observations. Looking at Talk:Endosymbiotic theory, it seems that page once had a similar tone to this one, but was fixed up (with appropriate credit given to the Russian guy who initially proposed the theory).  On this page, I particularly don't care for the line:


 * She was criticized as a radical and her scientific work was rejected by mainstream biology for many years. Her work has more recently received widespread support and acclaim.


 * There are a lot of reasons why biologists might have not accepted the endosymbiotic theory, other than that they were a bunch of closed-minded idiots (which is what the above text implies). I'll see if there are any changes to make this page more neutral, but if not, I'll come back and remove the more egregiously false claims. --Saforrest 23:55, 6 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Regardless of whose idea it was initially (science is full of refined ideas taken from others and backed up by more proof, and the last person to make the point best gets the credit), the fact is that Lynn Margulis is associated with the theory nowadays - and no one else is. Furthermore, she was the first microbiologist to formulate the theory coherently, have microbiological evidence to support it, tie it in with Mendelian genetics and Darwinism, and put it out there as a 'competitor' to Neodarwinist theories of that time.  I fixed the entire Research part up to reflect this. --Scyfer 13:52, 8 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Also, Dawkins doesn't have any qualms with Margulis taking credit for the theory. The quote isn't taken out of context; Dawkins disagreed with her theory for decades - until genetic evidence actually showed that she was right (and that mitochondrial genomes _were_ distinct). He's gruffly conceding a defeat and congratulating her for holding out so long in the face of MANY of them (Dawkins and Gould and Lewontin and all the other neodarwinists, who also fight amongst themselves to see whose theory is right (and none of them are incompatible with each other by the way)) criticizing her ideas. --Scyfer 14:31, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

In fact, you have it all wrong. The first to come up with the endosymbiont idea was Franz Andreas Wilhelm Schimper. If you can't find it here, look into the German WP. But we won't learn another language just to know more facts and debunk history lies, will we? Oh, the relevant work is available as scan:. --85.179.10.170 (talk) 08:25, 11 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Schimper is duly mentioned in the Endosymbiotic theory article itself; ". . . who had himself tentatively proposed (in a footnote) that green plants had arisen from a symbiotic union of two organisms;" he has his own article, in which this rather minor contribution goes un-noted; and in this article is subsumed (not entirely accurately, I agree) in the reference to "symbiosis ideas first put forward by mid-19th century scientists," so this article neither denies his original contribution such as it was, nor does it claim that Margulis came up with the whole idea first. There is a large difference between merely proposing a possible explanation of something - which Schimper did, in an era before Mendelian theory and DNA were known - and expanding its scope, carrying out detailed observations, discovering good and extensive evidence for it, integrating it with currently accepted mechanisms, and persistently promoting it in the face of concerted opposition - which is what Margulis did. No-one is interested in stealing whatever thunder Schimper is entitled to: perhaps you, or someone else both bilingual and with access to the relevant material, could redress the perceived imbalance by inproving Schimper's own article. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 16:28, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Maybe someone should add this to the English WP article on Schimper. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.205.148.255 (talk) 18:43, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Relevance - This study explains the early development/prior research of the theory. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/09670269910001736342 Lynn Margulis, contributed to the theory with later work, as the current article version suggests. --prokaryotes (talk) 09:45, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
 * This 2012 article claims, that Lynn was unaware at the time of her landmark study (1967), of Mereschkowsky’s and Schimper’s work. http://www.bio-pro.de/magazin/thema/07871/index.html?lang=en&artikelid=/artikel/07864/index.html --prokaryotes (talk) 11:07, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Childhood
She grew up in Chicago, where her parents were usually quarrelling and she had to do most everything for herself. While growing up she had 3 sisters and then later, after she was married with kids of her own she had, I think, 4 siblings (3 1/2 brothers and a 1/2 sister) from her father's side.

Journals
Anybody know of any good journal articles about both her and the endosymbiotic theory? cheers

Acquiring genomes
Rewriting my earlier statement. I feel that the section on endosymbiosis could be dealt with more clearly if the quotes were moved to the correct location (further down) and her ideas were presented with mentions of where/when they have been presented. For example, her theories on organelles should be separated from her theories on genetic recombination in bacteria. Ladlergo Dec 22, 2005

Dissident
"We find the paucity of evidence published in standard peer-reviewed primary scientific journals that leads to the conclusion that "HIV causes AIDS" appalling. No amount of moralizing censorship, rhetorical tricks, consensus of opinion, pulling rank, obfuscation, ad hominem attacks or blustering newspaper editorials changes this fact. The conflation "HIV-AIDS" may be good marketing but is it science? No." &mdash; Amazon review of Harvey Bialy's Oncogenes, Aneuploidy, and AIDS 198.59.188.232 08:12, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Minor edit
I've removed the reference to an honorary degree she received from Bates College. It seems some overly enthusiastic Bates alum has been adding such references to articles about everyone who has been so honored in recent years. It would be one thing to include the degree in a list of other honors, but mentioning that degree alone detracts from the article and interrupts its flow. It also doesn't do much for Bates, since the school seems to have played no other role in her life beyond giving her the honorary degree. Bates has enough accomplishments worth being proud of and doesn't need such lame boosterism.

I don't know how to edit Wikipedia, can someone fix this mess here:
"Although it draws heavily on symbiosis ideas first put forward in the mid-19th century scientists as well as the early 20th century work she iz a bitch Wallin|Wallin]] (1920), Margulis's endosymbiotic theory formulation is the first to rely on direct microbiological observations (as opposed to paleontological or zoological observations which were previously the norm for new works in evolutionary biology)."

the sentence is a mess and why is "she iz a bitch" inserted?

thanks Blackskimmer 02:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC)Blackskimmer

thanks for fixin it! long live lynn margulis.

RAS or RANS ?
The link for "Russian Academy for Natural Sciences" leads to the "Russian Academy of Sciences", which is a completely different thing. RAS is an authoritative scientific body, while RANS is a latter-day refuge for lots of "alternative scientists", i.e. cranks. This question should be clarified. --85.141.216.77 12:15, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Sources for AIDS dissident
I've removed the info on Margulis being an AIDS dissident, based on a lack of reliable sources. The item was sourced to an Amazon.com book review (?!?!) and a few comments in the "responses" section of blogs. These clearly fail Wikipedia's guidelines for attribution, as anyone could log in to Amazon.com or post responses on a blog claiming to be Lynn Margulis. As this is a living person, we should be especially circumspect. The item could be reinserted if reliable sources can be found. MastCell Talk 05:25, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It's her words, MastCell. She wrote the review, and the owner of the blog has PERSONALLY CONFIRMED THIS. YOu can't censor information just because you don't like it. CALL HER UP ON THE PHONE OR EMAIL HER IF YOU WANT TO CALL HER BLUFF. 68.35.72.13 12:46, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Verifiability, not truth is the standard for inclusion. Blogs, Amazon.com reviews, and "I called the author" are not reliable sources, particularly for controversial information on a living person. You'll have to find a source that meets Wikipedia's guidelines. Sorry. MastCell Talk 17:26, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Check this out, feel free to leave comments: http://condeve.blogspot.com/2008/08/wikipedia-lynn-margulis-hivaids.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sadunkal (talk • contribs) 13:47, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Family's nationality
Being one myself, I would make an informed guess and say that Margulis is a Lithuanian American, born to parents who emigrated from the country before the turn of the century, or just after it. Lynn is a common anglican version of the lithuanian name 'Lina' and Margulis is a Baltic last name. Also, there is a large community of Lithuanian immigrants in Chicago, which has remained strong for several generations. If anyone has any specific, factual information on this, please submit, because I'm just making educated speculations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.135.241.8 (talk) 17:04, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Margulis is actually a Jewish last name, coming from מרגלית in Hebrew. That spelling might well indicate a Lithuanian pronunciation, though. jnothman talk 12:33, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Lynn Margulis (or Lina Margulis) sounds like a name of Lithuanian origin. Would be interesting to know the facts. Margulis is a Lithuanian word meaning variegated fabric. Margas - variegated. Mirgėti – to twinkle. Online Lithuanian dictionary - http://www.zodynas.lt/terminu-zodynas/M/margulis user:Bepasikiškiakopūsteliaujantis —Preceding undated comment added 15:41, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Relevant to this discussion is that her surname by birth is "Alexander". She picked up "Margulis" from her second husband.

