Talk:Zidovudine/Archive 3

AIDS denialist claims
AIDS denialists, including at least one notable individual who has had several decades now to learn the facts, continue to state falsely that AZT was a cancer drug that failed approval because it was too toxic. Actually, it was not toxic enough to work, and that's why it was rejected. I would like to add a sentence or two about this oft-repeated claim, for example:
 * AIDS denialists have claimed that AZT was originally a proposed cancer treatment with side effects so toxic that the FDA refused to approve its use against cancer. In fact, the drug was not approved because it did not work: it was not toxic enough to kill cancer cells.

Any thoughts or suggestions? Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 00:39, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure, but do you know of a good source to point to for this item? Incorrect AIDS-denialist nonsense about AZT could probably fill a whole subarticle, but maybe this one is worth mentioning. MastCell Talk 05:13, 14 February 2009 (UTC)


 * My thought is that the above-suggested statement should read as follows:


 * AIDS denialists have claimed that AZT was originally a proposed cancer treatment with side effects so toxic that the FDA refused to approve its use against cancer. In fact, the drug was not approved because it did not work: it was not toxic enough to kill cancer cells.
 * Or perhaps we should consider the following different perspective on the same subject:
 * "The drug [AZT] must have killed the tumors, which contained dividing cells, but it so effectively destroyed healthy growing tissues that the mice died of extreme toxicity.18 The drug was shelved, and no patent was ever filed."
 * A citation tag would be needed for the first statement, but not the second. Its source is Inventing the Aids Virus by Peter Duesberg, page 309.


 * Interested readers should read the "In Vitro" section of Archive 2 of this Talk page. Eye.earth (talk) 04:29, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * No, for the same reasons that you've heard every time you've tried to push inappropriate AIDS-denialist tracts as encyclopedic sources. Doing so would be a step away from this project's goal to create a serious, respectable reference work. You've been flogging this horse for a long time now - over a year? - and you've failed to convince anyone that you're talking sense. Further repetition isn't likely going to work; it may be time to accept the obvious. MastCell Talk 05:30, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Would it help if my suggestion were followed by a citation-tag instead of an actual reference -- like the recent statement about how AZT "saved 50,000 years of life for AIDS sufferers between 1994 and 1999 in the USA"? I notice that you raised no objection to that -- were perfectly happy with a citation-tag and perfectly willing to let it stand, even though the phrase "50,000 years of life" is meaningless without explanation as to how the figure was arrived at. Now it's been replaced by a bit of Orwellian doublespeak fit for a reading by John Cleese. The suggested statement above by KeepCalm is of course also unsupported by any reference -- how could it be otherwise? As for the Duesberg quote, it's supported by its own reference in the book, but even without a reference his statement makes obvious scientific sense as a description of what chemotherapy designed as a DNA-chain terminator would do: terminate DNA chains. Any DNA chain -- not just those few with HIV viral code -- with all the attendant consequences.


 * The recent failures of the RfC and Mediation Cabal to generate any responses makes clear that practically no one reads these Talk pages or indeed cares about the subject at all. As for the article, it is the tract, a pseudo-scholarly pharmaceutical ad with you and two or three others acting as copywriters. Duesberg's book by contrast is written by a tenured professor and published by a long-established firm (it published William F. Buckley's God and Man at Yale). You've obviously never read Inventing the Aids Virus, but that makes sense. Why bother if your professional position prevents you from changing your mind and talking about it? Eye.earth (talk) 02:46, 11 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think that you should conclude that no one reads or cares about this issue. A more apt conclusion might be that no one is willing to take the bait you continually dangle. Include me in that latter category. MastCell Talk 05:50, 11 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Sounds like surrender to me. Eye.earth (talk) 23:43, 11 July 2009 (UTC)


