Talk:Religion and HIV/AIDS

Things this article needs (expansion)

 * Filling in the rest of the religions in the condom section
 * Something other than just Jerry Falwell in the origin section. Surely some other religious leader has said something about where AIDS came from.  Including some who believe it's just a disease.
 * Comments from people who partially blame religious treatment of gay people for the AIDS crisis
 * A section about religious organisations working to help people living with AIDS

--Alynna (talk) 14:32, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Religion and HIV/AIDS. 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 https://web.archive.org/20070529085511/http://www.islamonline.net:80/servlet/Satellite?c=Article_C&cid=1157962465531&pagename=Zone-English-HealthScience%2FHSELayout to http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?c=Article_C&cid=1157962465531&pagename=Zone-English-HealthScience%2FHSELayout

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 17:51, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

"more detail"
"The Church therefore promoted the concept of abstinence as the only morally viable course of a disagree with this position.[9] (more detail needed here)" Not only is more detail needed here, the sentence is utter gibberish as it stands - "course of a disagree with" means nothing in English.87.128.18.74 (talk) 16:49, 10 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I noticed this nonsense too. I can't seem to figure out what it may have said originally. I am going to remove the statement for now.  Andrew. Z. Colvin  •  Talk  08:04, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Suggestions
I think the introductory paragraph could use a bit more elaboration so that it offers a better summary of the rest of the article. There are also numerous claims - including those in the introductory paragraph, the second half of the paragraph on Islam, the first paragraph on Christianity, the paragraph on Hinduism and the first paragraph on HIV prevention amongst Catholics - that lack citations. In addition, I think we could also include the stances of various Christian denominations on HIV, especially in terms of how they may have evolved over the course of the HIV crisis. In addition, religion can also affect the way individuals infected with HIV perceive themselves, how they cope with the disease and the forms of treatment they pursue, which this article can also explore. Emmaaa00 (talk) 23:43, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Revert
Restored less POV version of Catholicism section. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 16:15, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , I am confused as to what you think was POV about that section. This article is the parent article for the Catholic article. Per WP:Summary: "Each subtopic or child article is a complete encyclopedic article in its own right and contains its own lead section that is quite similar to the summary in its parent article." The version I had was almost exactly word-for-word the lede from the child article. The prior version, to which you reverted, has three paragraphs that discuss condoms and nothing else. Could you please explain how this is less-POV? Thanks. -- Slugger O&#39;Toole (talk) 18:02, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * It contains more citations and less promotional cruft. It might not be perfect, but your edit was certainly the opposite of an improvement. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 03:13, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , I don't believe the current version aligns with WP:SS or has due weight. It has three paragraphs about a single topic while the main article has seven topic areas. If you don't think my edit was an improvement, would you like to suggest some language here that you think would be? -- Slugger O&#39;Toole (talk) 03:47, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Jerry Falwell Sr. Notability?
In the Christianity section, Jerry Falwell is cited as a view of the Christian faith - yet there is no mention of Catholic views (neither Western nor Eastern rites) nor of Anglican views nor the views of the Orthodox churches, nor of several other of the most major branches of Christianity within this section. Jerry Falwell is not a leader of a major, mainstream branch of Christianity - he is but one 'pastor' who founded his own sect. I feel that, given the fairly succint nature of the Christianity section, Mr Falwell is provided far too much gravitas and representation as a voice of the Christian faith by the article.

Indeed, the article cites the standpoints of religions and NOT individual pastors - with the sole exception of this one pastor. Might then you consider altering the article such that either his view, of little weight yet of high controversy, is removed or it is made clear that he is of little significance within the Christian faith. It is hardly like this is the view of someone notable like a Pope, Patriarch or the Archbishop of Canterbury - it's a single man who found his own sect of believers. -EcheveriaJ (talk) 22:46, 1 December 2021 (UTC)