Date of birth?
In the article she is said to be born first on the 5 March and then on the 1 March. When was she born, exactly? -- Gala xia92  may the force be with you 14:32, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Margulis position on September 11th attacks
Arthur Rubin believes that Margulis's voice has been faked in multiple radio interviews, that articles based on those interviews are hence wrong (despite being published by the University), and that the many many other blogs and internet sources that quote her on her positions on 9/11 are also "unreliable" and apparently wrong, and that Margulis would make no effort whatsoever to clear her name of all of these falsified stories. Does he think a conspiracy is going on? This sounds like he might be a closet conspiracy theorist.

AR writes "revert, per WP:BLP. Daily Collegian _may_ be reliable, but they're quoting a source we know to be unreliable, and admit it's their source"

Give me a break! Check out what a google search shows here Are we only allowed to post information if the New York Times says we can? I doubt CBS News or the Washington Post is going to cover this. 67.170.205.8 (talk) 03:34, 13 June 2008 (UTC)


 * If you can find one of those which meets our reliability standards and quotes her, rather than Alex's the "truther" web site, go ahead. I'm not willing to look through all the references which quote the unreliable web site.
 * Beside, you're User:Bov, evading his block, or User:ZeroFaults (etc.), evading his ban. I don't know which.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin  (talk) 03:42, 13 June 2008 (UTC)


 * >>"I'm not willing to look through all the references"
 * Of course, then you'd have to stop your reverts because you would see they are wrong. 67.170.205.8 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 23:00, 14 June 2008 (UTC)


 * It's the responsibility of the editor adding material to provide sources, not the responsibility of an editor removing unsourced information to search through a 100s of unreliable sources to find a reliable one. &mdash; Arthur Rubin  (talk) 00:02, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * And a rational person would read what I wrote. What I said was perfectly sensible, but not entirely relevant.  What I meant to say is:  "I'm not going to look through all the search results to find one which is reliable and doesn't specifically quote the unreliable source, when I don't believe such a source exists.  If you think it exists, find it."  &mdash; Arthur Rubin  (talk) 00:21, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Aurther are you blind? i just followed the google search for her name and 9/11 and found thousands of hits and multiple quotes. I'm confused as to why you refuse to believe she made these statements... - Robbie


 * I can find thousands of google groups hits that _I_ said absurd things, most of them from a sporged attack in the 1990s. You need to find one reliable source.  Blogs are not reliable (unless the blogger is verifiably Lynn).  Alex Jones's web sites are not reliable.  Sources which clearly quote blogs or Alex Jones are not reliable, even if they would normally be reliable by Wikipedia standards.  One mainstream or even counter-culture newspaper would probably be sufficient.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin  (talk) 00:10, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Sources for Arthur to examine with a microscope --


 * |UMass professor supports 9/11 conspiracy theory, Alexandra Neale, 9/20/07 Section: News, The Smith College Sophian


 * |Lauded UMass scientist a 9/11 doubter, Kristin Palpini, STAFF WRITER, September 11, 2007, Daily Hampshire Gazette.
 * "Contacted Friday, Margulis declined to be interviewed for this story, but affirmed that the online statement is her own."

I don't know, if the college newspapers and Margulis' confirmation of her story is not enough, I don't know what is. It assumes that college newspapers have no editorial oversight at all, that students fake their claims of confirming the views of the individuals on the front pages of their papers, etc. 152.131.10.133 (talk) 01:50, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The Smith College paper still quotes patriotsquestion911.com, which we know to be unreliable.
 * The Daily Hamshire Gazette appears at least to have questioned patriotsquestion911, which puts them far ahead of the pack. I think that one may be reliable enough.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin  (talk) 03:58, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

http://rockcreekfreepress.tumblr.com/post/353434420/two-hit-three-down-the-biggest-lie —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.216.248.206 (talk) 18:44, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Arthur, you are not any kind of a dictator here. You cannot just imply that an interview of Margulis in a documentary is fake and therefore decide that it cannot be mentioned. And she does not need to control a website (and how, in such a case, would you know that she really controls it anyway) that publishes a documentary in which she is fully obviously interviewed to have it mentioned in Wikipedia.

http://www.ae911truth.org/en/news-section/41-articles/544-eso-trailer.html History teaches (talk) 11:01, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

This section also needs clearance you cannot just ignore the fact that there hundreds of sources about the subject on the internet while there is not a word on the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JResearches (talk • contribs) 15:03, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Article not neutral
Lack information. The article need to explain the "scientific critiques" against the Theory of symbiotic relationships driving evolution.--190.95.24.39 (talk) 03:11, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Such criticism would belong on the Symbiogenesis and/or Endosymbiotic theory pages rather than in a biographical article. Vsmith (talk) 13:12, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

This does not seem to be much of an ongoing controversy. Can we remove the tag? Nareek (talk) 22:16, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

BBC Radio Four
She sounded pretty convincing last night, especially in debate with Richard Dawkins at Oxford! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.110.231.7 (talk) 08:33, 29 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The debate: . Fgnievinski (talk) 04:23, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Controversy
"In 2009 Margulis co-authored with seven others a published paper ..." - is this controversial? If this paragraph is self-contained, it ought to include an explanation of why co-authoring a published paper with seven others is deemed controversial. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.14.254.25 (talk) 17:12, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

This section states that Margulis co-authored a paper "arguing that AIDS is not caused by HIV..." After reviewing the paper I believe this claim to be unfounded. The paper calls for research into the effects of spirochetes going from round body to more active forms. Further it claims that this occurrence may lead to mis-diagnosis of AIDS. Lastly it asks whether the relationship between spirochetes and humans is involved with HIV's relationship to AIDS.

Again, nowhere in the paper is it argued that "AIDS is not caused by HIV." Tamlane3 (talk) 00:08, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I have re-written the unsubstantiated line and eliminated one that followed. The eliminated line further addressed the mis-conception that Margulis' article argued that AIDS is not caused by HIV. The line noted that this argument would be unsubstantiated by the success of anti-retroviral drugs. The Margulis et al. paper addresses anti-retroviral drugs in such a way that the drugs' efficacy is not prima face evidence nullifying the suppositions of the paper. Tamlane3 (talk) 00:25, 21 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I read an interview with her in the April 2011 issue of Discover magazine. She says AIDS is syphilis, or something along those lines. Don't know if that's the same as "HIV doesn't cause AIDS," but it sure seemed like that's what she was saying.-W0lfie (talk) 19:07, 27 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Referenced this article. 130.49.57.199 (talk) 07:38, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

DaVinci
Is this "Leonardo DaVinci Society of Thinking" of any interest in the real world? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:59, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Controversies (formerly Fringe science) section
The original statements ''Margulis holds a number of opinions outside of mainstream science. In 2009 she co-authored a paper arguing that the change in spirochete form, from more motile helical to more inactive cyst and back, may be a causal contributor to AIDS'' need comment and action. The first statement is POV without a source, and the second misrepresents the source cited, where I believe Magulis suggests that AIDS may be frequently misdiagnosed, that in many cases the disease in question is actually syphilis, not HIV-related AIDS. Thus her call for further research. But in any case, the paper is sufficiently recondite to laymen to warrant an emphasis on clarity. Absent any reliable secondary sources, to achieve that clarity we need unambiguous statements from the document itself that require no further sourcing or interpretation, and these I have now provided in the article.

The sentence In 2009 she also pushed the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) to publish a paper by Donald I. Williamson arguing that butterflies are the result of hybridization of a now extinct insect and velvet worms also needs comment and action. "pushed" without a source is POV, and I have now provided a source explaining the publication-mechanism she used, one employed by any number of senior scholars. As for the hybridization of a now extinct insect and velvet worms, there is nothing terribly wrong with it, but it is derived from Williamson's own more general topic sentence, found in the cited extract: I reject the Darwinian assumption that larvae and their adults evolved from a single common ancestor, which is also found in the Scientific American source as well. Why not use the topic sentence? Most laymen will find it understandable without further instruction. Finally, I have added Conrad Labandeira's comment, with source, to balance Fred Nijhout's much more negative comment.