 * No, I've been reading this, and I do care about the accuracy of this page, but have been exhausted by your intransigence on this topic. I agree with what MastCell has been saying about the content.  I have consistently disagreed with your suggestions after carefully considering them.  I just haven't seen anything new here.  --Scray (talk) 23:28, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Carcinogenicity
Eye.earth has inserted, first in the lead and then in the "side effects" section, a claim that AZT causes cancer in humans. This claim falls under the purview of Wikipedia's special sourcing requirements for medicine-related information, and a California state regulatory document does not satisfy these requirements. AZT-mediated DNA damage has been reported for in vitro studies, and there is at least one report of carcinogenicity in inbred mice, but we should not be stating categorically that AZT causes cancer in humans without definitive proof in the scientific literature. In any case, incidence of AIDS-related cancers has fallen dramatically since the introduction of AZT and other antiretroviral drugs. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 20:22, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I've removed the California information from the history section. Without reliable third-party sources, the significance of a California department's classification of a drug is questionable and unlikely to be a major event in the drug's history; in any case, it doesn't seem encyclopaedic. I suggested that cancer as a side effect could be included in the side effects section; however, the claim would need a better source. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 13:55, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I think its reasonable that a formal and legally binding decision by the State of California (not a "California department") unequivocally defining AZT as a carcinogenic substance needn't be kept out of Wikipedia's article on AZT. The issue is the decision itself, not the science behind it. That decision is on the State of California's own website and there can be no reasonable doubt that the announcement is itself accurate -- AZT has indeed been classified as a substance known to the State of California to cause cancer. It seems doubtful that third-party sources attesting to the announcement, or its significance, are necessary. Indeed, to claim they are necessary as justification for removing the information from the article would probably look like censorship to as many third parties. Inclusion of AZT in California's Proposition 65 as a substance known (my emphasis, but a direct quote) to cause cancer is newsworthy in and of itself and so must have a place in the article.

Prop 65 states without qualification that AZT is known to the State of California to cause cancer. Period. That would seem to be documentation enough to include the information under Side Effects, as long as the citations are included (as they were in my edit). Obviously, its stated carcinogenic effects apply to anyone taking it, not just Californians. However, probably History is a better location, simply because the information is being included not as a scientific statement per se but rather as news. It is simply a news item. It's reasonable to assume that most readers would find it interesting and so worthy of inclusion in the article.

Your statements that "AZT-mediated DNA damage has been reported for in vitro studies, and there is at least one report of carcinogenicity in inbred mice, but we should not be stating categorically that AZT causes cancer in humans without definitive proof in the scientific literature. In any case, incidence of AIDS-related cancers has fallen dramatically since the introduction of AZT and other antiretroviral drugs" would seem to lack verifiable sources themselves. Eye.earth (talk) 21:18, 23 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Many substances, given sufficient quantitities, can be carcinogenic. There is no reason an encyclopaedia should include the individual decisions on such issues made by local governments in any given country. Unless, that is, there is third-party evidence for the notability of such classification, or, in the case of this article, scientific publications. You have provided none. As for my statements on the science behind Zidovudine, the review article I added yesterday is but one of many verifiable sources. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 15:40, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I find your position rather puzzling. "There is no reason an encyclopaedia should include the individual decisions on such issues made by local governments in any given country." That may be true for a print encyclopedia, fearing that certain matters may be made irrelevant by subsequent events after its physical publication. But Wikipedia isn't a print encyclopedia. Wikipedia is Wikipedia. There is no reason not to include the individual decisions on such issues made by local governments in a given country -- like, for example, the State of California in the United States of America. Indeed, an identical decision by the most obscure municipal entity anywhere in the world would be as interesting, perhaps more so -- people expect trends to start in California.

