Talk:The AIDS War

Primary source
I'll try to explain a bit what is going on. I agree with because that was all sourced to the primary source, the book. In relation to WP:ABIAS, WP:PSCI and WP:WEIGHT, this was also undue (one could consider it apologetics of a fringe view and original research/synthesis of the editor who summarizes the primary source). This is also why secondary sources are much better, they did the interpretation for us, if we chose reliable ones then that's the message the article should portray. — Paleo Neonate  – 14:11, 20 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Excuse me, but I have written three articles about books that have achieved good article status, and in not one of these cases was there the least difficulty in basing the "summary" section on a primary source (the book the article was about), nor did any of the people who reviewed these articles think that there was anything wrong in basing the "summary" sections of those articles on the book itself. I completely reject the claim that there was any "original research/synthesis" on my part. That's simply an unfounded accusation. Stating that an author states this or that in a book is not "original research", and anyone can see that "synthesis" (the use of multiple sources to draw a novel conclusion) is not what has happened here. The removal of the "summary" section of this article was inappropriate, ruins the article, and seems to be a case of simple prejudice against the book and its author. There is zero point having an article about a book at all if we cannot describe the book's actual contents. The article now essentially consists of a single critical comment about the book. It is now worthless. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 19:47, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Better pay heed to WP:VALID. Wikipedia is not a platform for giving legitimacy to cranky BS. If you want to propose deletion of the article, that may be warranted ... Alexbrn (talk) 19:48, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying that there was, but that's a formula that is flawed in allowing it to occur. — Paleo  Neonate  – 20:22, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I have no idea what you are trying to say. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 20:23, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * There was no justification for removing the summary section, and no, WP:VALID states nothing that supports it. An article about a book that does not even tell readers what the book actually states is worthless. Go ahead and nominate the article for deletion. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 19:52, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Did you read WP:VALID? We either contextualize fringe views with mainstream views, or omit them. Your editorial summary was just fringe apologia. Alexbrn (talk) 19:53, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * No, it was not. It simply described what the book stated. That is the exact same approach I have always taken when writing an article about any book. There is nothing "apologia" about it. WP:VALID states, "Wikipedia policy does not state or imply that every minority view or extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship as if they were of equal validity." That is irrelevant here. Simply describing what a book states, which was all the summary section did, has nothing to do with suggesting that what it states is valid. I would have thought the distinction was clear enough. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 20:05, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Okay - now trying quoting the bit which is relevant. Alexbrn (talk) 20:08, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * : But the book itself is only that...  — Paleo  Neonate  – 20:24, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Alexbrn, I have no idea what you are talking about and I have increasingly little interest in continuing a tendentious discussion. PaleoNeonate's comment is confusing describing a book's arguments and endorsing them. They have nothing in common. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 20:28, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * It's also a question of weight: since these are fringe, dedicating most of the article to describing the book's views in detail results in an article which mostly pushes those views, obviously. This is a common pitfall that I've seen at other articles (an instance being Darwin on Trial when previously expanded by Allenroyboy/OtisDixon).  — Paleo  Neonate  – 00:58, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
 * No, describing the arguments of a book is just that - describing them. Describing a view or an idea is not the same as "pushing" that view or that idea. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:02, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Were the three books articles with good article status about fringe views on a medical topic? The standards aren't necessarily the same as for a novel. --tronvillain (talk) 19:56, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * If you are interested in other articles I have written about books, then you can see for yourself what they are about. The details are on my user page. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 20:01, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Trimming the fringe material is appropriate. We need high quality third party coverage. This book is barely notable. But our article is better now. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 01:12, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The so-called "fringe material" was the description of the book's contents. Without it, as I have said, the article is worthless. The article has been ruined, and is certainly not "better". FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:13, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, the fringe material is the book's contents, and the book's contents are fringe material. Nothing "so-called" about it. Before the trimming, the article was worse than worthless - it was harmful because it did not mention that the claims the book makes are baseless. Now it may be worthless, but that is an improvement.
 * Is there anything in the book the reader of the article needs to know, except "the author argues against the idea that HIV causes AIDS"? --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:08, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Obviously not in your view. But readers of the article may very well believe that they need to know about the details of what Lauritsen argues, and why should they be denied it, simply because you think they shouldn't have that information? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 06:42, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Because Wikipedia operates according to its WP:PAGs (see above); we summarize accepted knowledge, not expound bogus "information" to our readers. Alexbrn (talk) 06:50, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
 * There was nothing "bogus" about the information that was removed. It was an accurate account of the book's contents. That what the book claims may be wrong is a completely different issue, and isn't a justification for removing the material. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 06:52, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Once again, WP:VALID: "we merely omit this information where including it would unduly legitimize it, and otherwise include and describe these ideas in their proper context with respect to established scholarship and the beliefs of the wider world." Your "summary" gave air to a load of nonsense with precisely zero "proper context". Without secondary sources that would be impossible so it is correct to omit this content. Alexbrn (talk) 06:57, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
 * They are not denied that information, since they can get it elsewhere. It is not Wikipedia's job to spread misinformation, as others have explained and as the rule pages quoted by others state. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:40, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Article subject
Calton with this edit you altered the infobox to list the book's subject as "AIDS denialism", with the comment, "No, the book IS AIDS denialism". It is true that Lauritsen argues that HIV does not cause AIDS, and in that sense I suppose one could say that the book is "AIDS denialism". That does not make it correct to list "AIDS denialism" as the book's subject. Doing so implies that the book is about a movement called "AIDS denialism", which simply is not the case. The book discusses AIDS as its main topic, and although it is of course partly concerned with the activities of groups and individuals who deny that HIV causes AIDS, they are not its key focus. I appreciate that you made your edit in good faith, but the information you have added to the infobox is incorrect. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:50, 21 August 2018 (UTC)


 * No, the entire goddamned book *IS* AIDS denialism, whatever the pretensions of its author. You might just as well describe The Protocols of the Elders of Zion a "sociology book". Actual content matters, something which seems to have been entirely lost on you in the section above about summarizing the book's contents. --Calton | Talk 16:26, 21 August 2018 (UTC)


 * As I said, it is a book about AIDS, and it is still about AIDS whether what it says is correct or not. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:23, 21 August 2018 (UTC)