Lastly (so far), I have put her 9-11 comments in the context of their Web-based sources, and provided Web-links. Readers will see that the comments are not backed by reliable sources, yet will be informed of the existence of the alleged comments themselves. BruceSwanson (talk) 23:16, 20 August 2011 (UTC)


 * The sources are not sufficiently strong to pass the WP:BLP policy. Such allegations must be very well sourced or they should be removed. Binksternet (talk) 21:10, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Controversies
The first paragraph of the controversies section is currently: "In 2009 Margulis co-authored with seven others a published paper stating 'Detailed research that correlates life histories of symbiotic spirochetes to changes in the immune system of associated vertebrates is sorely needed' and urging the 'reinvestigation of the natural history of mammalian, tick-borne, and venereal transmission of spirochetes in relation to impairment of the human immune system.'" Could someone actually add some explanation of this and why it is controversial? It doesn't really make a great deal of sense to me. AstroMark (talk) 10:34, 23 November 2011 (UTC)


 * In certain circles, particularly those associated with HIV/AIDS research, Margulis's statement is deeply controversial. It posits that spirochete infection (as in syphilis) can't be cured in the conventional sense. That idea undermines the standard protocol of treatment. Margulis believed that what begins as an infection becomes a permanent condition, with the spirochete an integral part of the now-weakened body's biochemistry. In other words, its a detrimental but symbiotic relationship. She also believed that AIDS was actually a spirochete infection (specifically syphilis), and that HIV was not an agent of disease. But you're right that the quote needs to be explained, with references, in the text. BruceSwanson (talk) 17:57, 25 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you, that's much clearer. AstroMark (talk) 18:39, 25 November 2011 (UTC)


 * The article never says that AIDS is not caused by HIV, it points to a misdiagnoses of syphilis, also a talks about a symbiosis with virus, I can not read the interview in whole, because a subscription is needed, anyway that is just an interview, the research paper is what should be taken into account, interviewers some time misinterpret the answers or even manipulate to get more audience, but as I told before, I have not read all the interview, just the first page and I may be wrong.
 * I do not see Lynn Margulis as an HIV-denial activist at all. That should be erased!
 * The fact that she explains a symbiosis mechanism that spirochetes may mask is not controversial, it just brings light in the search for an effective treatment of the diseases they cause. That has no relation with denying the existence of HIV or it as a cause of AIDS. Read the article first. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.141.231.125 (talk) 11:22, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Date of death not showing up on infobox
It's listed in there, and I've tried fixing it, but for whatever reason it won't show up. Why is this? --Harizotoh9 (talk) 07:57, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Five-Kingdom promotion missing
After Margulis pretty much nailed the Endosymbiotic theory of the eukaryotic cell evolution, she promoted the five-kingdom theory. Until the mid-1980s, the five kingdom theory was not in high school biology textbooks. After she published her book, it became included in biology textbooks. While she did not create the 5-kingdom theory, and gave full credit to its originator, she was the driving force that brought it out from its coffin into mainstream biology. This should be mentioned in this article. It's a major achievement. I was fortunate enough to hear her talk to our small class in Microbial Ecology, at the Marine Biological Lab, Woods Hole, in 1982. Harlan Halvorson brought her in. She showed the films she made of symbiotic bacteria and showed how easy it was for them to become endosymbiotic in cells. I wish these films were edited into a single story and made available. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.119.145.192 (talk) 14:04, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

HIV and AIDS
I reverted a bunch of edits by User:James D. MacAllister, a former colleague of the late Margulis, due to neutrality concerns. A subsequent edit by the same editor is better but, I think, still problematic. The following was left on my talk page, but I'll respond here:

Several points: Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 13:22, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) This article did not call Margulis an "AIDS denialist", but quoted a source that referred to her "endorsement of HIV/AIDS denialism". It appears the source was both justified in this wording and accurately represented by Wikipedia.
 * 2) Though Sethman is not a virologist, based on his research interests, he is indeed a HIV researcher.
 * 3) It is beyond dispute that AIDS denialism is overwhemingly rejected by the scientific community.  I am not interested in debating whether this rejection is justified or whether HIV really is the cause of AIDS.
 * 4) The recent edits replaced Seth Kalichman ... argued that her "endorsement of HIV/AIDS denialism defies understanding." with Seth Kalichman ... argued that her scientific questioning of HIV as the cause of AIDS "defies understanding."  This weakens the quote, re-casting denialism as "scientific questioning".
 * 5) The recent edits changed the structure of the HIV/AIDS section.  The new version asserts Margulis' expertise regarding spirochete bacteria, emphasises her broad influence in biology, notes that the influence of spirochetes on immunity is poorly understood, supposes that spirochetes could cause AIDS symptoms, then questions the evidence linking HIV to AIDS.  The section ends with a single sentence critical of this view.  I'm not sure whether any of the inclusions are objectionable in their own right; my concern is that the overall structure of the section lends undue weight and validity to a fringe viewpoint.  But as this is a biography of Margulis, I'm not sure what's an appropriate level of detail to give to describing her argument.

Some issues with the Lynn Margulis entry
In terms of the recent changes and subsequent reverting of this article, I agree with the last part of what editor Adrian Hunter writes here, noting that this is, after all, a biography of Lynn Margulis. It should not be a place for presenting ideas about HIV/AIDS, 9/11, etc. I remember seeing, somewhere among the various editing guidelines, the HIV/AIDS issue singled out as meriting special treatment at Wikipedia, and it would seem to me that this attention should cut in various directions, such that someone being called an "AIDS denialist" should need to pass a pretty high bar to be acceptable at Wikipedia, and while Adrian Hunter says that he isn't sure "what's an appropriate level of detail to give to describing her argument," I would say that any information that elucidates how her position differed from that of other AIDS denialists would be in the service of Wikipedia's goals both in making it a more faithful biography of Lynn Margulis, and in the special way that they wish to treat notions like HIV/AIDS denialism. From all perspectives it is clarifying. For me, the AIDS material is what I know the least about Margulis' work, but if the recent editor has the ability to do so and maintain neutrality, he should be encouraged to.

For me, though, there are bigger issues with this article, relevant to this recent exchange, but which I think are far, far more important and fundamental to it, and need to be addressed to make it a better article. For example, note this HIV/AIDS section, or that on metamorphosis theory, are all lumped together as subheadings under the major heading "contributions" - in short, there is no differentiation between what was really her life's work, the things that she spent most of the days of her life working on, and various other controversial things that she became interested in, became embroiled in, etc, during her long career, particularly in her later years. I think that this is very important - again, because, as Hunter says, this is supposed to be her biography, and so it should focus on those things unique to her, prioritizing subjects based on the degree to which they consumed the activities of her life. Thus, I would propose a new section, following the contributions section, called "controversial ideas" or something to that effect, covering other ideas that she became involved with, but which were NOT her primary personal work contributions. It is sometimes said that everything she involved herself with was controversial. I would retort, yes, but some of the controversies have since been resolved, and they happen to be parts of the basis of her life's work, and happen to be particularly important questions, and right now I think that the structure of this article reflects the fact that we all have passionate feelings in one directions or another about these highly controversial questions that Lynn Margulis, too, enjoyed getting involved with, particularly in her later years. I think that these controversial things SHOULD be covered, and so if the recent edits were accurate, I don't see why they were reverted. But even more important is that such edits about things that were not her PRIMARY WORK are not allowed to detract from properly articulating what she accomplished, and a better heirarchizing of the information would help make clear the significance and place of what has already been generally settled through consensus opinion. Terradactyl (talk) 18:53, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I broadly agree with this. Clarifying Margulis' position regarding HIV/AIDS would indeed improve the article. I also support your suggestion to better distinguish her major research interests from lesser interests that are nevertheless noteworthy due to being controversial.  It's not perfectly clear to me which are which, though.  Would an organisation something like the following work?