As I pointed out above, the inclusion by California of Zidovudine (AZT) in its list of substances known to cause cancer is a fact in and of itself. Other sources beyond those I supplied aren't required for purposes of confirmation or notability. The notability is patent, as it would be for that most obscure municipal entity. You may dispute the science ("Many substances, given sufficient quantitities, can be carcinogenic") but, again as I pointed out, the science isn't really the issue here. The official ruling by California that Zidovudine (AZT) is known to cause cancer is news. It is interesting, even controversial news. It is the reporting of a fact. You may argue against its inclusion in the Side Effects section in the absence of "third party evidence", by which I think you mean primary evidence as well. But there is no reason not to include this information under History. Again, Zidovudine (AZT) is now legally a carcinogenic substance according to the government of the State of California. To deny this fact to otherwise-uninformed readers is curious, to say the least. Wikipedia's rules regarding reliable sources provides no foundation for your position. Primary sources of the decision itself -- California's own website -- are of course not prohibited. Eye.earth (talk) 23:01, 24 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Comes down to whether a significant minority view or not, and if only one out of 51 states deciding that, and this in but one country, then does not make for a significant opinion as far as counting regulatory authorities - the FDA as the national body would count. I would reiterate view that all substances in sufficient excess may be carginogenic, but to label as such is daft: Famous (probably apocryphal) tale of a drug company struggling to get a drug X licenced for its supposed carcinogenic risk, who made joint presentation to FDA with an even more carcinogenic liquid Y (renal cancer in mice at a quantity which in a man would be many gallons a day for a hundred years)... the drug company had great glee when FDA rejected drug X and demanded identity of liquid Y be disclosed - it was water. Medical articles set high standards of reliable sourcing (per WP:MEDRS) - so we will not label dihydrogen monoxide dangerous either, irrespective of what some politicians have nearly enacted (see http://www.snopes.com/science/dhmo.asp). David Ruben Talk 00:29, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * As for specifics, the decision to list "...zidovudine (AZT) are being added to the list as known to the state to cause cancer" gives as its source material the link to  :
 * "Zidovudine (AZT): In 2000, the IARC published Volume 76 of its series, IARC Monographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans. Here, the IARC concluded that (1) there is sufficient evidence in experimental animals for the carcinogenicity of zidovudine, and (2) zidovudine is “possibly carcinogenic to humans (Group 2B).” Therefore, this substance meets the requirements of both Labor Code sections 6382(b)(1) and (d)."
 * Mice results might be enough to generate a concern for a substance (and California is welcome to list drugs on that basis), but that is not same as stating that it has been proven or generally agreed that it does cause cancer in humans ("possibly carcinogenic to humans" gets changed into "known to the state to cause cancer" on being listed and implying known human carcinogen). Indeed the next section states (if I understand it correctly) that no scientific detail as to level of risk is considered: "Under this listing mechanism, OEHHA cannot consider scientific arguments concerning the weight or quality of the evidence and will not respond to such comments if they are submitted." So any degree of risk, even in only non-human animal studies, results in a uniform carcinogen labelling - neither proportonate nor helpful. The one area where very low risk an issue would be in pharmaceutical preparation where workers might be at continuous and long term exposure, but that does not directly impact on drug labelling for the consumer (equally many of the chemicals used in making non-carcinogenic drugs are themselves carcinogens, or dangerously caustic or acidic - but the end drug is not so labelled). David Ruben Talk 00:52, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

You and KeepCalm take issue with the science behind Prop 65's listing, and on that basis repeatedly delete the announcement itself from the article. KeepCalm says it should be in Side Effects, but only with proper "third party" references. That may be sound reasoning for inclusion in Side Effects (cancer as a side effect!). But that logic doesn't hold for excluding the announcement itself from History, which can include anything significant in its own right. As I have pointed out, the Prop 65 listing is a news item of general interest. The State of California has made that information public on its official website. It would be very strange if uninformed readers of this article were actively and repeatedly kept in the dark about it by editors who believe the information itself isn't notable or verifiable without further references, or who believe that the science behind the decision is faulty. Your opinion as to the science is irrelevant. The listing's notability is patent. If you have a problem with Proposition 65's scientific standards, I suggest you make a general suggestion on an appropriate forum within Wikipedia to exclude Prop 65 listings from articles about substances that have been so listed. Eye.earth (talk) 16:06, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The question of carcinogenicity of zidovudine is a reasonable topic for inclusion here. In order to accurately cover that topic, we probably need to dig a bit deeper than Prop 65. Prop 65 is notoriously indiscriminate, and does not specify the level of risk associated with a substance. Anyone who's spent any time in California quickly gets used to seeing Prop 65 warnings every time you go to a swimming pool, gas station, hardware store, grocery store, apartment building, movie theater, etc. This is a legal and regulatory determination, which we can fairly note, but we should probably dig a bit deeper to get at its scientific basis. The addition of zidovudine to the Prop 65 list was based on a 2000 monograph from the IARC. The monograph is available here. You will note its rather clearly stated conclusions (emphasis in original):
 * There is inadequate evidence in humans for the carcinogenicity of zidovudine.
 * There is sufficient evidence in experimental animals for the carcinogenicity of zidovudine.
 * When animal data suggest a risk, but human data do not, the IARC places substances in Category 2B (possibly carcinogenic to humans). Because of the animal data, they cannot rule out a cancer risk, but none has ever been demonstrated. So zidovudine is much safer than, say, sawdust (Category 1). To avoid scaremongering and accurately document knowledge on the topic, we should probably mention the IARC finding on which the Prop 65 notice is based. Interestingly, the inclusion of zidovudine on the Prop 65 list was strongly challenged because the listing failed to make clear that despite animal data, 15 years of human use have shown no increased risk of cancer. And because the listing might scare people away from lifesaving treatment, or might even be misused by unscrupulous individuals intent on promoting quackery or AIDS denialism. Fancy that. MastCell Talk 17:49, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Regarding Aids quackery, consider this statement from the article, but with my preferred italic insertion as follows:

However, AZT has a 100-fold greater affinity in vitro for the HIV reverse transcriptase than for the human DNA polymerase alpha, accounting for its selective antiviral activity.