 * The September 11 content is presently under "Personal life", presumably because this appears to have been a personal interest, rather than a professional interest. On the other hand, she publicly discussed this as a scientific issue and a problem of science communication (eg here), so perhaps it could also fit in the same section as her scientific controversies. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 11:08, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Adrian - Thanks. In terms of your proposed structure (including what you say about her 9/11 interests near the end of her life), I think the one thing I'd suggest would be to keep in mind these interrelated interests and their closeness or distance to her primary work. So, I agree with what you propose for the first part on her primary work fully - that Gaia should probably come after symbiosis as evolutionary force, etc. - but for the "other interests", I would think it would be better to START with the things closest to still being part of her own work: so, the Five Kingdom classification - which conceivably could be considered part of her primary work, since she co-published with Whittaker on it - should possibly come first; then the Donald Williamson material on metamorphosis, since, if correct, it would have large implications for her own work; then AIDS, since at least in involved her own expertise to some degree; and finally 9/11 at the end, since you are right that there is no real justification at all for it to be placed in her "personal life" section, so it should be in there as well.

I could make a stab at doing this myself - but for the AIDS section I would need to take some time, look over what the editor responds to you below, etc... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Terradactyl (talk • contribs) 15:47, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Sounds very sensible to me. Feel free to boldly implement that organisation, even if the HIV/AIDS section remains a work in progress.  Per comments below, more detail about spirochetes in earlier sections seems warranted. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs)

Hi, & thanks much. In the next week or so I'll give it a try: I have now downloaded the referenced 2009 AIDS paper itself, want to get the chance to read it, and have read the comments below at this page. I'm also following your discussion on this & will take all that into account, although I might say already that the request to change the section name does seem entirely consistent with my initial glances at the 2009 article itself. In fact, one of the first things I mentioned earlier on this page was that, since Wikipedia specifically mentions AIDS alternative theories somewhere in its editing guidelines (as something that they don't want to be lending any authority to, presumably), I should think that there should ALSO be real concern, then, about falsely or lightly referring to someone as an "AIDS denialist," too. In a way, the situation here with Margulis and AIDS would seem to parallel to some extent her complex relationship with the "intelligent design" folk. Intelligent design people often like to cite her, as it is to their advantage: then, some of the neo-Darwinists love that fact, too - as it is to THEIR advantage in trying to diminish still controversial aspects of her work that she can then be lumped with the pseudoscientific creationists and the like. The most heuristic thing, in dealing with this kind of silly nonsense, is simply to show how there is a universe of difference between intelligent design (as a front for creationism) and anything in Margulis' work. So, likewise, there might be both AIDS denialists who would love to be able to say that Margulis lends authority to their opinions, and Margulis critics who would love it if she could be cast as an "AIDS denialist." The best thing that could be done here is to, in the simplest terms possible, draw the distinctions between these things, in the process of accurately characterizing her work and interests - which would seem to serve the goals of Wikipedia in every respect, by not lending false authority to bad ideas, and spreading accurate information about people and their work, life, etc. Also, even if someone might be able to cite some simple quip of Margulis, flung off here or there, that might SOUND consistent with typical AIDS denialism, that if the actual published work at hand is a universe apart from any AIDS denialism as normally understood (and while I've barely begun to get inside this material at this point, that already is becoming quite clear to me, I should say......), then I still would think that this would be the best approach. Terradactyl (talk) 22:55, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I just would like to say that Margulis may be taken out of context to support creationism, but nothing could be more dishonest. Lynn Margulis was writing against the teaching of creationism or intelligent design when folks like Jerry Coyne were in knee pants. She is quoted out of context because she questioned and disagreed with the neo-Darwinist just-so story of animals (not really the right model for evolution) and she has been proven correct in her doubts about the Modern Synthesis and the "genes-eye" view. . There is plenty of documentation in the Lynn Margulis Archive at UMass-Amherst of her writing against creationism and intelligent design being science. She stopped debating creationists because she said that they simply lied in their arguments (personal communication).

James D. MacAllister (talk) 01:11, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Response to Adrian Hunter about the AIDS-HIV theory section of the Lynn Margulis page
} Here are my responses to Adrian Hunters points justifying his complete rejection of my edit of the section captioned “AIDS/HIV theory”. As one of the authors of the 2009 paper, I have a conflict of interest regarding Lynn Margulis and so I am attempting to follow the recommendations of Wikipedia with this "request edit". I am actually not requesting an edit. I am here simply stating some neutral facts so that my edit can be discussed to arrive at a neutral voice and accurate description of Lynn Margulis’ position on spirochetoses and the fact that she felt that science justified an investigation of spirochetoses, especially syphilis (but not overlooking the possibility of a combination of spirochetes) as co-factors in immune difeciency.

1.    I believe Adrian makes a distinction without a difference. He states that “This article did not call Margulis an "AIDS denialist", but it quotes a single source that states “her 2009 paper as an example of AIDS denialism "flourishing",[49] As one of the authors of “her paper”, I think that the only logical conclusion one would draw is that all the authors must be "AIDS denialists" in order to conclude this paper is an example that AIDS denialism is flourishing. I discuss all of the mentions and questions regarding HIV and AIDS in the paper below.

2.	Though Professor Kalichman is not a virologist, based on his research interests, he is indeed a HIV researcher. My research involves a lot of biology, but it does not make me a biologist. The point is of no real importance except that it is implies personal expertise in virology that a neutral voice would not claim. I do think that the inclusion of Professor Kalichman spending “a year infiltrating HIV denialist groups” is completely irrelevant to the subject of Lynn Margulis. It implies that she was a member of such a group or one of the groups he infiltrated. It does not seem to be neutral.

3.	Neither I nor Lynn Margulis disputed that "AIDS denialism" is overwhemingly rejected by the scientific community or that the majority of that same community accepts that HIV causes AIDS. The paper is about reasonable possibilites that there are co-factors in cases of AIDS. The idea of co-factors is not a fringe idea.

4.	I believe Adrian has this backwards. It is obvious that our scientific questioning of whether HIV may have co-factors is recast as denialism. I expand on this below in a examination of the paper--there is questioning in the paper, but no denial of HIV or AIDS. I do not object to quotes from sources making this claim (even if they have no factual basis), but I do not think Wikipedia should endorse the same “recasting” of what the paper actually states or questions. Weakening or strengthening an argument with spin does not sound neutral.

5.	I agree with Adrian Hunter questioning what is the appropriate level of detail Wikipedia wants to present in a biographic page on Lynn Margulis. I would hope that the balance or neutral voice would not give more weight to her detractors or describe them, their opinions and judgements over descriptions of her, her opinions and judgements. I agree with Adrian that my edits changed the structure of the HIV/AIDS section. I did this to recognize her expertise in spirochete bacteria (this is not controversial). To point out her broad influence in biology-especially the New Symbiotic biology (no longer controversial). In the case of syphilis, the influence of T. pallidum on immunity is very well understood to cause AIDS-like symptoms (not controversial). In Lyme disease there is controversy, but the weight of studies and research support Lynn Margulis’ view rather than the justifications given for the IDS treatment guidelines which deny the viability of spirochete round bodies. The final sentence I offered is not important unless you are looking for a study to cite that supports the statement that “HIV causes AIDS”. I am a geographer interested in evolution, so I do not know anything about HIV except that there is no such study. I would point out that while the editing of Wikipedia relies on a concensus of editors about what appears on Wikipedia, consensus is not an alternative to evidence. For example, even though it is often quoted that the majority of climate scientists agree that climate change is real, that is really not scientifically important. What is important is the fact that the overwhelming scientific evidence supports that climate change is real. I believe in climate change, but in addition to anthropogenic reasons there are also co-factors. That anthropogenic factors exist does not eliminate the other factors. Another example: Most biologists have believed in the Modern Synthesis for the past 70 years. Hundreds of thousands of peer-reviewed papers were written, books, textbooks, articles, reviews all were produced endorsing the Modern Synthesis. It now turns out that in the words of Denis Noble, the President of the International Union of Physiological Sciences, “All of the rules and assumptions of the Modern Synthesis have been broken.” So much for consensus versus evidence.

Let's examine the position paper “Spirochete round bodies -Syphilis, Lyme disease & AIDS: Resurgence of “the great imitator”?”. To maintain a neutral voice it may be useful if we can all agree that the scientific role of a position paper is to convince readers to accept a claim on an unresolved research issue.

In reference to the small meeting, Spirochaete Co-evolution in the Proterozoic Eon: Ecology, symbiosis, and pathogenesis (an excursion into environmental immunology) the scientists, medical researchers, historians and physicians present endorsed this statement:

“Powerful new techniques of microbiology, including molecular ecology and evolution inspire us to urge reinvestigation of the natural history of mammalian, tick-borne, and venereal transmission of spirochetes in relation to impairment of the human immune system.”

This is the statement of the meeting attendees as distinct from the authors of the paper. It should be noted that there is no mention of AIDS or HIV. The main focus was spirochete round bodies.

As one of the co-authors of the paper, I was very careful to make sure that the paper did not make any declarative statements that claimed that the authors had any direct knowledge of the pathogenicity of HIV or its status as “the cause of AIDS”. No statements are made in the paper that deny a syndrome (as distinct from a disease) called Aquired Immune Difieciency Syndrome (AIDS) exists, in fact quite the opposite. It is therefore perplexing to understand what there is in the paper that supports Professor Seth Kalichman’s original claim that “cited her 2009 paper as an example of AIDS denialism "flourishing",[49] and argued that her "endorsement of HIV/AIDS denialism defies understanding."[50] I am not arguing that Professor Kalichman’s made this claim or that it was reported in a secondary source. I am demonstrating that the claim is false.

AIDS is mentioned in the title and it is reasonable to make the inference that the postion paper seeks to convince readers to accept a claim on an unresolved research issue. The claim is that the possibility connection between spirochete round bodies, syphilis, Lyme disease and the syndrome (a constellation of symptoms) known as AIDS should be investigated.

Neither HIV nor AIDS is mentioned in the abstract of the paper. I think this is significant because it shows that the paper is principally about spirochete round bodies as viable pleomorphic forms of bacteria (commonly misunderstood as only being viable in their helical form) and their documented role in compromising immune systems in animals.

In the article’s keywords, “AIDS co-factor” appears. Again one can reasonably infer that spirochete round bodies will be discussed as a possible co-factor in AIDS. This does not deny HIV a role or even the principal role as a cause. I will repeat that the role of possible co-factors in AIDS is not a “fringe” viewpoint nor does it represents “AIDS denialism”.

The next mention of AIDS is in the fifth section of the paper.

“5. Spirochetoses and AIDS Human tissue provides food and other conditions for growth for both Treponema pallidum and Borrelia burgdorferi spirochetes. Electron micrographic samples, in principle, could verify the persistence of round bodies in patients with symptoms, including Alzheimer's-type dementia. Examination of biopsies from AIDS patients or autopsies of brains from people who showed sudden personality disturbance could test the hypothesis.”

What is discussed above is a test of the hypothesis that spirochete round bodies may be a co-factor in AIDS.

“Since the research group of Luc Montagnier first described LAV “virus-like particles” (later called “HIV-1”) from “Patient 1”, a close connection has been shown between AIDS and a history of syphilis in multi-partner men (Barre-Sinoussi et al., 1983). “Patient 1” sought medical consultation for swollen lymph nodes, muscle weakness without fever or weight loss, and for episodes of gonorrhea. He did not have AIDS. He had been previously treated for syphilis, but was he cured? Patient 1 tested positive for antibodies to three viruses: cytomegalovirus (CMV), Epstein-Barr virus and Herpes simplex. The first “HIV isolate” reported by Montagnier's group was from Patient 1. Since Montagnier's work, many centers that used immunological tests not sensitive for all stages of syphilis have documented a close relationship between a history of treponematoses and HIV/AIDS (Veugelers et al., 1992; Renzullo et al., 1991; Blocker et al., 2000). Chronic syphilitics and AIDS patients, those unmistakably ill and immune suppressed, do not succumb to HIV or syphilis directly. They die of reactivation tuberculosis (TB) and ubiquitous mycobacterium avium intracellulare (MAI group) diarrhea, and emaciation associated with refractory bowel infections in emaciated homosexuals and in immune compromised patients generally. TB and other mycobacteria correlate with amoebic dysentery. Death records report causes as Pneumocystis carini pneumonia, Entamoeba histolytica, Candida albicans or other “opportunistic infection” (Coulter, 1987). In sub-Saharan Africa, the historic overuse of antibiotics and malnutrition also contribute to immune suppression. One of us (John Scythes) reports that he has not found a single documented case of an immune suppressed patient, whether HIV-positive or -negative, who has died of complications of syphilis since HIV records began being maintained in the early 1980s. Is it possible that the narrow focus on "HIV as the cause of AIDS", an example of scientific "misplaced concreteness" typical in explanation of evolution (Cobb, 2008), has facilitated missed diagnosis of syphilis? Indeed, investigators in Toronto and San Francisco found an inverse relationship between treponemal antibody and AIDS symptoms that could be interpreted as the immune deficiency typical of disseminated syphilis (MacFadden et al., 1989; Haas et al., 1990; Fralick et al., 1994)."

The passage above discusses the demonstrated correlations between histories of syphilis and a syndome of symptoms known as AIDS and the fact that patients do not die from immune collapse, but instead from the opportunistic infections. The mention of “HIV as the cause of AIDS” should be viewed in context. The context is the paradoxical report by one of the meetings experts on syphilis, Toronto HIV-AIDS researcher, John Scythes, that he could find no documented case of a immune suppressed patient dying from the complications of syphilis since the early 1980’s. This is a paradox when one considers that syphilis was being described as an epidemic in the 1970s, and syphilis shares the same high-risk groups as AIDS. This is followed, not by a statement, but a question: “Is it possible that the narrow focus on "HIV as the cause of AIDS", an example of scientific "misplaced concreteness" typical in explanation of evolution (Cobb, 2008), has facilitated missed diagnosis of syphilis? What is questioned is if the narrow focus on HIV has resulted in co-factors going undetected. In fact, work in Toronto and Budapest reveal that syphilis diagnoses have been missed in HIV-positive individuals.

Later in section 5 of the paper there is this reference to HIV that is again a statement of fact with no “denialism”.

“Chronicity, or changes in immune response with time well established in spirochetoses is common to other infections: herpes viruses, tuberculosis and symptoms attributed to HIV. “

Section 5 continues below noting the possibility of an STD as co-factor in AIDS, problems with conventional testing for spirochetes, advances in diagnostic testing to successfully recognize previously undetected latent syphilis (in HIV-positive patients) and urges investigation into the extent to which undetected latent syphilis overlaps with AIDS.

“ ‘Numerous inconsistencies have been noted in HIV epidemiology between the various risk groups. Clinical signs of HIV infection seem to appear much later in previously healthy heterosexuals. Marked differences in both expression and progression of HIV disease between the sexually and non-sexually acquired forms have been reported… Extensive historical data supports the role of an STD as a co-factor allowing significant viral expression. Certain aspects of HIV epidemiology may therefore be explained by concomitant infection by treponemes and HIV’ (MacFadden et al., 1989). Most laboratories in North America use RPR or VDRL for the detection of all stages of syphilis. Investigators in Toronto and in Budapest have used improved immunological tests (i.e., TrepChek™, TrepSure™, Inno LIA syphilis™, Behring Enzygnost syphilis™, and Abbott Architect syphilis™) and molecular screening (Talha et al., 2003; Scythes et al., 2004) using PCR (in development) to identify syphilis in patients who were missed using the standard of care currently practiced in most STD and HIV clinics. Modern technology now makes it very affordable for a large urban medical center to organize a comparison of nucleic acid testing (NAT)/PCR to results of immunological tests (i.e., RPR, FTA-Abs, TrepChek, TrepSure, Abbott, Behring, MardX western blotting/LIA Innogenetics, etc.) (Liu et al., 2001; Ballard et al., 2001). We urge investigation into the extent to which undetected latent syphilis overlaps with AIDS.”

The paper states below that there is a correlation between positive HIV test results and the likelihood of immune failure. I would submit that this is the opposite of  “denialism”. This is followed by a number of quotes by HIV researchers who comment on unresolved failures such as HIV vaccine trials and the predicted heterosexual pandemic being unlikely that require “rethinking”. These examples of HIV researchers questioning their assumptions and results are not considered examples of AIDS denialism. It would seem that there is a double or inconsistent standard for what constitutes HIV/AIDS denialism.