Or perhaps you'd prefer this version:

However, AZT has a 100-fold greater affinity in vivo for the HIV reverse transcriptase than for the human DNA polymerase alpha, accounting for its selective antiviral activity.

Or do you still prefer the version as is?

However, AZT has a 100-fold greater affinity for the HIV reverse transcriptase than for the human DNA polymerase alpha, accounting for its selective antiviral activity.

And how about you, Davidrubin? Eye.earth (talk) 19:57, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * How about me what - what's the question ? I'm totally bemused - what has "Aids quackery" got to do with whether or not cancer-paranoid California places a warning on substances, whether or not confirmed to cause problem in humans and irrespective of the exposure levels required. Secondly what does any of the rephrasing have to do with AZT carcinogenicity or Aids quackery? Given failure to demarcate new thread on my talk page, is this a new thread here too? David Ruben Talk 22:03, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * There is no indication from reliable sources that AZT's relative affinity for the various polymerases is somehow reversed in vitro vs. in vivo. Nor is there any indication from reliable sources that AZT is an actual cancer risk to humans. Without additional reliable sources, there's no reason to continue this thread. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 22:57, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

And how about you, MastCell? Eye.earth (talk) 16:47, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I've noticed that WP:SHUN contains some excellent advice. MastCell Talk 04:48, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Symptomatic myopathy
The article doesn't mention that the drug causes this with prolonged use. my source is GSKs own document on their website for the drug. Symptomatic myopathy is muscle weakness, fatigue, a number of people call them AIDS like symptoms--86.15.83.152 (talk) 09:11, 3 June 2010 (UTC).

Diff revert
I've reverted this set of edits again. The film is used to verify the history of the drug - it does not need to be a MEDRS since it is not making medical claims, it is discussing the history of the drug. The information is within the film itself, we don't expect it to be on the film's webpage.

Horowitz et al 1964 does indeed exist. Again, the article does not need to be easy to access. It has to verify the text, and we assume good faith that the editor who made the change knew what he was doing it. However, an editor pushing an AIDS denialist POV doesn't get that same credit. Go find the article and read it - if it doesn't verify the text, then it can be removed. Of course, if anyone pretends to read it and says it doesn't verify, when it does, that's pretty much guaranteed to get someone banned from AIDS and related topics.

Broder 2010 leads to an abstract. Abstracts are convenient, but the source is always to the citation, not the abstract, and the full citation sources this. This is basic sourcing and referencing. Because something is inconvenient, it's not a reason to remove it. Again, the source is always the article. If the abstract sources something, that's great, but not essentially. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 12:24, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Those references were added by Keepcalmandcarryon in January. A very trustworthy editor.  I've asked him for a comment.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 12:27, 1 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I want to get an AN/I discussion going about my recent edits here. But to keep it simple, let's do one edit at a time. I'm going to start with the Horowitz citation. Here's my reason for deleting it: The article itself can't be found.  Wikipedia:Reliable sources states that the original posting editor (in this case Keepcalmandcarryon, according to WLU), above, is supposed to find the source, read the source, and understand the source before citing it. Wikipedia doesn't put that burden on casual readers or critical editors. In other words, an originating editor can't just say, "By the way, I've posted this source and it's up to you to find it, read it, and understand it, but in the meantime assume good faith gives my citation protected status until the matter is resolved to my satisfaction down the road sometime." No, such contested sources get deleted first, and then it is decided whether they are worthy of inclusion.


 * WLU gives a link, above, to Horowitz. But notice that it is listed as a citation only. Where can the article itself be found and read? The original editor has a duty to readers to make that clear. Otherwise it is meaningless to the point of dishonesty. Let me state clearly my doubts that anyone participating in this discussion has read the Horowitz study. If anyone has, let that person come forth and state where -- section titles and page numbers, please -- the relevant information is. In the meantime, I intend to keep deleting the "citation". BruceSwanson (talk) 19:28, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * If you want to start an AN/I about your actions, go ahead. I see no need you need to comply with the policies which are clear.
 * All articles can be found - you just don't have them. This is not an issue.  KCCO is an editor in good standing, with a long history.  There is no reason to think s/he is making up sources or information.  He can say he's got the source - it's up to you to find the article and demonstrate it is improperly cited.  There is ample reason however, to think that your beliefs in AIDS denialism, is prejudicing your edits.  Horowitz et al can probably be found at any university library.  Again, you seem to think that if you can't find the article at a speed that pleases you, then it should be removed.  This is inappropriate.  There's no reason to expect KCCO to post a link to a university library to establish it exists.  It does exist.  Note that it's cited here also, and in fact many other books .  If you really want to verify its contents, you can buy it from here.
 * I don't care if you doubt the article exists or is cited. That particular point is cited to three separate sources, there's no reason to doubt it, and you haven't managed to demonstrate it's inaccurately summarized.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 19:53, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * On what grounds is the source being "contested"? What factual point is being disputed? That Horwitz synthesized AZT in the 1960s? That is easily confirmed (see, for example, the dedication of his statue at the Barbara Ann Karmanos Cancer Institute, or Horwitz's faculty profile at Wayne State, or for that matter any reputable history of AZT). If there is a serious, good-faith factual point at issue, then I'm happy to take steps to address it. I'm not going to jump through hoops or wander off in search of a shrubbery, though - is there something more to this request than an attempt to create busywork for other editors? Bruce's previous challenges to sources do not inspire me to take this one on faith. Curiously, Googling "horwitz azt" leads one to into a smorgasbord of AIDS-denialist ignorance, which perhaps puts the current fixation in perspective. It's not necessary to cite the 1964 paper to verify Horwitz's contribution, although it is useful as a matter of thoroughness to document his original publication on the subject. Bruce, what steps have you taken to verify the content of the source? Any major medical library should have it, and any substantial public library should be able to readily obtain it. If you take these steps and remain unsatisfied with our use of the source, then let us know and I'll obtain a copy myself so can compare notes. MastCell Talk 20:11, 1 July 2010 (UTC)


 * WLU wrote (above): "All articles can be found - you just don't have them." I reply: Right now we're talking about one article, this one. And I'm saying that no one has it, no one has read it, and am challenging readers to prove me wrong.


 * WLU wrote: "He can say he's got the source - it's up to you to find the article and demonstrate it is improperly cited." I reply: No, it's not up to me, per Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Again, the original posting editor should have read the source and justified its inclusion at the time, and I think plenty of other editors will agree with me that that wasn't done.


 * WLU wrote: "There's no reason to expect KCCO to post a link to a university library to establish it exists." I reply: Actually posting a link would have been helpful, and why shouldn't we expect it? But the question isn't whether the study exists. The question is where the article is, and whether it was read by the original posting editor and whether anyone else can read it too.


 * WLU wrote: "If you really want to verify its contents, you can buy it from here." I reply: Why shouldn't KCCO (Keepcalmandcarryon) buy it and verify its contents? Again, I want to make clear my doubts that KCCO or anyone else here has read the Horowitz study.


 * MastCell wrote (above): "On what grounds is the source being "contested"? What factual point is being disputed?" I reply: What is being contested is whether the originally posting editor, supposedly MastCell -- I mean, supposedly KeepClarkandcarryon, actually read the article, which again according to Wikipedia:Reliable sources is supposed to be done. It's as I put it above, in boldface type: Wikipedia doesn't put that burden on casual readers or critical editors. And that should answer MastCell's last query: "Bruce, what steps have you taken to verify the content of the source? Any major medical library should have it, and any substantial public library should be able to readily obtain it." I add: if any major medical library should have it, or any substantial public library should be able to readily obtain it, then why didn't KCCO avail himself of that opportunity, and provide the appropriate link, along with the chapter and page number relevant to the sentence claiming it as a reference?


 * MastCell wrote: "If there is a serious, good-faith factual point at issue, then I'm happy to take steps to address it. I'm not going to jump through hoops or wander off in search of a shrubbery, though - is there something more to this request than an attempt to create busywork for other editors?" I reply: I had the good faith to jump through the referential hoops and wander off through the citational shrubbery on a busywork chase for evidence that the Horowitz article can be found and read with reasonable effort. I failed. I think MastCell,Keepcalmandcarryon, and WLU failed too.


 * And finally, MastCell wrote: "It's not necessary to cite the 1964 paper to verify Horwitz's contribution, although it is useful as a matter of thoroughness to document his original publication on the subject." I reply: it's usefulness and thoroughness is obviously questionable.