“The correlation of a positive HIV test tends to indicate an enhanced likelihood of immune failure. To date, all attempts to produce an effective HIV vaccine have failed. Robert Gallo characterized the failure of the latest STEP vaccine trial, as a “catastrophe”. Ronald C. Desrosiers, a molecular geneticist at Harvard University stated that “none of the products currently in the pipeline has any reasonable chance of being effective in field trials.” Anthony S. Fauci, head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases that sponsored the trial, comments, “There is something very, very peculiar going on in the vaccine trials…. We've got to rethink these things” (Brown, 2008). John Moore, an HIV virologist at Weill-Cornell Medical College stated "This was the first AIDS vaccine clinical trial in history where most people thought they'd at least see something positive”(Cohen, 2007). Kevin de Cock, head of the World Health Organization’s HIV/AIDS department reports that AIDS is largely confined to high-risk groups (men who have sex with men, injecting drug users, and sex workers). “It is very unlikely there will be a heterosexual epidemic in countries (outside sub-Saharan Africa) (O’Neill, 2008)."

The paper concludes by agreeing with HIV researchers that it is time for some rethinking in the form of a possible connection to syphilis as a co-factor in AIDS. Keep in mind that this is a position paper in science that is attempting to convince readers to accept a claim on an unresolved research issue. The unresolved research issue is the “very, very peculiar” goings on with HIV=AIDS in 2009 that requires "rethinking". The paper asks if the unquestioned acceptance of a new viral infection should exclude the investigation of a well-documented disease, syphilis. For all of the information and reasoning the paper contains, it advocates for an investigation of the involvement of spirochetoses in cases of immune deficiency. The call for such an investigation given the call for rethinking by HIV researchers themselves is not “AIDS denialism” and not "HIV denialism". "We agree that spirochetoses need to be reevaluated. Is the situation better described as an obligate and ancient symbiosis where the bionts (spirochetes and humans) are integrated at the behavioral, metabolic and genetic level rather than a new viral infection such that HIV=AIDS? We think symbiosis analysis is appropriate here and in conclusion we advocate a necessary first step. We urge that the possible direct causal involvement of spirochetes and their round bodies to symptoms of immune deficiency be carefully and vigorously investigated."James D. MacAllister (talk) 21:27, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi James. I responded to the edit request, marking it declined.  I very much appreciate you working in the COI system and your continuing willingness to work with the community - please see further notes on your Talk page. Jytdog (talk) 12:39, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your patience. It seems like we actually agree more than we disagree.
 * I think we agree that it would be inappropriate for this article to state, in Wikipedia's voice, that Margulis was an AIDS denialist. Any claim about her position needs to be explicitly attributed.
 * Margulis' work on spirochetes does seem to be under-emphasised. Do you think it should be covered in more detail in the endosymbiosis and/or evolutionary force sections?
 * I've been trying to think of a concise way to introduce Kalichman that makes it clear that HIV is a professional interest but that he is not a virologist. Perhaps the best we can do is something along the lines of "Seth Kalichman, a social psychologist who studies behavioral and social aspects of AIDS, ..."  I'm ok with dropping the bit about infiltrating denialist groups.
 * Regardless of whether the 2009 paper explicitly denies HIV as the cause of AIDS, Margulis herself has has done exactly that. See this interview, in which she stated "Our claim is that there’s no evidence that HIV is an infectious virus, or even an entity at all. There’s no scientific paper that proves the HIV virus causes AIDS."  (Note that the term "AIDS denialism", as I understand it, refers to the belief that HIV is not the cause of AIDS; it is not the claim that AIDS does not exist.)
 * I take your point that in science, what matters is not consensus, but evidence. But what I was trying to point out by linking WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS on your talk page was that if the scientific consensus is wrong, it is not Wikipedia's role to correct that.  It's not our role here to analyse and debate the evidence for ourselves; we let others do that, and then report on their conclusions.  Quoting from the linked page, Wikipedia "can only report that which is verifiable from reliable and secondary sources, giving appropriate weight to the balance of informed opinion".  What would be really helpful right now is additional independent secondary sources discussing the 2009 paper and/or Margulis' stance on HIV/AIDS.
 * Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 10:31, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I find what you have said reasonable and I agree that given the above, we seem to agree more than we disagree. I agree as I have stated that Margulis' work on spirochetes should be more prominent in a biographical page. As i have stated, I am not a biologist, so I would prefer to see if I could recruit someoe who is knowledgeable about Margulis' work in this area and ask them to become an editor (if that is acceptable to Wikipedia).
 * As you may have noted from my first attempt at directly editing the section, I did not eliminate the material about Seth Kalichman. I only objected to his credentials, the inference that he had infiltrated an "AIDS denialist" group in which Margulis and the other authors of the 2009 were members and the labeling of the 2009 paper as an example of "AIDS denialism flourishing". I think the changes you propose above resolve some of that and Seth Kalichman is entitled to his opinion about the paper even if he is wrong about the paper. I am not interested in contesting Margulis' comments on HIV in her Discover magazine interview. There is a context to those comments: Margulis was frustrated by obfuscation instead of answers and the lack of studies in the primary literature about how the identity of HIV was determined, proof of its pathogenicity and what exactly was the identity of HIV. At the time, there were many conflicting reports about the exact details of HIV (e.g., number of genes, a claim that the mutation rate made it difficult to make vaccines that could identify the virus, etc.). HIV hypothesis proponents, such as Brian Foley, continued to cite only the original Gallo papers in Science magazine as the documents that proved HIV causes AIDS, but there are many good reasons to question the validity of the science in those papers. Margulis' asked Simon Wain-Hobson of the Institut Pasteur (he did sequencing of the HIV genome and had asked to speak to her about HIV) to explain to her how HIV was identified and what was that identity (I was present at this conversation) and rather than answers, Margulis was told that her continuing to question the HIV hypothesis would result in the loss of her funding!
 * I would characterize Margulis' views on HIV as those of a evolutionist conservatively skeptical about claims of a new pathogen in the absence of evidence and answers to very basic questions, but that is the very definition of "AIDS denialism". I think the term is quite deliberately designed to mislead as the questions surrounding HIV are not about the existence of AIDS but about HIV. "AIDS" is used because coupled with "denialism" (a term most commonly used in connection with persons who deny the Holocaust) it gets the intended knee-jerk reaction which would not happen if an accurate description of those who are skeptical (or even those who reject) the HIV hypothesis were used. What is commonly invoked when someone asks for the study or studies that prove HIV causes AIDS, in lieu of Gallo's papers, is that it is "the weight of the evidence"--that is all of the papers and studies that have been published in peer reviewed literature which point to a correlation. There are undoubtedly were more studies published that assumed the rules and assumptions of the so-called Modern Synthesis than about HIV, but now those rules and assumptions are demonstrably incomplete or wrong. Having said all this (and I apologize for it not being shorter), I am not going to argue that Lynn's comments in Discover (as opposed to the 2009 paper) can be pointed to and called "AIDS denialism."  However, if Wikipedia is scholarship, is the disinformation inherent in the term "AIDS denialism" something it is comfortable endorsing?
 * I am not sure how many secondary sources have ever discussed the 2009 paper. It has been cited as a reference in a number of primary papers about round bodies. I think there are secondary sources for the material in the paper if you agree that these would bolster the argument that the paper makes that more studies on spirochete symbioses and their effect on the immune system are needed. I just listened to a podcast of the Diane Rehm show where her Lyme disease medical experts all agreed that studies of these spirochete symbioses are urgently needed.