 * In the meantime, I'm deleting the citation again. Feel free to start a AN/I discussion. BruceSwanson (talk) 22:02, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Why don't you get an ANI discussion going? I know the issues - you are misinterpreting and misreading the policies and guidelines, and edit warring to preserve your preferred version.  I don't need an ANI discussion to identify the problem, you need to stop.  You've been told this by three editors now, far more experienced than you - do you think we're all lying?  Further, consensus is quite clearly against you.  So just stop it.
 * Also, you may not realize, but it's essentially impossible to prove a negative (i.e. that KCCO hasn't read the article). The information summarized isn't controversial, it's not the lone citation on a statement, and no-one else has a problem with it.  The absurdity of asking KCCO to buy the article is obvious - KCCO isn't the editor who thinks there is a problem with the article. You are.  So you need to find out if the article is inaccurately summarized.  I'm having a hard time dealing with this dispute without using the word "idiotic".  This is an utter waste of time.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 22:15, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * So, to clarify, Bruce - what are you disputing? Are you challenging whether the citation supports the fact that Horwitz discovered zidovudine? WP:V assumes a certain level of good faith on both sides - that is, editors need to back their use of sources, but you don't challenge material just for the hell of it, but because you have an actual concern besides just trying to score points off of fellow editors. I'm not seeing your point. Maybe you could clearly and concisely answer my question - are you questioning whether the citation exists? or whether it supports Horwitz's discovery of AZT as described in our article? In any case, I will obtain the article and review it to ensure that we are accurately reflecting its content. I don't think it's crucial that the material remains in the article until I have a chance to do so, since the item in question is already adequately sourced without the 1964 paper. As a side issue, I am concerned at Bruce's overall approach to editing Wikipedia, but that concern is best addressed elsewhere and, if possible, with greater detachment than is evident in this thread. MastCell Talk 23:13, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I concur with the retention of the Horwitz ref for the reasons given above; it's very widely cited in highly reliable sources (after some nosing around) and no sound justification has been provided for doubting its appropriate use here. I've requested it from my library as much out of curiosity as feeling any need to verify, as I trust MastCell and KCCO based on their long-term history of reliable editing.  -- Scray (talk) 00:12, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Scray wrote (immediately above): "I concur with the retention of the Horwitz ref for the reasons given above;" I reply: You concur with whom? MastCell wrote (above): "I don't think it's crucial that the material remains in the article until I have a chance to do so, since the item in question is already adequately sourced without the 1964 paper." To which I reply, I'm glad to hear that, so I will delete "the material" (a footnote) one more time. It can then remain deleted until the paper in question is found and verified.


 * Scray wrote: (above) "it's very widely cited in highly reliable sources" I reply: yes, it is indeed cited. But where is the article itself? And did the originating editor read it? I'm saying: very probably not.


 * MastCell wrote (above): "So, to clarify, Bruce - what are you disputing? Are you challenging whether the citation supports the fact that Horwitz discovered zidovudine?" I reply: No, I'm disputing that the originating editor could have read the source before citing it in the article. And why am I disputing that? Because the article cannot be found using all the normal resources available on the Internet to normal users of the Internet. So I'm wondering where the originating editor got the paper to read it before citing it in the article, as Wikipedia:Reliable sources requires. Should MastCell or anyone else find the 1964 paper in question, then page numbers and contextual quote(s) would be essential to establishing reliability and verifiability; as would the location(s) where copies of the paper could be found by inquiring readers. Surely this is a perfectly reasonable requirement for a source that is otherwise unavailable.


 * MastCell wrote (above): "I don't think it's crucial that the material remains in the article until I have a chance to do so, since the item in question is already adequately sourced without the 1964 paper." I have replied to that, above. I will delete the citation one more time until the paper in question is found, read, and verified. BruceSwanson (talk) 00:26, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 3RRN posting. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 00:43, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I clearly stated that I supported retention of the Horwitz reference. -- Scray (talk) 00:55, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I just read the Horwitz 1964 article (in what is now the Journal of Organic Chemistry), and it does describe the synthesis of zidovudine (depicted as compound 7 on page 2077). I will restore the reference.  -- Scray (talk) 04:39, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm still curious why BS considers it unlikely that KCCO hasn't read the article. Because he couldn't find it?  Bruce, consider your own ignorance on the subject, in that you didn't even know the difference between an article and an abstract.  Based on that alone, I don't think you are an authority, or even an amateur, on the subject of how to locate journal articles.  I don't consider this a personal attack, I consider this an observation of mind-boggling simplicity, one that is self-evident.  If you have similar concerns, may I suggest bringing them up at the reliable sources noticeboard first so we don't have to go through a messy edit war and time-wasting talk page discussions about a topic that is absurdly easy to resolve.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 11:30, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Scray, where did you find the publication? Can you please provide us with a contextual quote? BruceSwanson (talk) 23:39, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I updated the reference in the article with the DOI - that's where I found it. -- Scray (talk) 00:14, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Personally, I stopped by my local medical library and requested the article (they don't carry J. Org. Chem. back to 1964 in-house). Anyone can do the same, I believe, including you, Bruce. As Scray mentioned, the article describes the synthesis of 3'-azido-3'-deoxythymidine - that is, AZT - among other related compounds. The actual description of the synthetic process is on page 2078. What, exactly, is the quibble now? Where would you like to move the goalposts next? MastCell Talk 00:26, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * This is a huge waste of time. BS is using the page for AIDS denialism soapboxing, there is no reason to doubt the edit or source.  WP:SHUN, we're done here.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 01:00, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Contextual quote needed