James D. MacAllister (talk) 16:03, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Request edit on 14 July 2015 -change title of section
Replace the title of this section, AIDS/HIV theory of the Lynn Margulis page with Spirochetoses, Syphilis, Lyme Disease and AIDS

This section deals almost entirely with a science position paper from 2009, Spirochete round bodies - "Syphilis, Lyme disease & AIDS: Resurgence of 'the great imitator'". Lynn Margulis was the first author with 7 other co-authors on this paper that examinines "round bodies", a viable pleomorphic form of spirochetes that resist antibiotics. Margulis was a recognized expert on spirochete bacteria and their various viable pleomorphic forms. It should be noted that spirochetes and their round bodies are not seen in tissues at the magnifications commonly used by medical pathologists. Special skill is required even at the high magnifications needed to visualize spirochetes and their round bodies using light microscopy. Her expertise was not limited to the few pathogenic forms known in medicine, but encompassed many free-living and endosymbiotic forms of these bacteria that live in a wide range of anoxic, micro-oxic and oxic environments. The 2009 paper questions whether round bodies in Lyme disease contribute to chronic symptoms, whether round bodies of Trepanema palladium might be a co-factor in Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS) and urges that "the possible direct causal involvement of spirochetes and their round bodies to symptoms of immune deficiency be carefully and rigorously investigated." This was a time when the failure of vaccine trials had surprised HIV researchers, the predictions of a heterosexual pandemic were being withdrawn and Antony Fauci, "the AIDS czar" was endorsing a reexamination of HIV/AIDS theory. James D. MacAllister (talk) 19:42, 14 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I'll leave this request open for someone else to comment, but my initial impression is that it seems backwards to change the section title while the section content is still under discussion. I'd have though the best way to proceed would be to (1) find additional secondary sources about the 2009 paper and/or Margulis' position about HIV/AIDS, (2) expand or otherwise edit the section content based on those sources, then (3) if necessary, change the section title to match the updated section content. (Note my reply in the above section was posted after this request.) Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 10:41, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * If section headings are generally not changed during discussions of the section, then this seems quite reasonable. As to your suggestions about how to proceed, I would ask you if you could be just a little more specific about (1) what you would find reliable secondary sources and covering what areas from the paper? I ask this because the paper covers a wide range of material and I do not want to assume I know what topics you find controversial or needing more references.James D. MacAllister (talk) 18:02, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry I've been slow to respond. Wikipedia normally doesn't describe primary papers in any sort of detail – it would be impossible to keep up with the sheer volume of published material.  I think the 2009 paper is only germane here insofar as it is relevant to Margulis' views on HIV/AIDS, which are unconventional enough to have been widely noted.  What I meant was that it would be great to have additional reliable sources that comment on Margulis' views, rather than having to solely rely on Calichman. So far I haven't found anything suitable.  Her obituaries in Science  and PNAS  only mention them in passing, and those in Nature, New York Times, Washington Post and The Guardian don't mention them at all.  There's lots of commentary on blogs, but those aren't ideal sources, especially for potentially controversial information.  Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 12:39, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Terradactyl's edits
Terradactyl please stop. You are adding too many quotes to the article and too many inappropriate embedded links (like you did here with "9/11 Studies"), and you are going way beyond what has been discussed here - including edit notes that say things like: next phase of re-edits as per discussion" is a misrepresentation. Please stop.  I am very tempted to undo your edits, and I may well still do that.  But please stop - there is no consensus for the rewrite you are doing. Jytdog (talk) 21:37, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I am undoing them. Jytdog (talk) 21:37, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I've removed the self-published website used to support the claim of 9/11 and the editorial interpretation of a primary source. If you feel strongly about these things, then find reliable secondary sources to support them.  Also, Jytdog, your removal of the Gaia-related material as "OR" makes absolutely no sense whatsoever, so I've restored it. Viriditas (talk) 23:29, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

origins of symbiotic theory
The following is not sourced, so I cut it and am pasting it here:

"Although it draws heavily on symbiosis ideas first put forward by mid-19th century scientists and by Merezhkovsky (1905) and Ivan Wallin (1920) in the early-20th century, her endosymbiotic theory formulation is the first to rely on direct microbiological observations (as opposed to paleontological or zoological observations which were previously the norm for new works in evolutionary biology)." Jytdog (talk) 21:45, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Easily verifiable facts that appear to have been deleted for no known reason. The first part ("Although it draws heavily on symbiosis ideas first put forward by mid-19th century scientists and by Merezhkovsky (1905) and Ivan Wallin (1920) in the early-20th century") is clearly supported by the previous citation to her 1967 paper and every other source out there.  The second part of her sentence appears to be an uncontroversial description of her theory.  I'm wondering why this was removed. Viriditas (talk) 00:37, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

policy violating content
I removed the following content. Viriditas restored it. I removed it again. Here it is:

Like other early presentations of Lovelock’s idea, the Lovelock-Margulis 1974 paper seemed to give living organisms complete agency in creating planetary self-regulation, whereas later, as the idea matured, this planetary-scale self-regulation was recognized as an emergent property of the whole Earth system, life and its physical environment taken together (Lovelock, 1988). When climatologist Stephen Schneider convened the 1989 American Geophysical Union Chapman Conference around the issue of Gaia, the idea of “strong Gaia” and “weak Gaia” was introduced by James Kirchner, after which Margulis was sometimes associated with the idea of “weak Gaia,” incorrectly (her essay "Gaia is a Tough Bitch" dates from 1995 – and it stated her own distinction from Lovelock as she saw it, which was primarily that she did not like the metaphor of Earth as a single organism, because, she said, "No organism eats its own waste" ). In her 1998 book Symbiotic Planet, Margulis explored the relationship between Gaia and her work on symbiosis. In 2001, the Amsterdam Declaration on Global Change (see Global change) was signed by more than 1,000 scientists under the aegis of the United Nations, and states at the outset: “The Earth System behaves as a single, self-regulating system,” suggesting that the most basic tenet of Gaia theory, that of global-scale self-regulation, had become mainstream science, despite the fact that leading neo-Darwinists like Richard Dawkins maintained for decades that such self-regulation was impossible.

Issues:
 * sentence 1 ("Like other early presentations...") is not supported by the source provided
 * sentence 2 contains WP:OR editorializing
 * sentence 3 cites the book and makes claims about it, cited only to the book. This too is WP:OR
 * Sentence 4, the new paragraph, is an example of WP:SYN that is used here as a WP:COATRACK to argue that her views are True.

Now that Viriditas is here, I am out of here. Good luck all. Jytdog (talk) 23:34, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not seeing any original research. Sentence 1 refers to uncontroversial, matter of fact observations found just about everywhere in the source, starting in the second paragraph of the preface on p. xix, followed up on pp 7-8 in the second paragraph of that page.  Sentence 2 is not original research either and refers to common facts and notable events reported by the best literature on the subject, such as The Future of the World's Climate and Scientists Debate Gaia: The Next Century, as only two examples.  This is also supported by the Brockman cite.  It seems you have a habit of preferring deletion rather than fixing or adding a source for easily verified material.  I suspect that sentence 2 may already be sourced by existing citations in the current article as well.  This is not "editorializing", this is a matter of making a source request if you find the material objectionable.  I notice that you haven't objected to anything.  Sentence 3, again, refers to a statement of "fact" and does not reflect any original research whatsoever.  It is a fact that Margulis explored the relationship between Gaia and her work on symbiosis in her book Symbiotic Planet.  It's beyond bizarre that you would object to that statement as original research as it can be verified and supported in a dozen different ways.  In any case, that citation is acceptable.  Sentence 4 is not original research either, as we can clearly support the first part with the cited source and verify it in other sources (such as The Revenge of Gaia, p. 25).  As for the criticism of Dawkins, while certainly "true", is probably original research unless we have a cited source.   Again, just because one half of one sentence might be original research, doesn't justify deleting several paragraphs.  The fact is, Dawkins' criticism of the Gaia hypothesis and planetary self-regulation appears in numerous sources, so his position on it today in relation to how mainstream science treats it should be very easy to source. Viriditas (talk) 00:12, 22 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, the removed content seems basically well-sourced, correct, and encyclopaedic. If a little more sourcing is required, that's a matter for a CN tag, or better a little bit of sofixit cement. In fact I think I may have a tube handy. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:22, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi -

Thanks much Viriditas & Chiswick for your support and involvement with this. Viriditas, I think you accidentally put a couple of paragraphs from my edits of the Gaia hypothesis section into the Symbiosis section, and so I have just moved them back.

When Jytdog wrote -


 * sentence 1 ("Like other early presentations...") is not supported by the source provided

he really didn’t seem familiar with the source (Lovelock's The Ages of Gaia), because, as you said Viriditas, what I was suggesting, and using that book as a citation for, is really all over the text, and is actually the theme of one early section of the book, i.e., how the Gaia idea grew and changed from its early days. One interesting aspect in that section, I might add, that could have some interest for this article, since it is hard to talk about Margulis without talking about her battle with the neo-Darwinians, is that Lovelock pointedly discusses how the neo-Darwinian criticisms helped to make that growth and maturation of the idea take place, something not often enough said. Lovelock in that section likened it to taking a cold bath.

What I had written earlier about the Margulis article as a whole is that there was a structural problem with it, I felt, in that there was little to distinguish what were Margulis’ primary contributions and what were controversial things she got involved with, but were not fundamentally her own life’s work. There was a certain amount of back and forth with editor Adrian Hunter about this, and, taking from some of his thoughts on it, I then set out to restructure the entry so that there was a “Contributions” section and then a “Controversies” section for the other things that weren't quite her own life's work, but were worthy of being included in the article. I still think that this would be wise, given the special nature of this entry. Keep in mind that there are no issues more controversial than things like 9/11 and AIDS conspiracies. Further, Margulis' own work was highly controversial initially, and now some parts of it are not, but there are still certain folks who would really enjoy having it all be considered controversial. Thus, I see it as very important, in making this a good article (and I personally think that it is an important article since Margulis was such a major figure), to wall off the life's work, discussing the initial controversies, the work's gradual acceptance, etc, from the kinds of things that can easily take over on the rest of the article, because people (including Margulis) feel so passionately about them, like 9/11, AIDS, etc. That is above all what I was trying to do, and I hope that you will be supportive if I re-introduce that, by having a "Controversies" heading with a brief intro, as I had put in yesterday.

Frankly, I really don’t even mind the removal of the 9/11 material, it might even be for the best, and I confess that I felt particularly unsure of how to handle that material, but right now there is still the larval transfer theory section and the AIDS section, and so having a "Controversies" section I think could be helpful in providing context to inclusion of the material.

Further, I do think that what I did with the HIV/AIDS section was a real improvement on what is currently there – and note that I didn’t even remove the statements about Margulis supposedly being an “AIDS denialist.” I agree with what you said yesterday to Jytdog about wholesale removal, and I am well aware that basic protocol here is to try to avoid removing critical content. For a bunch of reasons I discussed earlier, I also do think that this section is a bit special – Wikipedia considers alternative AIDS theories in a special category, and does not want to lend them authority. Calling Margulis and "AIDS denialist" both lends that viewpoint more authority, seen from one perspective (i.e., akin to the intelligent design people citing Margulis), while it disses Margulis, seen from another. Therefore, both to be true to Margulis and to WP policy, it should not be allowed to stay as it is, I would say. Note, by the way, from my prior posting, that when I first wrote about this here I had not even read the Margulis et al “Great Imitator” paper, but then studied it in order to deal with making these edits. I was very struck, when reading the actual paper, with how what the blocked COI editor (a co-author of the paper) had written to Jytdog and Hunter was accurate – the paper really was not at all an AIDS denialist paper. Further, what he had written about the quote of one Seth Kalichman was also right, that he should not be called an "AIDS researcher", because in this context that sounds like it means a virologist, an applied scientist, but that is not the case, these are the comments of a community psychologist, and so have rather little weight.

I well understand that these sections – AIDS and 9/11 – involve some of the hardest material to deal with on Wikipedia. I think you were probably right, Viriditas, to remove my 9/11 studies site reference - please understand that, given that this is an article about Lynn Margulis, I was just trying to find some approach, if her 9/11 views were to remain in the article, to characterize Margulis’ involvement with this 9/11 material: in her 'Explosive Evidence' interview, most of it is not even about 9/11 itself, but rather about the scientific method as a whole, and how we should consider it when looking at something like 9/11, and so I was thinking of this as being like the '9/11 Studies' idea. Of course, it might not be right to privilege this kind of “physical evidence” view of those events with the name “9/11 Studies” – after all, Richard Clarke taught a Terror Studies class at Harvard some years back, which was certainly NOT oriented in that way, and his approach could, I suppose, just as well lay claim to the title “9/11 Studies.” Terradactyl (talk) 04:32, 23 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for these very sensible comments. The AIDS denialist claims certainly need review, followed either by additional sourcing (and if need be rewording), or deletion. Chiswick Chap (talk) 05:57, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I checked the AIDS denialist claims in the AIDS section. All are true except the quotes purporting to be from the Discover article, which does not contain them, so I removed the quotes sentence. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:50, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Those quotes are in the Discover article – you just need to scroll through to the third page. (I couldn't see any way to link to the third page directly, or I'd have done so already.)
 * Ah, "my bad" as they say in America, that's ok then. I'll tweak the citation. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:19, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I'll just note for clarity that James D. MacAllister is not "blocked" in the usual Wikipedia sense of the word, as described at WP:BLOCK. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 08:13, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks Chiswick Chap.
 * There seems to at least be agreement that the long-standing description of Kalichman was misleading ("HIV researcher"), so I've changed it as described above. I also removed the "spent a year infiltrating HIV denialist groups" bit to avoid casting aspersions upon Margulis' entire research group.  I'm open to further adjustments. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 09:44, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi, thanks much, guys. I've just copied below how my version of the AIDS section had read before being reverted, and I wonder if you wouldn't agree that it isn't really far more even-handed than the current version? It's not a question of whether the Discover quotes are "true" or "false." Just like in a court of law, context can mean everything. If you take the famous Rodney King video, when you only allow jurors to see a few selected frames, you can shape those frames' meaning one way, but if you let them see more and more, a quite different picture clearly emerges. Just yesterday, a new such document, the amazing dashcam recording of Sandra Bland's arrest, was going all over the internet, and it too will likely get used in a court case at some point, if I had to guess, and the context and what gets selected (since it apparently runs for 50 minutes) will likely get used to try to control the meaning. In what I wrote, I really tried to give the controversy a bit of leg room, some context, which I think helps readers understand it a lot better - and I think that the Discover interview was VERY important to it. Basically, the whole thing starts to make sense in my version, otherwise it just doesn't make much sense. Note that just from what is in my one paragraph, the fact the Jerry Coyne was obviously incorrect is just as evident as the fact that Margulis was speaking provocatively. Here is what I had:

In 2009 Margulis and seven others authored a position paper concerning research on the viability of round body forms of some spirochetes, "Syphilis, Lyme disease & AIDS: Resurgence of 'the great imitator'?"[2], which states that, "Detailed research that correlates life histories of symbiotic spirochetes to changes in the immune system of associated vertebrates is sorely needed" and urging the "reinvestigation of the natural history of mammalian, tick-borne, and venereal transmission of spirochetes in relation to impairment of the human immune system."[52] The paper did not question the existence of HIV or AIDS, nor that HIV caused AIDS, but suggested that syphilis could have been a co-factor in the spread of AIDS. In a Discover Magazine interview with Dick Teresi published less than six months before her death, however, Margulis spoke provocatively of how "the set of symptoms, or syndrome, presented by syphilitics overlaps completely with another syndrome: AIDS," and also noted that "Kary Mullis [winner of the 1993 Nobel Prize for DNA sequencing, and well known for his unconventional scientific views] said in an interview that he went looking for a reference substantiating that HIV causes AIDS and discovered, 'There is no such document.' " [25] This elicited widespread suggestions that Margulis was an "AIDS denialist", with Jerry Coyne notably writing on his Why Evolution is True blog about "dreadful stuff" in the Discover Magazine interview and Margulis' supposed "notion that AIDS is really syphilis, not viral in origin at all." Clinical community psychologist and professor of social psychology Seth Kalichman cited the Margulis et al 2009 paper as an example of AIDS denialism "flourishing",[53] and argued that her supposed "endorsement of HIV/AIDS denialism defies understanding."[54]. In the Discover Magazine interview, Margulis discussed with Teresi the primary grounds for her initial interest in the material of the 2009 "AIDS" paper, being that "I’m interested in spirochetes only because of our ancestry. I’m not interested in the diseases," and stated that to her the fact that both Treponema (the spirochete which causes syphilis) and Borrelia (the spirochete which causes Lyme disease) only have retained about 20% of the genes they need to lively freely outside of their human hosts, they should be considered as symbionts.

Terradactyl (talk) 18:34, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Thinking about it a bit more, I realized that, following Adrian Hunter's rewording of the Kalichman quote, the differences between what I had done and what was currently there only concerned additions of mine, no subtractions of other people's edits at all, and so I just took the liberty of adding back in the things I had included, but kept Adrian's exact wording for the Kalichman quotes, which was slightly different from mine, although I'm fine with what he had. I hope that no one is unhappy with this, it makes the section somewhat longer, but, as I said above, I think the added context simply helps it to make sense. Terradactyl (talk) 19:09, 23 July 2015 (UTC)