 * Scray wrote above: "I just read the Horwitz 1964 article (in what is now the Journal of Organic Chemistry), and it does describe the synthesis of zidovudine (depicted as compound 7 on page 2077)." And in response to my query as to where he found it and would he please provide us with a contextual quote, replied: "I updated the reference in the article with the DOI - that's where I found it." However, the DOI in question leads to this on page 2076, with the title Nucleosides. V. The Monomesylates of 1-(2'-Deoxy-β-D-lyxofuranosyl)thymine. Access beyond page 2076 is blocked without pay. On said page 2076, the phrase 3'-azido-3'-deoxythymidine cannot be found, nor zidovudine. MastCell, above, claims the relevant description occurs on page 2078, although its not clear whether he's merely quoting Scray and getting the page number wrong, or that his library got a copy of the publication for him to read.


 * I ask either Scray or MastCell to provide a contextual quote, pages number(s), and then incorporate that information into the reference. And be sure to note your work in the Edit summary so other editors will know who did it. This is what the original posting editor should have done but didn't. Again, as I wrote above Wikipedia doesn't put that burden on casual readers or critical editors. I don't have to do the work of confirming a stone-dead and virtually inaccessible citation tossed in by someone else. If the reference doesn't pass muster on the face of it, then out it goes. Right? Or is this where Assume Good Faith comes in?


 * Funny thing about the sentence the above reference is attached to (Jerome Horwitz of the Barbara Ann Karmanos Cancer Institute and Wayne State University School of Medicine first synthesized AZT in 1964 under a US National Institutes of Health (NIH) grant.[2][3][4]). All three references are dead-ends. They provide no corroborating detail. The first footnote, this one, has three links. The first link is to an all-to-familiar Page Not Found error. The second link is an abstract that confirms nothing in the sentence, nor the sentence before it. And the third link is a duplicate of the second from another source. I tried to delete this reference entirely but was reverted with no explanation. The Page Not Found error remains in place -- another self-inflicted cut to the article's credibility. (Maybe I shouldn't complain.)


 * The second footnote is the fossil-reference discussed above. It's sole contribution is that a Jerome Horwitz (not "Horowitz") authored an article in the publication cited.


 * The third footnote is to a movie which you'll just have to pay to see, if you can find it. Failing that, you can buy it online. I'd wonder if the original posting editor did the same, but of course, I'm supposed to assume good faith on the part of the posting editor. Good faith, like patriotism, is a great last refuge. BruceSwanson (talk) 19:11, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but your request is unreasonable. Anyone can verify that Horwitz is credited with first synthesizing zidovudine; you could start with his faculty profile from Wayne State. If you'd like to use that as a reference in our article, then be my guest. As to the 1964 paper, both Scray and I have now obtained the paper and verified that it supports our text, at your request. We've done the busywork you created. If you want to take this further, then the burden is now on you to go to your local library and get a copy of the paper. We can discuss page numbers once you've done that. MastCell Talk 02:57, 12 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Agree with MastCell's response, and just to be clear: there is no discrepancy between the page numbers we cited. As I said, AZT is depicted as a reaction product on page 2077, and as MastCell said, the text on 2078 applies.  There is no controversy.  -- Scray (talk) 03:45, 12 July 2010 (UTC)


 * The horwitz link is a secondary source and so preferred as per Wikipedia policy. There is now no need for the original three dead-end primary sources. Why keep them? The only further edit is to delete "Barbara Ann" as it is not verified at the new source. BruceSwanson (talk) 05:54, 12 July 2010 (UTC)


 * The link(s) to the original source should be retained for historical completeness; see Scientific_citation_guidelines. They're not "dead-end" links just because they're behind a paywall: see WP:PAYWALL.  This has already been made clear to you by WLU  and Keepcalmandcarryon  at your talk page, not to mention in the threads above.  The first link is not a typical 404 page not found error, but a notification that the article is not available without pay until Jan 1, 2011.  From then on I would expect that link to provide access to the full text.  I see no reason to remove mention of the Barbara Ann Karmanos Cancer Institute as the statement is presumably verifiable through one of the references you haven't accessed that you're asking to be removed.  Bruce, you keep talking about the good faith guideline as though contributors use it as some kind of sneaky trick to avoid scrutiny.  But I wonder if you'd consider that it might actually describe an appropriate way of engaging people who have volunteered hundreds or thousands of hours of their free time to make this site what it is today.  Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 06:59, 12 July 2010 (UTC) (edited for clarity)


 * The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true. Good faith doesn’t obligate us to allow others to demand good faith from us.


 * I didn't mean to delete the entire phrase Barbara Ann Karmanos Cancer Institute -- just Barbara Ann. But it's a trivial issue. Actually Horwitiz was employed in 1964 at the Michigan Cancer Foundation, according to his faculty profile, and that should be incorporated into the sentence.


 * If the faculty-profile link is used as a footnote, then the Broder publication currently referenced in the first footnote isn’t needed as a reference now and won’t be needed as a reference in the future if the wording in the sentence stays the same. It’s simply redundant. So I’m at a loss to understand what you mean by “historical completeness”. Wikipedia prefers reliable secondary sources and permits them to stand alone on their own merits. If someone wants to keep the citation, then they should read the primary source it refers to and then insert into the sentence  something relevant from it, and post page, chapter, and contextual quote in the citation. This is a logical procedure on the face of it. All neutral editors must surely agree with this. How could they not? I would certainly look askance at an editor opposing it on the basis of Assume Good Faith. I suggest you use the links to the pay-site and one of the free-sites as external links.


 * I understand the Pay Firewall rule. But again, the editor who originally posted it should also have posted evidence of having read and understood the primary source in question. Page and chapter information, along with a contextual quote, are again needed. Otherwise, the references could have been posted as an exercise in referential bulk-building and indeed I think that is the case. Certainly the claims of Scray and Mastcell of having read the publication shouldn't be taken for sterling, nor should they be taken on good faith. Your position seems to be that I ought to accept the citations on that basis. I definitely don't accept them on that basis, and no one else should either. This has nothing to do specifically with those two editors themselves. I’d think the same thing if you made the same claim absent some kind of documentation, particularly a quote from the work.


 * All three footnotes fail by Wikipedia's standards regarding primary sources. Such sources are not coupons. They are to be used with care because they can be abused. The current links in the first footnote, and the two subsequent footnotes, are instances of primary-source misuse because no one defending them has provided any meaningful evidence of having accessed them. Adrian J. Hunter, do you understand this point?


 * More secondary sources are needed here. The faculty link provided above is a good one and should be used. The three primary sources are now logically superseded, and so irrelevant for Wikipedia's purposes. BruceSwanson (talk) 18:15, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * If you feel strongly about removing the Broder 2009 reference, I suppose that would be fine. I continue to think that a link to the original 1964 paper is useful as historical context; it identifies the first published description of the synthesis of AZT. If someone were honestly interested in the history of drug, then they could use that link as a starting point to learn about it. In any case, it's a relevant, encyclopedic aspect of the topic to cite its original discovery. MastCell Talk 21:21, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry MC, I disagree. The 2009 article is a new article that provides not only verification but context of contemporary AIDS therapy.  The 1964 article is also appropriate as the first example of its synthesis.  The film is the least reliable source, and even that I would say is a solid nonprofessional source.  Perhaps it could be moved to a section at the bottom akin to further reading/bibliography.  But really what we are doing here is pandering.  There's no reason to do so - Bruce's comments have no policy basis, are based on a lack of understanding of the policies on WP:V and RS, add nothing to the page, and really make it worse.  And I think all here would agree that the desire is not to improve wikipedia, but to push a POV.  There is no consensus to do so, much time has been wasted, and still there is no evidence of understanding of what the policies and guidelines mean, how they are conventionally interpreted, and having bothered to even consider the multiple statements made by editors that the edits in question are problematic.  I suggest we use common sense and just ignore this.  It's ridiculous and a massive waste of time to absolutely no benefit.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 01:06, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

"it has long been known that most avian cancers are caused by retroviruses" - could you document this. My information says that retroviruses were ruled out back in the 1950s,60s,and 70s, long before AIDS came on the scene. Burmester et al ( Iowa - "Science", "Virology", etc) may have redone their work or new researchers may have revised it. They found the same retroviruses in the same percent and load in noraml and sick birds, they saw no retro connection - maybe they were wrong, any citations? 159.105.80.122 (talk) 14:35, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Jon Cohen in Science article - study showed that the choice for AZT were 1. harmful 2. not helpful. Much of the article was taken up with arguing that Duesberg's claim that it was harmful was unproven - however, the claim that it was not helpful was left unchallenged ( not Duesberg's claim just the results of the study.)159.105.80.122 (talk) 19:45, 19 August 2010 (UTC)